The Phantom Cab Driver Phites Back

Two More Plans

2012-01-12T14:22:00.000-08:00

Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab came up with another outline for a plan.

He started out by stating that the Medallion Sales Pilot Program has been an unqualified success. He claimed:

It has benefited both sellers and buyers.
It has given drivers on the waiting list two options instead of one: they can now buy or wait for a medallion to become available.

Rathbone wants to see;

A Permanent Medallion Sales Problem.

1. All medallion holders would be able to sell.

a. Purchasers would initially come from the waiting list.

b. At some point all drivers with five years of experience would become qualified to buy.

2. Several hundred medallions would be given to drivers on the waiting list.

a. Charles envisions about 75 medallion a year being released.

b. The list would eventually end.

3. The MTA would lease a certain number of "non-medallion permits" to "full-service color schemes."

a. Rathbone tried very hard to avoid using the phrase but they would be "fleet taxis."

b. He would probably define a "full-service color scheme" as Luxor, Yellow and Desoto cabs.

c. The fleet taxis would be leased for periods of three or so years.

d. The leases could be withdrawn if it was determined that there were too many cabs.

Service and Fairness ...

... is the the title that Rua Graffis, long time driver and United Taxicab Workers perpetrator, gave to her conception of the future.

Graffis's plan is 11 pages of single-spaced type long and could only be briefly summarized during the TAC discussion. I'd like to do it more justice here but I'm going to China next week and need all my spare time to improve my primitive language skills.

So all I can do is list some main ideas and ask some question.

By the way, this points out another problem with the TAC. The council simply does not have the time delve deeply into complicated ideas and issues.

Rua's Plan.

There would be several different types of medallions.

100 corporate Ramp Medallions
800 Master (K) Medallions driven by gates and gas drivers.
800 Master (K) Medallions driven by Medallion holders.
186 Transferable Medallions.
Pre-K = 300 now but the category would gradually disappear as the holders died off and their medallions went to make up part of ...
2000 Single Operator Medallions (returned K's).

Medallions would no longer be sold and all drivers from the various categories would pay amounts ranging from $750 per year to $6,000 per year into a Drivers fund.

The fund would be used for the retirement of all cab drivers.

What strikes me are the numbers. Potentially there could be almost 4,000 cabs on the street at the same time. This many taxis could turn a Friday night in October into a February Sunday morning. Coming from a woman who began her political career fighting against Mayor Diane Feinstein's attempt to add 289 cabs for the 1984 Democratic Convention, this raises nothing but question marks in my mind.

Ms. Graffis said that she wasn't good at numbers and at the end of her essay wrote, "Great care must be taken only to add medallions when there is a documented need. This is of particular concern since ..." the MTA which "... controls the number of cabs ... seeks money from the industry for its budget."

Rua wants the money that would go to loan companies to instead to into the Driver's Fund and retirement programs; and the Single Operator Permits would theoretically be driven only when it's busy. However, the sheer volume of taxis that Rua envisions throws out any kind of rational thought for me. Except for New Year's Eve, these aren't figures that belong in San Francisco.

Or, maybe she simply expects all the K medallions to eventually become Single operator Medallions. It's hard to say.

Maybe this conundrum will be cleared up with a careful reading of her monograph. I'll tackle it on the return flight. Unless you were at the meeting, I'm not sure where you can get ahold of a copy. You might be able to get more information by clicking on this UTW link.

TAC: Pushing for a Final Plan

2012-01-10T14:13:00.000-08:00

This photo was taken toward the end of the 1-9-12 Taxi advisory Council meeting. Chris Sweis, Athan Rebelos, Richard Hybels, Rua Graffis and Tim Lapp are seen (sort of) tying to clarify a methodology for deciding how to organize the various plans (or parts of plans) for a making the Pilot Plan (or parts thereof) permanent - or not - so that the TAC could vote on the various concepts.

To be fair, this is a real problem. Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin has apparently asked TAC Chair Chris Sweis to come up with a permanent plan soon. Deputy Director of Taxi Services Chris Hayashi also told the MTA Board that she could present them with a plan in February.

BUT ... The last three or four meeting of the TAC have been taken up largely with new plans - mostly conflicting with each other - on how to structure the future of San Francisco's taxi industry.

I have a some thoughts on the subject.

1. I think it's better to the job right then to do it fast.

2. I do not think that the TAC is equipped to sort through the various ideas to find a solution. Because of the all the rules that the council has follow, it simply takes too long for them to deal with an issue. In a normal meeting they'll cover one or two subjects. The question of the future of the cab business is open ended and multifaceted.

3. The best method would be to have Ms. Hayashi use her famous white boards to deal with this subject at a couple or more Town Hall Meetings. She should be able to bring order out of chaos (as she has done so often in the past) and draw up a coherent plan. The plan would then go to TAC for a final discussion and vote.

TAC to Make Final Recommendations for Permanent Pilot Plan?

2012-01-08T19:07:00.000-08:00

The question mark is in the title because the Taxi Advisory Council keeps threatening to make final recommendations and never quite seems to do so. In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.

The picture is of me when I first started taxi driving and was even hotter than I am now - if less friendly.

In honor of TAC's attempt at finality, I'm putting some of the proposals on the blog in posts below this one. (Please excuse the formatting.)

For comparison I'm linking to the Medallion Reform Proposal by the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association which I originally published on April 4, 2011.

I'm also linking to my own An Outline for Making the Pilot Plan Permanent which I published on December 18, 2011.

To make note of a few other proposals click below.

Councilor Tim Lapp (photo below) wants to allow Pre-K medallion holders to sell their medallions.

Richard Moles (photo), who has been driving cab for 26 years but only put his name on the Waiting List 13 years ago, has also put his name on the Buyer's List. He says that he has enough money to buy a medallion but would want his purchase to be made similar to the way ramp taxis are handled now.

What he wants is to be able to buy the medallion but keep his name on the waiting list so that, if an "earned" medallion becomes available, he would be able to sell the one he bought and be given the medallion that he waited and worked so many years to get.

Mark Gruberg of the United Taxicab Workers Proposal

2012-01-08T18:21:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the shadow on this shot. It's not symbolic. I don't mean to imply that Mark has a doppleganger or evil twin. Simply didn't have a diffuser on the flash.

