LAX move is a win, but security checks are needed
In an era of divided politics, so-called millennial disenchantment and historically low voter turnout in local and state races, especially within Los Angeles, I feel compelled to contribute to some sort of positive change. But it’s easy for millennials to feel lost and outnumbered by the growing crowd of lackluster politicians who offer hollow promises — many of whom are disengaged because we feel that the officials who enact laws do not weigh our beliefs as heavily as they do for those who are a part of their generation. As a result, political participation in Los Angeles has remained bleak and disappointing for officials, politically minded fellows and those who understand the ramifications of failing to take the political process seriously.
Considering that 35 percent of people in Los Angeles are under 25, millennials have a unique stake in the political process. But the question is whether or not these young voters are using their capacity to influence change by taking action. That’s where this column comes in. With the many — sometimes even daily — changes to policy in the city, it’s difficult to keep up. Each week, I promise to select a political issue in the city of Los Angeles that requires your attention and will allow you to actively contribute to the political process. This week’s issue is not only one which will grab your interest as a politically active citizen, meaning one who cares about the policies implemented, but one which ties into your interests as a student. I intend to display how the interplay of mandated law and change in USC’s surrounding community can positively and negatively impact your time here — whether or not you are a native Angeleno.
USC students are all too familiar with Uber. It’s not just convenience that the ridesharing company, marketed so well — it’s also safety, cost efficiency, environmental friendliness and simplicity. With a touch of a few buttons, a fully coherent or even an inebriated individual can request a ride from whichever destination they require. On campus, the University’s partnership with Uber to create free rides has made its students safer and alleviated some of the burden on its Campus Cruiser service.
But the legality of Uber’s simple ridesharing program has created significant buzz among constituents and Los Angeles City officials in the past few months. On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council lifted their sanction banning ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft from picking up passengers at arrival terminals from Los Angeles International Airport with a 9-6 vote. In the past, ridesharing companies were allowed to drop passengers off at departure but were legally barred from waiting to pick up customers. This, in turn, allowed the taxi company business to remain lucrative without fear of competing for cheaper ride fares from other sources.
The council’s vote, allowing passengers to be picked up by rideshare companies, suggests that traditional government protocol must follow adaptations to modernizations in new innovation. And governmental policy should be ready to adapt because great changes are coming, industry by industry. Whether it be in the hotel or taxi industry, you’ve already witnessed firsthand the power of new innovation. Yet it seems that many are failing to take these new businesses as seriously as they should.
Though the city council’s decision is a big feat for students who cannot afford the fare from taxi companies, opposition from proponents of exclusivity rights among taxi companies has not been unwarranted. Just last week, prosecutors from San Francisco and Los Angeles made their case against the legitimacy of Uber’s safety protocols during the company’s process of hiring new drivers. Claims against the company state that felons and criminals with misdemeanors have been overlooked and that Uber must revamp and include additional safety measures when hiring drivers.
But this calls into question the legitimacy of perceiving one company’s “safety measures” as more superior than the other when both companies run state and local government-mandated safety checks. And when you analyze both sides, you realize that the prosecutors’ claims against Uber and Lyft seem less legitimate and more politically motivated. According to the Los Angeles Times, while taxis are regulated by the city and require fingerprinting, app-based companies are mandated to use social security numbers to collect data on criminal records.
Government-mandated safety measures need to be more equal — especially in the eyes of the consumer, City officials should do their best to ensure an equal playing ground for mandated safety protocol. While the playing field cannot always be equal among competing ridesharing and taxi companies, it is imperative that elected officials at least address an important concern on constituents’ minds: safety.
Sarah Dhanaphatana is a junior majoring in political science. She is also deputy features editor of the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Dhanapolitics,” runs Fridays.