Brad Newsham's Call For Taxi Workers To Unite, Part 2. (Online Version Of HIs Newsletter).

File Photo by John Han.

(Opinions expressed on this site reflect the views of their authors, and don't necessarily reflect the views of the website's publisher.)

By Brad Newsham

CASH COW!

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) is finalizing its dream plan to take roughly $20 million each year from San Francisco’s cab drivers to fund paychecks and full benefits for Muni drivers, parking police, and MTA management.

The public is unaware. The cab industry (no paychecks, zero benefits) is in a state of leaderless shock.

In 1978, San Francisco voters passed a law saying that taxicab permits (medallions) would go to working drivers only. Finally, cab companies had to share the industry’s profits with the workers generating those profits.  Drivers loved the law – some were able to make a down payment on a house or send a kid to college.

Cab companies hated the law – during the next 30 years they tried to change it eight times, but each time the city’s voters said, “No, we like our cab drivers. We’re keeping the law.”

Then in 2007, a group of City Hall insiders and cab company officials proposed a new law placing the cab industry under MTA control – to allow the agency’s professional managers to fix several cab industry problems, they said.  Don’t worry, Mayor Newsom told us (in writing), taxicab permits will still go only to working cab drivers.  

At a public meeting, Newsom’s aide promised, “The cab industry will not become a cash cow.”

KTVU Reports, "High-tech Car Service At Odds With SF Cab Companies, Regulators."

SAN FRANCISCO — 

A new car service business called Uber is aiming to compete with SF cab companies by providing a fashionable way to get around the city, but questions about its legality have a powerful state agency investigating the glossy startup.

Uber -- which means "about" or "above" in German – is a technology startup that connects customers to professional town car and limo drivers via a smartphone app, SMS text messages and the internet.         

Eric Flynn is a San Francisco native who works as an advertising copywriter. He is just the kind of person the upstart company Uber aims its marketing towards.

"I was exposed to it through an industry party, an advertising party, said Flynn. Uber was one of the sponsors."

Uber claims on its website that it wants to make on-demand car service accessible to anyone at a lower than usual cost and advertises itself as "your on-demand private driver."

CLICK HERE to go to KTVU's full story, "High-tech Car Service At Odds With SF Cab Companies, Regulators."

VIDEO SPECIAL REPORT: Tech-minded car service looks to muscle business from SF cab companies

Saam Aryan Accuses SFMTA Of Violating State Laws.

(Note from the blog's administrator - this article is published in the interest of free speech.  The following views are those of its author, and not necessarily the views of the blog's publisher.)

By Saam Aryan. 

Proposition 26, approved by voters on 11/2/2010, requires local taxes to be approved by voters.  Before, local governments would put a misleading label “fees” to bypass that.  That loophole then got closed.  

Now a charge is Tax, if the charge specifically does not benefit those who pay the charge.

Millions that SFMTA got from us is equivalent to getting around 5 Billion dollars from those in San Francisco.  California Constitution Article XIII-C Section 2 says you need 2/3 of the voters to do that.

They get away with this, and other laws that they broke,  because nobody presses charges.  I brought that to the Supervisors that reelected Mr. Malcolm Heinicke.  They do not give a damn.  They just had our time wasted because they had already made their mind before they got into the Room 263, today 4/19/12.  If our comments were noteworthy to Supervisors, then they would consider its truthfulness and relevancy before approving Mr. Malcolm Heinicke unanimously. 

MTA Board To Hold Lengthy Taxi Discussions In Either Mid May Or June. By John Han.

Director of SFMTA Ed Reiskin at Tuesday's
April 17, 2012 MTA Board meeting.
Image from SFGovTV

Ed Reiskin, Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), said Tuesday that his agency would hold public discussions for "a host of taxi-related matters", either in mid May or early June.

At Tuesday's regular Board meeting, April 17, 2012, Reiskin said a discussion on credit card fees, electronic waybills, back seat monitors, police code and legislative changes, and medallion sales would be on the agenda for the meeting scheduled May 15th.   

He added that a study for public convenience and necessity, that includes recommending whether to add more cabs in the City, involves an environmental impact study and would be ready this fall.  

But during the meeting's public comment Reiskin corrected himself, saying that the taxi issues may not be heard until the first week of June instead.