For me, the most interesting thing about Mark's proposal is that he changed his position from the days when we were putting the Pilot Plan together. He was against any medallion sales at the time and even sued the MTA over the issue. But he lost and has shown rare common sense in accepting the reality of medallion sales and using it a jumping off point for a fresh look at the industry.

His plan is the most carefully worked out and thorough of the proposals that I've seen. It certainly has the longest title.

To read A Proposed Approach to Formulating

A Permanent Medallion System for San Francisco click below

Carl Macmurdo & the MHA Proposal

2012-01-07T17:42:00.000-08:00

The introduction and a chart at the end of this piece have been edited out for for reasons of length. You should be able find the complete proposal at Medallion Holders Association website. If you can't find it, blame Carl not me.

Carl notes in the introduction that after a Taxi Commission ruling in 2004 stating that drivers have to meet a "full time driving ... requirement" forced many elderly drivers to "work beyond their capacity" which lead to: major accidents, liability loses, reduced service, lawsuits and at least two suicides.

He goes on to say that an American with Disabilities Act lawsuit was settled by allowing two disabled plaintiffs to sell their medallions under the Pilot Program. Macmurdo added that 150 taxi drivers have now purchased medallions under the program, thus making up 10% of the fleet.

To read Carl's Proposal for Future Taxicab Medallion Distribution click below.

Jim Steele's Legacy: Part 1

2012-01-06T11:48:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year! I'm baaaack!

Jim Steele leaves a double legacy behind him. Yellow medallion holder Art Lembke describes him as, “a little man who was a giant in the industry.” Richard Fogel says that “the taxicab industry today would not be the same had it not been for Steele." Fogel goes on to say that Steele “wanted to create the best place for owners, drivers and customers. And he was successful.”

I have no trouble with the earlier statements. Steele clearly was an astute and brilliant businessman. He took over Yellow Cab after it had gone bankrupt and, within a few years, turned it into the largest and most successful taxicab company in the city. There’s no doubt that he made San Francisco’s taxi companies and medallion holders lot of money. It’s the contention that Steele’s guiding hand was good for the ordinary drivers and customers that I intend to dispute.

Since I didn’t like Steele personally and think that his leadership was disastrous for both drivers and the cab riding public, I’m going to balance my post by putting Lembke’s praise of Steele at the end of the article.

The Independent Contract and Gas & Gates.

A picayune debate has been taking place on cab sites as to who first started the above systems. I’m not an historian. But I do know that Steele, along with the Lazars at Luxor Cab and Marvin Gralnick at Desoto Cab, either broke or undermined unions, put an end to employee status by forcing drivers to sign “Independent Contracts” and installed “Gas & Gates” as the only option for a taxi driver.

Yellow Cab was the first major company to completely eliminate employee drivers and have all cabs go “Gas & Gates,” so why not give the credit to Steele?

The Independent Contract.

The “Independent Contract,” as it relates to non-medallion holding drivers, is a fictional legal device that has been used to cheat San Francisco's cab drivers out of at least 200 million dollars over the last 30 years.

This figure comes from estimating the amounts that cab drivers have been forced to tip during that period.

I cab with 2 shifts at $10 per shift = $20.
$20 per day * 365 days = $7,300.
$7,300 * 1,000 cabs = $7,300,000 per year.
$7,300,000 * 30 years = $219,000,000.

I’m using the 1,000 number as a rough average. There were 814 cabs on the street 30 years ago and there are 1,500 now. Lazy me, I didn’t go year by year to research the matter accurately. The figure might be 1,100 in which case:

$7,300 * 1,100 cabs = $8,030,000.
$8,030,000 * 30 years = $240,900,000.

However, this is a low figure. Some companies insist on higher tips and many companies have used numerous other scams to separate drivers from their money.

In addition, these estimates do not include the money drivers have lost in terms of benefits like: unemployment insurance, the lower tax rates paid by employees and the loss of Workers Compensation benefits that cab companies refused to pay until they were forced to do so by the State of California. Many of these drivers will also have little or no Social Security benefits when they reach old age.

A Fictional Legal Device?

There are numerous ways to determine whether people should be classified as employees or independent contractors. I think the most meaningful one is simply a test of power. An “independent contract”, as the first word implies, is supposed to be an agreement between equals.

The relationship between a medallion holder (which I am) and a taxi company is a perfect example of a real independent contractual agreement. I have a medallion that they want to use and they are willing to pay me for it. If we don’t get along, I can easily take my medallion and go to another company.

In fact, I recently worked for a company where I said something to the manager that he didn’t like. He retaliated by breaking our financial agreement and started cheating me out of $15 a week (I kid you not). I gave him two warnings and then went to another company where they gave me a $300 per month raise.

The fact that losing the use of my medallion cost the manager about $1,500 a month, by the way, is yet more proof that having power doesn’t make you smart. He was apparently so used to abusing ordinary drivers that he didn’t think I’d leave.

Compare this to my situation prior to holding a medallion. I've always believed that a good dispatcher deserves a good wage and that his salary should be paid by the company for which he or she works. The reality is that companies pay their dispatchers minimum wage (if they pay them at all) and insist that the drivers tip to pay the the salaries - which go as high as $700 to a $1,000 per shift. As an ordinary driver I tipped about $40,000 over a twenty year period just to be able to work.

Company reps are fond of saying that no one is forced to tip but this is a lie. If I hadn't been coerced, I wouldn't have tipped one-tenth of the above amount. All exceptions noted, if a driver doesn’t tip he or she will be retaliated against.

My experience when I stopped tipping at the old Desoto is hardly unique.

In the taxi business, the “Independent Contract” exists primarily to take the employee rights away from cab drivers. It strips drivers of all power. For Steele and his cohorts, the “Independent Contract” was a piece of paper designed to make taxi drivers independent of all labor laws.

Of course, simply because people have the power to swindle somebody doesn't mean that they have to do so. Plato believe that power was best exercised by "benevolent dictators" who worked for the good of the many. But this idea that was obviously foreign to Steele and his pals. What they believed, along with W. C. Fields, is that you should "never give a sucker an even break."

When the MTA outlawed tipping a few years ago Yellow Cab refused to comply with the law. Yellow spokesman Jim Gillespie argued that "tipping was part of cab culture." Sounds very sociological doesn't it? The “culture of tipping” actually started when the unions were busted and thus belongs to the culture of corruption that is part and parcel of Jim Steele's legacy.

Jim Steele According to Art Lempke

Jim Steele, a little man who was a giant in our industry. He was honest and fair minded, and knew more about the taxi industry than anyone before his time or since.

