Reading what the city councilmembers say, this sounds pretty reasonable to me:
"But the six other councilmembers voted that idea down. Bruce Harrell, who voted last month in favor of the 150-cap, said that the city’s vision in the coming years is to remove caps and let consumer choice “dictate what’s out there.” But for now, the approved legislation lets TNCs operate legally in Seattle with oversight."
That's hardly the "stop all innovation" position that this VC is lampooning them as having.
Did you read the article? The vote that you're referring to, found farther down in the article, was the one to remove all caps from taxis. They council voted against it.
If you read the beginning of the article, the one placing the caps on alternative taxis passed: "the Seattle City Council voted 9-0 Monday afternoon to enforce new legislation that will regulate app-based transportation companies like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar."
You misunderstand; one of the councilmembers who voted for the caps was considering dropping the caps later. The council let Uber &co operate for one year before updating the law and are prepared to wait, see and update it again.
"But the six other councilmembers voted that idea down. Bruce Harrell, who voted last month in favor of the 150-cap, said that the city’s vision in the coming years is to remove caps and let consumer choice “dictate what’s out there.” But for now, the approved legislation lets TNCs operate legally in Seattle with oversight."
That's hardly the "stop all innovation" position that this VC is lampooning them as having.