"Whenever it is, we will make sure to do outreach to all of the stakeholders", Reiskin said.  "I think our intent is to try to keep the agenda as clear as possible of non-taxi items, so that we can focus on the many and challenging taxi issues that we're going to be facing." 

SFMTA Board Chairman Tom Nolan added, that he would like to have a specific time set in the meeting to begin the discussions, so that people would know what time the discussion start, and not have to first sit through hours of non-taxi items.  

If those were to be the case, that could come as good news to long-time taxi advocate Barry Taranto.  

During public comment, Taranto said, "I think it's important to make sure you schedule enough town hall meetings, so enough of it is vetted out by the industry and the stakeholders before it comes before the MTA.  We could have people coming here and screaming we never got a chance to look at this".  

Malcolm Heinicke's Confirmation Hearing Scheduled Thursday, April 19, 2012. By John Han.

For those who haven't heard yet, Malcolm Heinicke is being re-appointed to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors.

The appointment is made by Mayor Ed Lee, but the Board of Supervisors must confirm his re-appointment.  His confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2012, at the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee, 1:30pm, Room 263.   

The committee members are Supervisors Jane Kim, Mark Farrell, and David Campos.

It is Item #4 on the Regular Calendar. 

CLICK HERE for more information. 

Whether Heinicke's re-appointment is a good or bad thing, I care not to say, as it's not the point of this essay.  I'd rather just try to quickly highlight some of Heinicke's more notable influences on the taxi industry, starting with when the SFMTA took over regulations of taxis in 2009.  

As many already know, Heinicke was appointed by former mayor Gavin Newsom to the SFMTA Board in 2008, and previously held a seat on the now defunct Taxi Commission.  

Here's a description from the SFMTA's website, 

"As a Taxicab Commissioner, Mr. Heinicke focused on neighborhood and peak time service issues, and he is focusing on these same issues as a member of the SFMTA Board."

But despite Heinicke's commitment to those noteworthy causes, he grew to near infamy amongst many people in San Francisco's taxi industry for something else.

After the SFMTA gained regulatory control over the taxi industry in 2009,  Heinicke proposed to turn the City's taxi medallions into what was, and still is called a "cash cow" for the City, but not very cash cow for the taxi industry, or its workers.

Are You Paying Any Attention To The Trend Affecting The Taxi Industry? By Saam Aryan.

(Note from the blog's administrator - this article has been submitted to Taxi TownSF and has been published in the interest of free speech.  The following views are those of its author, and not necessarily the views of the blog's publisher.)

It reminds me of the state of the mind of those living in thriving and prosperous towns; now Ghost Towns.  Obviously many think that the overhead imposed by SFMTA is good for us because some are benefiting presently.  Get your own answer so you can convince yourself.  Ask your taxi passengers how often they use UBER CAB.  Keep a record of the answers and compare it every few months.  Presently, UBER town cars pickup their customers in around 8 minutes.  Pretty soon they will have the ability to do it in around 5 minute.  

How?

Recap of Taxi Advisory Council Meeting, Monday, March 26, 2012. By John Han.

At its Monday, March 26, 2012 meeting, the Taxi Advisory Council (TAC) voted to approve a final version of the Medallion Sales Pilot Program Report to be submitted to the MTA Board of Directors.   

The vote was 13-1, the sole 'no' vote being from Bill Mounsey.  Included later in this article is a copy of the Medallion Sales Pilot Program report in its entirety.  

Council Liaison's Report

During the Council Liaison's report, Eric Richholt, the SFMTA's taxi enforcer, issued statistics on 2012 enforcement so far.  They are...

18 - Bandit cab drivers cited for operating without a permit.

2 - Drivers were cited twice – Zamzami and Hzami

3 - Town car drivers

7 - Illegal drivers who were San Francisco residents

11- Illegal drivers who were out-of-town residents

65 - Limousine drivers cited for parking in white zones

14 - A-card holders cited by SFPD for operating a town car like a taxi

2 -   Medallion holders cited for failure to remove color scheme indicia

1 -   Medallion holder cited for providing false statements on 2010 and 2011 Annual Sworn                  Statements

4 -   Color schemes cited for not having anyone present during business hours

1 -   Color scheme cited for improper use of spare vehicles, failure to maintain current lease                agreement, and failure to maintain driver waybills

3 -   Medallion holder investigations for lack of compliance with Full Time Driving Requirement

3 -   Broker investigations at three color schemes for managing permits outside the regulated lease        arrangements.

