Uber, Lyft, Airbnb are a few of the “new economy” companies that did not exists a few years ago. The companies are new platforms for providing consumers access to services. What does government do to insure that the public is protected when not only new companies are formed but the fundamental way that services are provided has been changed? Is a cab for hire different than Uber? Is a hotel different than renting a room in someone’s home for a night?

Over the past few years, I have given these matters quite some thought. I have vacillated on the need for regulation from yes to no and many iterations in between. There is a public purpose in the promulgation of regulation in pursuit of consumer protection. Is it fair to regulate older forms of business but not require newer platforms of the same type of business to conform? These questions are what confront us as a society and myself as an elected official.

This is how I see the situation today. First, the legislature in Tallahassee should not determine how we regulate businesses that operate within local political borders. Legislators have a tendency to hear from one of their local constituents who is having a problem and then attempt to solve that very local problem by passing a law for the entire state. This is a prime example of bad government and governmental overreach. Governments on the local level understand what its citizens want and do not need mandates and laws from legislators who don’t.

Many times you will hear the argument that companies such as Uber operate throughout Florida and therefore uniform rules should apply. There are two main reasons why that premise is not true. If we took it to a logical conclusion, those companies operate nationwide therefore should Washington have national rules? I am sure state governments would say that is absurd. The second reason is that even though companies may operate state wide and nationally, the company itself does not provide the service but only matches a locally based provider and a locally based customer. Therefore, if any regulation should apply it should be the local government’s responsibility.

In the case of Stuart or Martin County, should we regulate these “new economy” businesses? The answer is not a simple yes or no. A hotel or inn is different than a room in someone’s home. What government does have an obligation to do is to insure that both “businesses” are registered. Even someone making supplemental income by renting that room in their home may not need to install a sprinkler system but should pay the same rate of occupancy and sales tax as a hotel would. For the traveler, it may be two different experiences but each entity is in the same type of business.

Government at all levels needs to look at the array of professions and businesses that it now licenses and sets qualifications to see if it is necessary to do so.  Each profession and or trade that requires individuals to have certification or licenses to work is an impediment to growing our economy and allowing those with limited capital from starting new businesses.  Government should not foster needless regulation but allow and encourage entrepreneurship.

I was speaking to an Uber driver in New York a few weeks ago, and he stated that it took him 9 months to go through the bureaucracy of that city to obtain the necessary credentials for himself and his auto before being allowed to operate. This is unreasonable in today’s world. Our economy is changing. There will be fewer traditional jobs and more self-employed people in the years to come. If we regulate as if the early or mid-20th century economy is still operating, as a nation we will fall further and further behind in the world.

As we look to the future, don’t tie the hands of fledgling businesses by implementing blanket regulations.  The needs of Tampa are different than Stuart. We should not impose yesterday’s standards on today’s economy.  Before passing laws and promulgating new rules, both Washington and Tallahassee should take an example from physicians to do no harm. That is a good rule for any government official to follow.