Jim knew the California code of insurance relating to the transportation industry by heart. Every word of it he kept in his head, and could quote any page of it by memory. Before he retired he knew every particular about every accident that Yellow Cab ever had. The amount involved in the accident, the driver who had the accident, and the passengers who were involved, and the amount paid out. This information he carried around with him in his head, and didn't need to look it up. He knew all this by heart.

In World War II Jim was the boxing champ for his weight class in the Sea Bee's. I remember fondly a night in a bar near De Soto Cab Company on Gary street when Steele was in his fifty's, a man came into the bar causing trouble, as we were involved in figuring out the process of buying of the Yellow Cab Co Op from the bankruptcy court, and playing liars dice. Jim Steele knocked out this trouble maker who was about 6'4" and weighed about 250 lbs with one punch.

For his distractors who blame him for bringing an end to the employee status to the taxi industry. They are both misinformed and wrong. Prop K effectively ended the employee status before Prop K, if one bought a medallion from someone they would also have gone into the cab company from the parson who sold them the medallion. This provided stability to the taxi industry. Prop K changed this. There is no way a taxi cab company could stay in business if they had employees rather than independent contractors who were their taxi cab drivers. As the medallion holders would leave a company who had employee drivers and go to a company where the drivers are independent drivers, as they would make more money being in a company that had independent contractors instead of employee drivers. Look! That's just the way it is! Myself, I made a lot more money as an independent contractor than I did as an employee. Also, as an employee driver you are told what to where, when you can take your lunch and dinner breaks, where to go, etc... I believe that most drivers who worked under both systems preferred to be independent contractor's. I remember one time I was forced to stay near the S.F. Zoo for over two hours before I was allowed to leave, as an employee at old Yellow Cab. I would have never stayed in the taxi industry as an employee.

Shortly after Prop K was passed there was a certified election held at the Yellow Cab Co Op for the drivers to choose between being an independent contractor or an employee. The drivers overwhelmingly chose to be independent contractors. So don't blame the loss of the employee status on Jim Steele.

I served on the board of Directors of Yellow Cab Co Op with Jim Steele for thirteen years. Although I had some miner disagreements with him, he was usually right. He was the most honest and straight forward man I have ever met who put his whole heart and soul into the taxi industry. I am a far better person for the time I spent with Jim Steele. Thank you Jim for all you did for all of us in the taxi business. May the Lord take you in his arms and may you find peace and happiness in Heaven.

Sincerely Your friend Arthur Lembke, and family.

An Outline for Making the Pilot Plan Permanent

2011-12-18T22:46:00.000-08:00

I'm in my old home town of St. Paul, Minnesota for the holidays. As incredible as it may seem I'm related to most of the lovely women in this photo. In other words, this genetic pool is not responsible for my face.

But, on to

My Plan.

I think the Pilot Plan as it is benefits most of the people in the industry and should continue with the following modifications:

(Click "read me" to continue reading post.)

The Waiting List should continue at least until all the drivers on it have been given their earned medallions:

All new medallions issued, as well as revocations, should to go to the drivers on the Waiting List.
This would be a just reward for their hard work and dedication.
It would help service by keeping experienced drivers in the business.
It would also help younger drivers who want to buy a medallion by keeping the Buyer's List and Waiting list separate.
If the Waiting List disappeared many older drivers would opt to buy cabs thus keeping the younger ones waiting longer.
Continuing the Waiting List would also continue a medallion system which is the fairest in the country.
I would have nothing against continuing the Waiting List permanently if a way can be found to keep earned medallions flowing into it.

The Age for Selling should be lowered to 65.

This is a normal retirement age.
It would limit the number of taxis sold so that companies wouldn't be overwhelmed by losing medallions and drivers wouldn't lose shifts en masse.

All taxicabs should be operated on a “gates and gas” basis.

No new issues should allowed to be worked on an Affiliate or a Long Terms Lease (LTL).
Cabs that are currently being worked as LTL’s or Affiliates should gradually be converted to gates and gas (G&G) over, say, a two or three year period in order to do as little harm as possible to the drivers working under these systems.

As much as possible, these drivers should be allowed to keep their shifts.

This would help the companies because G&G leases are more profitable and also would make the taxi businesses more predictable.
Much of the corruption in this business (illegal subleasing) appears to be tied to the LTL’s.

G&G are easier for the MTA to police.
It would be more difficult for drivers to be exploited by having to pay excessive fees to get a shift.

Better service would be given to the public by insuring that cabs are driven by professional drivers instead of relatives, friends and/or guys without A-Cards.
It would lower the exposure of companies to catastrophic losses by making certain that only qualified drivers drove the taxis.

The SFMTA should get only 10% for the sale of a medallion instead of 15%. In other words, 10% of medallion sales should go to the MTA and 10% to the Driver’s Fund.

New York and most other cities only get 5% from the sale of taxicabs.
This would still give the MTA something around $4,000,000 a year.
It would increase the Driver's Fund much faster.
A percentage of the meter drop could also go the fund.

All the money the SFMTA takes in should be put back into the cab industry.

This would include money to improve streets so that traffic can flow faster and to improve the regulation of public events.
Cab drivers and taxi companies are already paying sales and business taxes. It’s not right that we should pay more taxes than anybody else in the city.
The money should go into improved training of drivers as well as enforcement against cab company corruption, illegal limos and so forth.
And so forth could include studies and methods of improving service to the public.
Any excessive money above the afore mentioned should go into the Drivers Fund.

There should be a Cab Driver’s Bill of Rights that includes:

The right not to tip. A warning to this effect should be posted at every dispatching window with a number to call if this right is violated.
All drivers who have regular shifts should be assigned a regular taxi in order to reduce the temptations for cashiers and dispatchers.
A pro-rata reduction of the gate should be given to the driver if said driver isn’t (for whatever reason) allowed to work the entire shift (by the company) for which he or she contracted.
There should be improved communication with taxi companies and the police in case of emergencies, harassment, assaults or robberies.
There should be improved training for drivers on how to deal with or avoid the above situations.
There should be better training for new drivers to improve their knowledge of the city and how best get around in it at various times of day as well as how to make money driving a cab.
The use of the Driver’s Fund to help finance medical and retirement programs should be explored.
The rest of the rights should be decided by the drivers themselves.

For all those dreaming of a white Christmas.

