EDITORIAL: Clark County targets Uber, Lyft drivers with unfair burdens

The Nevada Legislature did everything necessary to allow ride-sharing transportation network companies to operate in the state. Now the Clark County Commission is doing all it can to discourage people from working for Uber and Lyft.

Drivers for the smartphone-based services and the companies they work for are regulated by the Nevada Transportation Authority, thanks to the bill passed by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Brian Sandoval this year. As a result, Uber and Lyft drivers must pay a $200 annual state business license fee. Local governments have no role in overseeing Uber and Lyft — but elected officials clearly want one, especially if it lets them collect new revenue.

So the commission voted unanimously Tuesday to require drivers to pay an annual $25 business license fee to operate in Clark County. The money grab by the county is sure to be copied by the county's cities, which could easily push business licensing costs for Uber and Lyft drivers north of $300. That's a sizable enough burden to keep people living paycheck to paycheck — people who want a chance to give their household budgets some breathing room — from ever trying to work for a ride-sharing service in the first place.

But if the upfront costs of becoming an Uber or Lyft contractor don't scare off prospective drivers, the other component of the county's overreach just might. As reported by the Review-Journal's Richard N. Velotta, the commission also voted unanimously to require transportation network companies to provide a monthly report to the county's Business Licensing Department that lists the name of every driver registered to work for the company.

It would seem like a bizarre requirement for any lawful business — what other industries face such a burden? — until you understand the politics of the commission's actions. The taxicab industry fought mightily to prevent Uber and Lyft from being legalized by the Legislature, but failed. So it's working through local government bodies to throw as many wet blankets as possible on its new competitors.

Making the names of local Uber and Lyft drivers a matter of public record will give unionized cabdrivers the ability to identify and seek out their competitors for some, ahem, gentle persuasion. In addition, it would allow cab companies to carry out their own investigations and background checks on Uber and Lyft drivers in the hopes of identifying a bad apple or two to underscore their argument that ride-sharing is a threat to public safety. Of course, the cab industry supported the ordinance requiring the disclosure of driver names.

After Tuesday's votes, state Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson blasted the commission for exceeding its authority.

"The County Commission should know what it has done is illegal," he said in a statement. "The language of state law is clear, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau has already issued a legal opinion explaining in plain terms that the County Commission could not do what it is now doing. No matter. The good graces of a single special interest and the prospect of a million-dollar money grab were simply too tempting."

Never underestimate the ability of an entrenched Nevada industry to use its political juice to crush upstart rivals. And never underestimate the eagerness of one Nevada government entity to take a whiz on the front lawn of another.

The County Commission and other local governments need to back off Uber, Lyft and the high-tech sharing economy, lest they perpetuate the perception that outsiders and innovation aren't welcome in Southern Nevada.