Trending: Microsoft, Reddit, Twitter, others urge federal court to block Trump’s ‘public charge’ immigration rule
Councilmember Mike O'Brien speaks at Monday's City Council meeting.
Councilmember Mike O’Brien speaks at Monday’s City Council meeting.

Seattle’s decision to limit the number of vehicles that UberX, Lyft and Sidecar can have on its roads set off a firestorm on comment boards and social media throughout Monday and into Tuesday.

Much of the reaction was largely negative, with many hoping that Seattle’s city leaders would allow the transportation network companies (TNCs) to operate freely in the city instead of limiting supply.

Others applauded the City Council for regulating the companies and enforcing rules that other transportation services like taxis are expected to follow. Here are a few comments from our stories posted on Monday:

From “Just Aguy”:

“The strong arm tactics, the “my way or the highway” approach, lack of transparency, obfuscation and dissembling that Uber has repeatedly engaged in, have become less effective over time. Regulators/lawmakers have become wise to all this and aren’t going to fooled and railroaded anymore!

From “ClaimsAdjuster”:

The Seattle City Council leads the way on regulating TNCS. UberX and Lyft only announced their expansion of their insurance to cover their vehicles from log in to sign out last Friday only because of the upcoming City Council vote. The San Francisco Board Of Supervisors are now looking a the Seattle approach to control the free-for-all in their downtown from 4,000 TNCs flooding their streets.

So, what do you think? Is the City Council’s decision beneficial for Seattle’s citizens? Or is the city wrong for limiting innovation and supply?

Related coverage:

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline


Job Listings on GeekWork

Find more jobs on GeekWork. Employers, post a job here.