Happy Holidays!

TAC Votes for Taxis to Have Own Division

2011-12-16T13:55:00.000-08:00

The Taxi Advisory Council voted 11 to 1 to advise the SFMTA to return Taxi Services to a Division status within the SFMTA.

Taxi Services came into the MTA as a Division and was demoted to a subdivision by former Executive Director Nat Ford because he thought that sucking up to Gavin Newsom would help his résumé. Last I heard Ford could't find a job and opened a consulting firm, although God only knows what subject that he's qualified to consult on - certainly not taxicabs.

There is no rational reason to have the Deputy Director of Taxi Services under the control of people who don't understand the cab business - as is the situation now. The biggest problem is that everybody thinks that they understand taxis (A member of the Citizen's Advisory Council was insulted when a cab driver tried to educate him about the business, saying "I've ridden cabs for years.") and make absurd decisions based on their ignorance of this unique and complex industry.

It's untimely a matter of power and respect and, until Taxi Services does become a division, we will never have the leadership we need.

For more on the subject click here.

Two Hearings & a Meeting

2011-12-10T12:05:00.001-08:00

On Friday December 2nd, two administrative hearings were held regarding John Nesbitt Baker (photo) of Yellow Top Cab Company in San Leandro and Salim Soltane of Day Cab fame for illegally picking up fares in San Francisco. Henry Epstein was the Hearing Officer. Michael Harris handled the prosecution for the MTA and Investigator Eric Richholt testified as the arresting officer.

An administrative hearing is much more relaxed than a civil or criminal trial. But it's actually more powerful. There appear to be no attorneys or jurys allowed for the defendants. There also is no appeal against the Hearing Officer's ruling. The British used administrative justice to control their empire for over two hundred years. The English statesman Winston Churchill reputedly wanted to have Mahatama Ghandi killed by administrative fiat. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed.

Not that there was anything nefarious going on at room 400 in City Hall.

Baker was charged with picking up a man on Ceasar Chavez street and taking him to Palo Alto for $100; Soltane with picking up investigator Charles Castillo on Polk street between Post and Sutter streets and taking him to Sutter and Gough.

(To read the rest of this article, click below.)

Baker, who used to be a San Francisco cab driver, argued that:

While he stopped for people that flagged him down, he never asked them for money.
He only stopped to tell them that he couldn't pick them up.
He appeared to think that it was legal if people gave him money to take them places without his asking for it.
The man going to Palo Alto offered him money without his asking for it.
He was on Ceasar Chavez because he lived in the Presidio and was gassing up at 14th & Mission streets prior to catching the freeway to work in San Leandro.

The MTA's case was slightly weakened by the fact that the other arresting officer, Charles Castillo, no longer works for the MTA and thus was not able to testify.

However, Mr. Baker did such a good job of convicting himself, Harris didn't need much help. As Baker left the courtroom, Harris told him that they could work could work out an arrangement of some kind.

Soltane argued that:

He never took money for rides.
He often gave his friends and other people rides for free.
He worked as a pizza delivery person and used his cab/car for the deliveries but did not put a pizza delivery sign on his cab/car.
He didn't know whether his meter worked or not because he never used it.
He never turned on the meter for Castillo's trip.
He couldn't afford to remove the meter or the top light or paint his car because it would be too expensive at $150.
He hadn't seen Charles Castillo until Soltane had already started his car and Castillo knocked on his window to beg for a ride.
Castillo told him that it was an emergeny so Soltane took him for nothing. Besides, Soltane was going for gas at Pine and Van Ness and the trip was allegedly on the way.

Harris called me as a witness. This made Hearing Officer Epstein rather uncomfortable which made me uncomfortable. Despite all my public speaking, I wasn't really a great witness. I forgot to say that Investigator Castillo had told me that Soltane's meter started at only $3.00 but was already over $4.50 after less than 3 blocks.

I did succeed in contradicting Soltane's claim that he hadn't seen Castillo until he knocked on the window. In fact, he and Castillo exchanged words. Then, Soltane unlocked the doors and the two of them stepped into the cab at about the same time. Epstein asked Sotane if he'd seen me. When the defendant claimed that he hadn't, I missed the opportunity to state that the reason Soltane hadn't seen me was that he was talking to Castillo. (Soltane is the man coming up behind Castillo in the photo.)

Mike Harris repeatedly asked Soltane if he only gave people rides in his cab/car for free and Soltane kept repeating that that this was the case. Harris asked the question so often that I was beginning to think that he'd run out of ideas. Then, Harris pulled out three e-mails from drivers stating that they'd seen Day Cab carrying customers, two of which said that they'd seen the fake taxi pick up flags. All three incidents occurred all after Soltane was first cited.

I had to leave early but Eric wrote me,

"Henry (Epstein) called a side-bar with Soltane and Michael (Harris) and basically told Soltane that things don’t look good for him and that maybe he should try to settle with SFMTA. We are not settling so he will have a decision within 10 days ...Henry did tell Soltane that, minimally, he will have to strip his car of the cab garb."

The fine for an illegal pick up is $5,000.

Illegal Cab & Limo Update.

Investigator Eric Richholt (photo - middle) showed up a recent Town Hall meeting to update us on Taxi Services' efforts against illegal taxis and limos.

Richholt said:

11 illegal taxis have now been cited for $5,000.
3 of the drivers of these fake cabs have been given administrative hearings.
All 3 have been "held to answer" (i.e. found guilty).
64 limo & towncars have been given $90 white zone citations.
The MTA will now be able to give limos & towncars $5,000 administrative citations for illegally picking up flags.

Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi said that problems remain that Taxi Services is trying to correct.

The major problem is that they need more investigators. Eric is the only one at the moment who is chasing down illegal vehicles and his time is split among other duties.
Hayashi is in the process of hiring which - due to the byzantine nature of the MTA - takes time. Eventually she wants a team of six devoted to the task.
The hearing officer has allowed one driver to pay off his citation with time payments. Hayashi doesn't think that this is enough of a deterrent and wants to change the rules so that such payments are not allowed.
Taxi Services is asking the PUC to stop issuing limousine permits. At the moment, there is no limitation on the number of limos and towncars that can operate in San Francisco.
Hayashi is drafting legislation to make driving non-authorized vehicles with cab markings illegal and subject to $5,000 fines regardless of whether they pick up or not.