"Outrage!!!". By Brad Newsham.

(Note from the blog's administrator - this article has been submitted to Taxi TownSF and has been published in the interest of free speech.  The following views are those of its author, and not necessarily the views of the blog's publisher.)

TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) completed a “hostile takeover” of the city’s taxicab industry. Since then, all of the industry’s many stakeholders have been urged to attend twice-monthly meetings of the Taxicab Advisory Council (TAC) -- and also many periodic town hall meetings. Altogether there have been about 100 such meetings, which are designed: to promote conversation about ways to improve the taxicab industry; to try to achieve consensus and agreement among the various parties; and to move the industry forward.

At its regular meeting on February 13, 2012, the TAC’s members completed voting on forty separate proposals and resolutions that have been generated during these two and a half years of meetings. One item stated, “All revenues generated by the taxicab industry should be reinvested in the taxicab industry.” Clear. Simple. Fair.

On this issue, the often-fragmented industry spoke as one: the vote was unanimous, 14-0, the most overwhelming vote of the entire proceeding. Every member of the Council who was present (including representatives of the three major cab companies) voted Yes. Zero people voted No. “All revenues generated by the taxicab industry should be reinvested in the taxicab industry.” Fourteen-to-zip.

Chris Hayashi, Deputy Director of MTA Taxi Services, was present at the meeting, as usual. One of Hayashi’s main responsibilities is to serve as the Council Liaison to the MTA Board of Directors. She is specifically charged with communicating to the MTA the thoughts and sentiments of the cab industry’s many stakeholders -- cab drivers, medallion holders, cab companies, dispatchers, ridership, etc.

Former Taxi Driver Wants To Ask Others If He Should Start Driving Again.

Here's a question posted by a Taxi TownSF reader with Taxi TownSF's response to his question.  The question was originally posted anonymously on "Ask A Cab Driver".  

Question from reader:  I drove a cab part time in 2006 between 6pm and 4 am about 3 days a week.

I worked as security guard as well. 


I made about $7 an hour the way I calculated it after paying for gas and the cab company. I was working as a guard back then as well and was making $14 an hour so I finally ended up leaving the cab driving to take on more hours in security.


Now I am thinking about driving a cab in the day time. I wondering if I will make more money in the day than at night. I could live with $12 an hour and maybe even $10 an hour, but I can't live with $7 an hour.


HOPE FOR THE BEST BUT BE READY FOR THE WORST. City tried to get all medallions for itself before, but the opposition was too strong. By Saam Aryan.

(Note from the blog's administrator - this article has been submitted to Taxi TownSF and has been published in the interest of free speech.  The following views are those of its author, and not necessarily the views of the blog's publisher.)

After SFMTA saw, in the last strike, that all we could do was getting around 600 cabs circling the City Hall, they must have thought that it was not much of deterrence. Therefore, I believe, SFMTA decided to go ahead with their plan. SFMTA now is closing on us on three fronts. They will keep at it until there is nothing left of us. These three fronts bring them their objective of MONEY, MONEY, and MONEY:

1. THE WAITING LIST, which they are planning to destroy by these means:
   
   
   1. SFMTA froze the expansion of the waiting list.
   2. Then SFMTA attempted to cut the waiting list to 1100. Now the list is close to 3000.
   3. Then SFMTA started selling the medallion (around 210 so far). By doing so, SFMTA achieved two other intermediary objectives.
      1. SFMTA is preparing those on the list for their next phase of total elimination of the list; in the future. By selling the medallions the way they did, they destroyed future income for around 50% of those on the Waiting List. This is a huge amount that many on the list would not be earning (around 500 Million to 1 Billion). Instead of having the medallions going to top of the list, SFMTA sold it to those far away from the top.  This caused at least $20,000/year lost for around 50% of those on the list. How many years those on the list were pushed down (instead of moving up)? My answer is between 12 to 24 years. Each year that they did not move up is at least $20,000/year lost—money that they would not be earning. 120/10 = 12 years to 120/5 = 24 years. 5-10 were the approximate medallions that would go to the list by dead and disqualification.
      2. This would also divide those on the waiting list and turn driver against driver. Have you heard DIVIDE AND CONQUER?