I read a truly disturbing, aggressively exploitative op-ed in The Seattle Times this week on the topic of ridesharing. It was co-authored by City Councilman Mike O’Brien.

Some context: the City of Seattle is engaged in a discussion on how to effectively regulate ridesharing services like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. Those groups – and I tend to agree – argue some of the regulations being proposed (caps on the amount of hours drivers can be employed, for example) would cripple their services, hurt their business, and disappoint consumers. They’ve done so well in Seattle not just because their service is so good, but because what the taxi cab services offer are so inconsistent. They’ve improved the technology offered but it came a little too late.

I use Uber and love the service. That makes me particularly sensitive when folks like O’Brien come out with a piece meant to change the conversation to try to guilt trip people into taking his side.

Here’s how the piece started:

“As Seattle City Council considers legislation to legalize app-based ride services like uberX and Lyft, much of the conversation has focused on ensuring public safety and consumer choice. These issues are essential and new technology provides new opportunities to find and hail vehicles easily.

However, it is also critical for the City Council to keep a sharp eye on equity and fairness. As Seattle tackles issues of income inequality and a growing lack of diversity because of decreasing affordability, we must consider the economic importance of the existing taxi industry to low-wage workers, including Seattle’s immigrant and refugee communities.”

Let the PC guilt trip begin.

“A couple of years ago, a company run by East African immigrants, Olympic For Hire, approached the city’s taxi regulators to ask whether it could use a new dispatch app, similar to those we see today. Because of outdated city regulations, the company was told to stop. Instead of breaking the law, Olympic For Hire let go of the idea.

Last year, multimillion-dollar corporations unleashed their services without seeking permission, openly flouting the law. While current regulations do need updating, small local companies like Olympic should not be penalized for playing by the rules.”

The nerve of Councilman O’Brien.

As those services were operating illegally, as he says, he and colleagues did nothing to really stop it, did they? Yes, these services caught them off guard. But it also caught the taxi cab unions off guard and by the time they realized their monopoly would suffer, since the product they offered had deteriorated in quality, folks like me started our love affair with the ridesharing services. The City Council, it seems, realized they couldn’t just shut these services down without facing the wrath of a large portion of Seattleites. But they could have it they wanted to, right?

And you’ve got to love O’Brien’s knock at “multi-million dollar corporations” at the same time the City Council allowed South Lake Union to get completely taken over by Amazon.com (I wonder what the city’s economy would be like without that big, evil corporation).

“Those who use taxis or for-hire vehicles know that the people who make this industry possible are mostly African and South Asian immigrants and refugees. Some are new to Seattle while others have been here for decades. Most speak multiple languages and many have advanced degrees. Yet, in our great city of prosperity, there are very few career opportunities available to them.”

Thank you Councilmember Mike O’Brien, the white guy telling African and South Asian immigrants and refugees that all they can do is work as taxi drivers; that they’re not capable of doing anything else. Doesn’t that seem like what he’s saying?

This opinion piece is a white guy arguing he knows what’s best for a group of black immigrants. This is white paternalism at its most disturbing.

Somehow these immigrants are relegated to taxi cab jobs. But if that’s the case, rather than ask why and maybe come up with ways to open doors for other jobs in other industries, Mike O’Brien decides he’ll try to destroy any company that might pose a threat to taxi cabs.

“While many immigrant drivers now also work for Uber, the taxi industry provides a major source of income for immigrant communities, allowing them to provide for their families and, in turn, support the ethnic grocery stores and restaurants in their communities that provide jobs and income to other families.”

I love how he dismisses the immigrant drivers of Uber. Somehow they’re not the right kind of immigrant worthy of defense – perhaps because they don’t belong to a taxi cab union?

Many Uber drivers are former taxi drivers. I’ve never had a white driver. Not once. They all appear to be of African or South Asian descent. And they work just as hard as taxi drivers. But their families don’t count, I guess. They don’t get to make a living. They’re not the right kind of African or South Asian because they’re not with a union apparently.

“Whether fleeing religious or political persecution, or as climate refugees whose land was turned to desert, many spent years in refugee camps before getting the opportunity to relocate to America. Arriving in the U.S. with few financial resources and a new language to learn, they have survived and created opportunities where few exist. They have proved that they will find a way to be successful when given a fair chance.”

But only a fair chance at driving taxi cabs apparently.

“That is why we support a council proposal legalizing app-based ride services while ensuring economic opportunity for current and future drivers of taxis, for-hires and app-based companies.”

There’s no meaningful mention that they need to tackle why the industry would basically fail if a competitor is introduced. No meaningful mention of how to improve an outdated industry that survives solely because they can get away with killing competition.

This is a taxi union argument being re-purposed as a “social justice” argument with the sole purpose of gaining traction with Capitol Hill liberals (who use Uber and Lyft and Sidecar, by the way). This is so bogus and nakedly political that it’s offensive.

I think he’s starting to realize that the caps idea will not pass (there’s more and more indication they won’t, based on what I’m hearing coming from the Council).

So maybe O’Brien writes this op-ed to placate the taxi cab unions, but also throws a guilt-tripping bone to social justice-minded Liberals who he hopes won’t hold a grudge against him the next time he’s up for re-election.

There is a way to have a really constructive and honest conversation about ridesharing services and regulations – reasonable regulations, which I support. Councilmembers Sally Clark and Sally Bagshaw seem to be doing this the right way (both have been on my show and both have offered reasoned, measured approaches to the discussion). O’Brien’s piece is measured – in that it exploits the immigrant community to push a pro-taxi union stance. I find that disgraceful and offensive.

I have no doubt that O’Brien is a decent person and a dedicated lawmaker. His stance on this issue, however, betrays that. This was nakedly political. I would love to chat with him about this. I’ve invited him on the show and he’s declined (or his people did) after listening to my critique. The invitation is open.

If you think he should come on the show to have a meaningful discussion and give me his side, you’re welcome to tweet him @CMMikeOBrien. The fact that we disagree on this topic will only lead to a more worthwhile discussion.