She also said that there is talk of forming a city task force to fight illegal taxis and limos as well as other forms of corruption. The task force would include the City Attorney's office, the PUC, the Police Department and Taxi Services.

SFMTA Board Looks at PIMs, 5% & Electronic Waybills

2011-12-08T12:10:00.001-08:00

Will Rodman, who conducted the study for Nelson\Nygaard, presented his finding before the SFMTA Board on Tuesday 12/6/2011.

It was a three topic study of credit card fees, backseat monitors (PIMs) and electronic waybills.

Since you can find more information on the subject at http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfmta.com/ and elsewhere, I’m simply going to hit on some of the high points of the meeting.

The basic recommendations made by the SFMTA Board were:

The SFMTA should look into ways of lowering the cost below 5%.

Rodman’s research showed that the actual cost of processing may be as low as 2.35% to 3% not including tech and customer support, installation charges and so forth.
The big question mark is how much of the room between processing costs and the 5% is profit. Since the companies are claiming that they need relief from credit card charges, they should not be profiting at the drivers' expense.
New York City is considering lowering the charge to the drivers to 4%.
John Lazar of Luxor Cab is on record as saying that the cost for him to process $1,000,000 per months of credit card receipts is $40,000 which equals 4%. And, he has the most expensive Personal Information Monitors (PIMs) around.

CFO Sonali Bose said that the MTA would be running an RFP (Request for proposal) on credit card fees to see if they can be lowered.

(To read the rest of this article, click below.)

Taxi Companies will no longer have to install backseat terminals in order to pass credit card fees onto their drivers.

This should make drivers happy and unhappy.
Happy because - This means that most drivers probably will not have to use the PIMs, which are a symbol of oppression for many.
Unhappy - The drivers at all companies will now have the credit card charges passed on to them.

In reality, the companies without the PIMs were either charging their drivers up to 10% for processing CC receipts or refusing to process them at all. So the drivers at these companies should be no worse off economically than they were before - probably better.

Customers or drivers should be able to completely turn off both audio and video on the PIMs.

Almost all the members of the Board said they had been taking different kinds of cabs so they could get hands on experience of the various kinds of equipment. Their opinions of the back seat terminals differed just as if they were cab drivers.

Chairman Tom Nolan, who had been riding in a Luxor cab with a TV monitor PIM, complained that the audio wasn't loud enough for him to get Jay Leno's punch lines.

Director Joél Ramos, on the other hand, couldn't stand the same monitors and, when he tried to turn his off, it turned itself back on again. The director said that he enjoyed talking to cab drivers who, as you know, tell wonderful stories and he didn't want anything to interfere with that experience.

In the end, the Board decided to let both customers and drivers create their own environments.

Despite the fact that Rodman's report suggested that the Square should be used only as a back up to in-vehicle equipment, the MTA Board supported its use.

Representatives from Square said that the device was secure and that problems with chargebacks and customer complaints can be addressed.
Yellow driver and medallion holder Anne McVey seconded this by saying that, if a customer has a problem, they can call Square and Square will contact the driver. She said that she’d had two chargebacks and that they were both cleared up with little difficulty.
The biggest advocate for Square,however, turned out to be Director Ramos who said that Square and other such devices were so commonly used throughout the culture that he thought that they had to be secure.

The Board gave the okay for the use of Electronic waybills

The MTA's position on Electronic Waybills is based a compromise worked between Deputy Director Hayashi and the drivers at the last spring Town Hall Meetings.
Members of the UTW, the SFCDA, the MHA, myself and others approved this compromise.
Tariq Memood and his disciples didn't like it.
Mehmood tore down all copies of the MTA's position paper, called The Facts About Electronic Waybills, when it was posted at the airport and talked whoever was running Taxi Services in the interim between Ford's and Reisman's leadership into sending out an e-mail apologizing for having posted the document. (Did my favorite demagogue threaten a strike?)
Mehmood then proceeded to lie about, misrepresent and trash the document to drivers, calling it "propaganda". Then, he kept showing up at MTA Board meetings claiming that 99% of the drivers were against Electronic Waybills.
All true. Ahhh! The joys of bureaucracy?
Personally, I think the measure is as brilliant a compromise between seemingly intractable positions as I've ever seen.
Its thrust is that it allows the MTA to gather the statistics it needs to improve service WITHOUT INCLUDING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS.
But read it for yourself ... now that you finally have the chance.

SFMTA Board Okays Sales for K Medallion Holders Over 65

2011-12-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

I should subtitle this : "But Not For Pre-K's - Among Other Things."

Specifically the Board okayed the following legislation changing the transportation Code:

1. Creates a ramp taxi enforcement program to hold ramp taxi medallion holders responsible to

ensure all drivers of the vehicle are qualified, and to require service to at least eight wheelchair users per month, with a $150 penalty for non-compliance, and provision for 90-day suspension for repeated violations;

2. Eliminates six month notice requirement for leaving the ramp taxi program;

3. Waives application and renewal fees for two battery-switch electric vehicle permits;

4. Creates documentation requirements for applications to transfer a color scheme permit;

5. Eliminates mandatory December 31 permit expiration date for permits;

6. Eliminates the financial responsibility inquiry for driver and medallion permit applicants;

7. Eliminates jitney bus provisions left over from the Police Code; and

8. Re-opens the opportunity to sell medallions to individuals subject to the full-time driving

requirement who attain the age of 65 or older as of December 31, 2011, or who have a disability that prevents them from fulfilling the full-time driving requirement, clarifies that a medallion purchaser may sell regardless of age or disability, and that a medallion seller can be removed from the list of qualified sellers if they decline to sell their medallion within 15 days after an offer is made.

The item that interested most people was number 8. Since the legislation only opens sales to "individuals subject to the full-time driving requirement ... or who have a disability ..." it excludes all Pre-K medallion holders. Twenty or so of the Pre-K's (along with several K's) spoke to the unfairness of the measure. My favorite was the Pre-K who concluded by saying, "Why don't they just gas us?"

Indeed, why not? The poor dude would only get $3,000 a month for the rest of the his life, a figure that would warm the hearts of most people - except, of course, those who work for the MTA.

Please excuse the levity. Watching one Pre-K after another obsess about the injustice of their fates has been one of the more amazing aspects of the entire Pilot Plan process. These guys have made between $800,000 and $1,000,000 off a $10,000 or $20,000 investment and, as near as I can tell, they haven't stopped whining about it for thirty years.

