a 6-decision guide for · pdf file richmond hill st. catharines thunder bay toronto vaughan...

Click here to load reader

Post on 21-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Navigating the sharing economy: A 6-decision guide for municipalities

  • LUMCO Large Urban Mayors’ Caucus of Ontario

    On behalf of the Large Urban Mayors’ Caucus of Ontario (LUMCO), we are pleased to present this guide to help municipalities navigate the complexities of the sharing economy.

    As municipalities, we are on the front lines of the sharing economy—whether in the form of sharing that has been around for years, such as carpooling, or larger, for-profit enterprises like apps that enable home rentals. There is no doubt that new technologies have accelerated the sharing economy and created new questions for municipalities about how we can maximize opportunities while protecting the public interest.

    This guide is not meant to tell municipalities what to do. Rather, it’s a tool to help local councils and communities analyze the impact of various sharing economy services on their own residents and businesses and make decisions based on local needs. It’s a framework that recognizes that while decisions must remain local, it makes sense to consider the issues and opportunities we all have in common.

    Our thanks to all who contributed to this collaborative effort. Thank you to the City of Guelph for leading this initiative and coordinating with all the parties involved. Thank you to the Province of Ontario for working with us, and for the funding they provided for research and writing of the guide. Thank you to the Cities of Mississauga and London for their contributions and to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) who supported the guide’s development.

    Thanks also to the Guelph Lab—a partnership between the City of Guelph and the University of Guelph (CESI) —for their research and the pilot testing they are undertaking with Guelph’s taxi bylaw, and to the Guelph Chamber of Commerce.

    It is our hope that this guide will help municipalities across Canada navigate the exciting, fast-growing and sometimes challenging world of the sharing economy.

    Sincerely,

    Linda Jeffrey Cam Guthrie Chair, LUMCO Co-Chair, LUMCO Mayor, City of Brampton Mayor, City of Guelph

    Ajax Barrie

    Brampton Brantford Burlington Cambridge

    Chatham – Kent Greater Sudbury

    Guelph Hamilton Kingston Kitchener London

    Markham Mississauga

    Oakville Oshawa Ottawa

    Richmond Hill St. Catharines Thunder Bay

    Toronto Vaughan Waterloo Whitby

    Windsor

  • iAugust 2017 Navigating the Sharing Economy

    Alternative formats are available upon request in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.

    Table of contents

    Executive summary ............................................................................1 About this Guide ..................................................................................2 Introduction to the sharing economy ....................................3

    What is the sharing economy? ................................................3 Why is the sharing economy important to municipalities? ................................................................................4 The rapid growth of sharing ......................................................5 What potential impacts do municipalities need to consider? ............................................................................................5

    Guiding a municipality’s response: six decisions ............6 Decision: What type of approach is most appropriate? 7

    Monitoring and assessment .....................................................7 Reactive .............................................................................................7 Proactive ...........................................................................................7 Case study: The Hydrocut—a reactive approach to risk and liability concerns .....................................................8

    Decision: What are the primary public policy goals? .....9 Economic development/employment goals .....................9 Environmental goals ................................................................. 10 Consumer choice and protection goals ........................... 10 Community development/social goals ............................. 11 Service delivery innovation goals ........................................ 11

    Decision: What type(s) of sharing will be included? .... 12 For-profit companies ................................................................. 12 Mission-driven initiatives ........................................................ 12 Aligning sharing approaches with municipal priorities ......................................................... 13 Case studies: MuniRent and for-profit forms of sharing ........................ 14 Austin and co-operative forms of sharing ....................... 14 REACH and community sharing .......................................... 14

    Decision: What kinds of policy actions or tools are needed? ....................................................................... 15

    Few resources required ............................................................. 16 More resources required .......................................................... 16 Most resources required ........................................................... 16 Case study: Different approaches to bike-sharing ................................ 17 A note on bylaws ......................................................................... 18 How to choose the appropriate tool................................... 18 Case studies: Supporting car-sharing through multiple policy responses ....................................................... 19 Enabling sharing space—Bologna’s regulation for the care and regeneration of the urban commons ...... 19

    Decision: Design considerations .............................................. 20 Making decisions ......................................................................... 20 Enforcement, disputes, liability ............................................. 20

    Decision: Implementation and evaluation ....................... 21 Limits and caps ............................................................................ 21 Data and evaluation .................................................................. 22

    Decisions in action: How municipalities in Ontario have responded to ride-hailing companies .................... 23 Conclusion: A call to action ........................................................... 25 Endnotes ................................................................................................ 26 References ............................................................................................ 27

  • 1 AugustCity of Guelph

    Executive summary

    Sharing is one of the oldest and most universal instincts. Today, disruptive digital technologies make it easier than ever by facilitating peer-to- peer relationships and enabling people to connect with one another directly and more equitably. Today citizens can share on a large scale and with strangers, not just with friends, family and their direct communities.

    While this “sharing economy” can create many benefits, it also raises a number of questions, from the impact on tax bases to safety and liability concerns.

    Many of these issues fall within the purview of municipal government. As a result, sharing economy initiatives are being shaped by zoning codes, hotel and taxi licensing regulations, transit and all manner of distinctly local policy.1

    This Guide is designed to help municipalities understand this new economy, what it means on a local level and how to respond appropriately. As they navigate this new terrain, municipalities should keep three points in mind.

    1. The sharing economy encompasses a wide range of models and sectors. The term “sharing economy” brings to mind private companies such as Uber and Airbnb. However, sharing itself is part of a larger tradition, the most established and promising examples of sharing are not always found in Silicon Valley and don’t necessarily involve sophisticated apps. This sector includes bike-sharing programs, community gardens and many other socially and ecologically minded ventures. Case studies in this Guide were selected to help illuminate these lesser-known but important and impactful examples.

    2. There is currently a lack of data on the impacts of the sharing economy, especially outside of large cities, but the data that does exist points to both positive and negative impacts. The range of models and the rapid growth of sharing make it difficult to draw general conclusions about the impacts of sharing. In some cases, there just isn’t enough data to fully evaluate impacts. In other cases, concerns have been raised. This Guide does not explore specific sectors or sharing initiatives, but what is clear is that municipalities must consider a range of potential positive and negative impacts.

    Responding to the sharing economy has the potential to realize significant public value, including:

    • improvements in service delivery and cost reductions

    • economic development

    • a reduction in environmental impacts

    At the same time, municipalities should not ignore potential issues that may arise in the context of certain sharing initiatives, such as:

    • uneven service delivery

    • the rise of precarious employment

    • lack of independent data to accurately track the impact of sharing-driven activities