The problem with Uber isn't necessarily, that it harms the community, but that it unfairly competes with the taxi monopoly. Now, your first reaction might be to say "well that's the taxi monopoly's problem" but there is more to it. The taxi monopoly is a bargain struck between municipalities and service providers. The bargain is that taxi cabs get monopoly protection in return for their agreeing to function as an extension of the public transit system. As part of the bargain, taxi companies agree to do things that they wouldn't do in a free market--agree to drop people off anywhere in the city, agree to serve poor neighborhoods, etc. If the municipalities allow Uber to operate without those constraints, they are going back on their end of the bargain.
Maybe the right answer is to end the bargain entirely--buy out the medallions and end the monopoly protection, and let everyone compete on a level playing field. But allowing Uber to ignore taxi regulations while still imposing them on the cab companies is not fair.
Seriously. Just the other night I had an Uber ride from a guy, he had previously spent years working as a single taxi operator. Within the past year on Uber, he's been able to expand out on his own, and now owns 6 additional cars which he leases to other Uber drivers. He's also training all of them on how to do the same thing, and one of them is soon going to likely strike out on his own with 2 cars to start. These are small, independent business people, who would not have these opportunities otherwise.
Uber is different in that (in my mind) they do NOT break the law, nor entice others to do so. The law around taxi based operations is on 'hailing fares' - Which involves a taxi driving and seeing you with your hand sticking out and picks you up. Uber cannot do that, its not a taxi. Its a on demand, car pickup service with licensed drivers.
Now, on the other hand- I think that lyft would be a better comparison to airbnb. I believe they let users without a taxi license do the same thing as uber.