Or, as John Milton put it in Paradise Lost,

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

On the other hand, there was no separation between the K's and Pre-K's in the Pilot Plan and no warning was given that something like this might happen. If there had been a warning, most of the Pre-k medallions would have already have been sold.

The legislation on this particular matter lasts only until the end of the Pilot Plan and is designed to keep medallion sales going until a final plan is adopted. Otherwise I probably would have been against the measure.

Barry Korengold felt no such compunction and favored the legislation because he thought that it would give earned medallions to drivers on the Waiting List.

The MTA was divided on the issue and wanted to know Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi's reasoning.

(To read the rest of this article, click below.)

Hayahsi said,

" ... this is an interim measure and that we are still waiting for the Taxi Advisory Council to come to a recommendation. In the meantime we have a lot of eager medallion buyers and we have run out of medallion stock ...the two competing sides here are, on the one hand, we want to open up more opportunities for sellers and purchasers. On the other hand, every time we allow a medallion to be transferred ... that medallion will no longer be available for any other long-term and permanent solution that we come up with ..."

"This is intended to let off a little steam while we wait for a long term solution ... This is just for the purpose of limiting the number of medallions to where there is a very serious policy need. First, those who have become disabled ... and those who are driving and are over 65. The Pre-K medallion holders do not have a driving requirement so there is less of a policy argument there."

"Ultimately, what is the right policy? That is something that we should look to in the long-term program."

Then, she threw in a bolt from the blue. She said,

"I would be remiss if I failed to mention the financial considerations as well. Because, if somebody were to sell their Pre-K medallion, the City would realize $37,500 in transfer fees. If somebody were to - it's a terrible thing to say but the way medallion have been circulated over time is though death and revocation - and so if somebody were to pass away and their medallion came back to the City, it would be worth $237,500. So if you're talking about the entire population of 300 Pre-K medallion holders, you're talking about a value of 71 million dollars and change."

Oh, oh, Barry?

Just when I'm getting bored with this whole thing somebody tosses another cat onto a hot tin roof.

Hayashi claims not to be a politician but she sure knew her audience. Director Malcolm Heinicke began talking about "income streams" and the legislation soon carried by a vote of 4 to 2.

To be fair, Vice Chairman Jerry Lee and Director Bruce Oka were strongly in favor of giving the Pre-K's a chance to sell as, to a lesser extent, was Director Heinicke.

Heinicke said that a perment plan needed to be worked out so that the business could become stable and predictable. Hayashi promised that she could have such a plan ready for the MTA Board by February. The Board thus passed the legislation with the understanding that it was a short term measure and not a final solution.

Director Heinicke, by the way, defended Ms. Hayashi against one of Tariq Mehmood's patented, slanderous attacks on the Deputy Director's integrity by saying,

"I feel obliged to note that if you chose to make ad hominen attacks on our staff; in particular one person who is working very hard to bring harmony into this industry, it makes ... me not really value the rest of what you say. If you have an argument, make it on the merits ..."

He was seconded in this by Director Joel Ramos who added,

"The idea of attacking someone personally to get your point across is below low... I won't tolerate it as a director and I think the level of respect needs to be turned way up here ..."

Kudos gentlemen. Good words. They'd have been even better if they'd been said last April when Mehmood first started making these attacks.

But, better late then never. Thanks from all of us who value reason over hatred, intimidation and fear.

TAC and Town Hall Meetings for 11-28-11 are Cancelled

2011-11-23T17:46:00.001-08:00

From: "SFTaxi" <SFTaxi@sfmta.com>
Date: November 22, 2011 1:30:54 PM PST
Cc: "Hayashi, Christiane" <Christiane.Hayashi@sfmta.com>
Subject: TAC 11-28 meeting Canceled

The Taxi Advisory Council meeting for 11-28-11 has been canceled. There will not be enough members attending to have a quorum.

The next TAC meeting will be December 12, 2011.

Thank you
Taxi Services

The Town Hall Meeting from 6 pm to 8 pm on Monday 11-28-11 is also canceled.

Happy Holiday.

November 2011 Town Hall Meetings

2011-11-20T16:05:00.001-08:00

A new series of Town Hall Meetings began on Monday, November 14th to discuss, "Consideration of Proposals for the Future of Taxicab Sales."

I couldn't come on Monday but caught the end of the afternoon session on Tuesday, November 15th and stayed for the evening (see schedule below).

In attendance were Naim Malik, Tone Lee, Mark Gruberg, Christopher Fulkerson, MTA Investigator Mike Harris, Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi and myself. Richie Weiner and Jim Gillespie from Yellow Cab management attended in the afternoon and Barry Korengold came by at night, followed much later by Tariq Mehmood.

Forgetting that he was talking to cab drivers and not trying to snow City Supervisors or the general public, Richie Weiner tried to convince everyone that drivers would make more money if more cabs were put on the street. However, most of the conversations generally followed the outline on Hayashi's whiteboard.

Despite the small turnout almost all the usual points of view were put forth on the question of sales:

Taxis should continue to be sold as in the Pilot Plan.
The age for selling should stay at 70.
The selling age should be lowered to 65.
All Taxis should be sold.
No taxis should be sold.

Most people thought that the seniority should continue for the waiting list and purchasing medallions but Tone Lee thought that a few medallions should be handled though a lottery. There was also talk about combining the A-Card list with the Waiting list in some way. Ending the Waiting List was also mentioned.

There was debate as to whether or not medallion holding drivers should continue to have a driving requirement or be able to retire and continue to hold the medallions at ages 65 or 70.

The idea behind purchasing transfer rights is to give medallion holders of selling age a chance to continue working their medallion after they agree to sell. If they paid the $50,000 transfer fee in advance, they would be able to sell anytime afterwards and the money from sales would go to their families if they died before selling it themselves.

Having exhausted these subjects for the moment we went on to a discussion of the Driver's Fund which now has $2.4 million in it.

Some drivers wanted the fund to be used as a down payment for medical insurance.
Since $2.4 million obviously isn't enough to cover such benefits, I thought that we should raise the percentage for the fund from sales to ten per cent in order to help it grow faster.
Tone Lee thought that we should build a recreation center for all drivers to use.
Director Hayashi came up with the idea of giving money to drivers who had been robbed or in an accident so that they could have time off to relax and psychologically recover.

Tariq Mehmood himself honored us with his presence while we were talking and sat silently listening to what we were saying for fifteen or twenty minutes. I had never before seen him go without speaking for such an extended period of time and wondered if he had been reading How to Win Friends and Influence People or I'm Okay, You're Okay. Had the Mehmood become a team player and developed an interest in the thought, opinions and feelings of others?

"The Driver's Fund is not for discussion !" Tariq loudly decreed when he finally graced us with his speech. "We will now talk about the sales program!" Then, he lectured us in a loud, abrasive monotone for a half an hour, before proclaiming, "The age should be 70!"

There didn't seem to be much to add so we went back to discussing ways to grow the Driver's Fund so that it would be large enough to help with medical benefits. Christopher Fulkerson mentioned that the companies owned the drivers millions of dollars from an agreement made with the old Taxi Commission. I thought a percentage of the meter drop could be helpful.

"We are not here to talk about medical benefits!" Mehmood commanded. "$2.4 Million dollars is not enough for a medical program!" He then proceeded to spend eight and a half minutes educating us on the details of his profound insight. Then, he left.

The next sessions will be on Tuesday, November 22nd from 2 to 5 and 5 to 8 as per the below schedule. Earplugs are optional.

TAC Proposed Regulatory Legislation - An End to Pre-K Sales?

2011-11-02T17:21:00.001-07:00

The Council Liaison introduced several proposed changes in taxicab regulations at the 10/24/11 TAC meeting attended by councilor Bill Mounsey (photo).

Highlights included:

1. Changing the current requirement for annual driver renewal (A-cards) from December 31st to the month of the driver's birthday.

2. Ending the requirement for evidence of financial responsibility for new driver permits.

3. 100 of the 156 wheel chair pick-ups per year required by Ramp Taxi must be reported through the paratransit debit card system.

But the highlights of highlights were:

Changes in the Taxi Medallion Sales Pilot Program

These include:

1. Clarifying that a medallion buyer may sell his medallion at any time.

2. A Qualified Seller shall become ineligible to sell his or her Medallion if he or she does not execute a sales agreement, in a form provided by the SFMTA, within 15 days of SFMTA's notice to the Medallion Holder that the SFMTA has offered his or her Medallion to a Qualified Purchaser.

3. Re-opening the opportunity to sell his or her medallion to any Medallion Holder who is subject to the Full-Time Driving Requirement who has attained or will attain the age of 60 as of December 31, 2012.

Number 2 is somewhat confusing - especially in light of number 3. Does this mean that a medallion holder will never get another chance to sell his or her medallion if he or she doesn't jump at the first opportunity? Or, will she or he have another opportunity come up whenever the Taxi Services runs out of medallions to sell? It's certainly not clear to me.

Number 3, on the other hand, is clear but controversial. The proposed legislation excludes Pre-K medallion holders from another opportunity to sell their medallions. All drivers over 70 had been given the change to sell when the Sales Pilot Program first went into effect.

Naturally, the measure led to a sharp division - generally between owners and medallion holders vs non-medallion holding drivers - among both the Taxi Advisory Council and the people in attendance.

Drivers on the Waiting List saw this as a good move for four main reasons: (1) Pre-K's have already made a million dollars off of each medallion, (2) They had a chance to sell last year and were greedy not to do so, (3) Even if they can't sell, they would still have a guaranteed income of over $2,500 a month and (4) The Pre-K medallions would ultimately end up going back to the Waiting List.

The owner/medallion holder faction argued that the legislation was: (1) Unfair because the medallion holders were not informed before they made their choice last year, (2) They should have the right to sell any time because, unlike Post-k's, they actually paid for their medallions.(3) Thus not to let them sell would be "unconscionable."

The owner faction moved to squash the legislation and the measure was put to a vote which ended in a six-six tie, meaning that the legislation goes to the SFMTA Board for public hearings and the final thumbs up or thumbs down.

You find the complete list of Revised Taxi Regulations at the SFMTA Taxi website.

TAC 10.24.11

2011-10-30T18:26:00.000-07:00

The Monday 10/24/11 TAC meeting covered a variety of topics.

The photo shows (from left) driver and dispatcher Bill Minikel, driver and blogger John Han, medallion holder and Yellow Cab representative Tim Lapp.

In what other industry can you find councilors of such uniqueness and diversity?

Illegal Taxi & Limo Update

SFMTA Investigator Eric Richholt thanked all the drivers who have sent him photos and videos of bandit cabs and limos and said to keep the info coming. He can be reached at: eric.richholt@sfmta.com or 510-867-4694.

Richholt stated that he and his partners have handed out over one hundred $90 white zone citations to limos and nine $5,000 tickets to illegal cabs, including three for not having A-cards.

A few of the drivers expressed impatience with what has been done. They wanted a bigger crackdown on limos and town cars acting as cabs. Eric said that it was more difficult to prove that limos were making illegal pick-ups but that he and his colleagues would be going after them in the near future.

These drivers appeared to forget that this is the first systematic attack on illegal vehicles in memory (mine anyway) and is just getting underway. It wouldn't exist at all if Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi hadn't written legislation to allow MTA investigators to give these citations and hadn't gotten the law passed by a hostile Board of Supervisors that thinks illegal taxis and limos serve the public. She also had to hire and train the investigators. Taxi Services needs a few more of them in order to maintain a presence on the streets both night and day.

Richholt said that they were prioritizing illegal taxis because they often have substandard equipment, rarely have insurance and thus are a danger to the public.

We Can Finally Use the Bike Lanes - Sometimes

After over a year of discussions, Hayashi has finally talked the powers that be into allowing cabs restricted use of bike lanes for picking up and dropping off customers.

Taxicabs will be issued bumper stickers indicating that the cabs have the right to be in the bike lanes for the above purposes. Taxis are supposed to use the lanes only as a last resort if there are no other safe locations nearby. We can only use separated bike lanes to drop off disabled or elderly customers. (Click photo for more detail.)

We are only supposed to pick customers up in a separated bike lane if the dispatcher tells us that the customer is disabled. Does this mean that we have to blow off disabled customers who try to flag us down from these areas? I think this item needs a bit more thought and discussion.

At any rate, we are only supposed to enter a separated bike lane at the beginning of the block and exit at the end.

For more information contact the SFMTA.

TAC Will Finally Be Able to Present Proposals to the SFMTA Board

After an exchange of letters between Taxi Advisory Council Chair Chris Sweis and SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose, it has been decided that Sweis will be able to present TAC's recommendations directly to the SFMTA Board at the their bi-weekly meetings.

This should put an end to a period when no recommendations were acted upon by the Board.

For background see TAC: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?...

New Town Hall Meeting Schedule

On Supervisors and the 5% Credit Card Fee

2011-10-21T11:42:00.001-07:00

Conspicuously absent from the credit card discussions at the recent Government Audit and Oversight Committee chaired by Supervisor David Campos (photo) was the simple fact that San Francisco's taxi drivers have been given a 24% meter increase WITHOUT A GATE INCREASE.

This is what you might call the missing context for the debates. There are several things to be said about this.

1. In my 28 year cab driving memory, this is the first time that a gate increase did not accompany a meter increase. They have usually been raised simultaneous. One company I worked for inflated the gates before the meter went up.

2. If you assume that half the cab rides are paid by credit cards (way high) this means the 5% credit card fees = 2.5% of a taxi driver's gross (it's really more like 1% or 2%).

3. This means that the actual gain for drivers with the meter increase of 24% minus the gross credit card fee of 2.5% = 21.5%.

4. I once knew a cab driver who had a $200 ride and did nothing but bitch about how much money he spent for gas on the trip ... Hmmm. This seems like a non sequitur. Why do I think of it now?

Quid Pro Quo

John Lazar, President and General Manager of Luxor Cab, was telling people that not including a gate increase with the meter increase was an oversight and a sign of the incompetence of Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The cab companies had been crying about their credit charges to Hayashi so she finally agreed to pass on the charges (at the same percentage as they were passed by most other cities in the country) on the condition that there would be NO GATE INCREASE going along with a meter increase. This was talked about at length and in detail at the Town Hall meetings last spring.

Furthermore, it was clear (to me at least) that the only reason the SFMTA Board did not to include a gate increase was because of the quid pro quo that Hayashi wrote into the legislation. In other words, there would have been a gate increase if credit card charges had not been passed on to drivers.

Let's do a litte more arithmetic.

1. John Lazar wanted an 8% gate increase - on top of the 5%. If this had been granted (and the main reasons that it wasn't were Hayashi's legislation and negotiation skills) 10.5% would have been taken from the 24% making the net raise 13.5%.

2. On the other hand, if the credit card charges had not been passed to the drivers, Lazar and his pals would have been pushing for 10% or 12 % of the gate. This would have worked out to net raises of 12% or 14%.

3. In other words, drivers are between 7% and 10% better off paying 5% credit card charges and having the gates controlled than they are under any other realistic scenario.

Note that I used the word "realistic." Some drivers will say the companies should eat the credit card charges and the drivers should continue with the same (or even lower) gates. Anybody can say anything but, in the world of real politics, that isn't going to happen.

It seems to me that the important factor is the bottom line - how much the drivers take home. And, in my opinion, we're better off with controlled gates.

Is the 5% Written in Stone?

Of course not.

Hayashi has been trying to find ways to lower that figure almost from the start. The board on the left is from a Town Hall meeting last May when lowering or eliminating credit cards fees was discussed.

Furthermore, Hayashi is one of the first persons to popularize the use of the Square (with a 2.75% fee) and other similar devices (although there has turned out to be problems with charge backs with some of these apps). And, as she pointed out to the Supervisors, there have been many legal and other changes in the last year that need to be studied that could result in lowered credit card fees.

There also are all kinds of legal, technical and social issues involved. Off the top my head, for instance, allowing cabs not to take credit cards might end up chasing business to Uber and other limo services. In fact, it already has. Having customers pick up the charges could have the same effect. Putting, say, a three dollar surcharge for credit card use might stimulate customers to stiff cab drivers on the tip - and so on.

Sounds like food for some more Town Hall Meetings.

Oh yes - I almost forgot. John Lazar inadvertently tipped his hand when he told the supervisors that he took in $1 million worth of credit card charges and paid out $40,000 every month. That = 4%, not 5%.

Sounds like 1% of wiggle room for Hayashi.

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee

I didn't go to the meeting but I did watch much of it on video.

I have to say that I've witnessed few things more absurd, more ludicrous than watching Supervisor David Campos sternly lecturing Hayshi for not doing her job properly after she's negotiated the biggest net pay raise for cab drivers since the taxi unions were busted 35 years ago.

I also found Supervisor David Chiu's assertion that the cab industry should look at the overall business including ways to improve service entertaining. What does he think we've been going for the last two years? I'm one of a couple a dozen drivers and industry people who've devoted at least 300 hours to the task under the leadership of Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi.

This a complicated problem but there have been a few good ideas including Open Taxi Access - a plan that originated from a discussion between Ms. Hayashi and John Wolper of Cabulous. If the SFMTA Board ever gets around to passing the plan, cab service in the neighborhoods will drastically improve and taxi drivers will make more money.

Maybe the Board of Supervisors can urge the SFMTA Board to pass the legislation.

Finally, thanks to Supervisor Mark Farrell for taking Dirty Harry's advice to heart and knowing his limitations. Supervisor Farrell voted not to continue with these meaningless hearings because he doesn't fully understand the issues and the MTA is already dealing with them.

Kudos to Ed Lee

For being the first Major during the 28 years that I've been in the taxi business not to try to pick up easy votes by blindly calling for more cabs. Unlike Supervisor Scott Weiner and his intuitive insights (Does he gaze at his navel? Does he talk to God?), Mayor Lee wants to place questions of cab need and service, etc on a more scientific basis and has put out a bid for experts to do PC&N studies - an idea, naturally, that originated with Deputy Director Chrisiane Hayashi during a Town Hall Meeting a few years ago.

Go Ed! You've got my vote.

On the Hunt with Eric and Charles

2011-10-16T16:33:00.000-07:00

Last Friday night I tagged along again with SFMTA investigators Eric Richholt and Charles Castillo. Instead of busting limos like they did last August, they were after illegal taxis which is more complex.

The investigators can't ticket the vehicles simply because they look like taxicabs. Fake cab drivers have to be caught in the act of picking a customer up before a citation can be handed out.

This means that Charles and Eric do a lot of basic police work like compiling records, checking addresses and looking for patterns. They now have a listing of 25 illegal taxis with vehicle licenses.
They have tracked down locations where the bogus cabs are parked and know where some of the phony cab drivers live. (To read complete posts click on the photos).

Taxi Services will soon have the ability to look up the addresses where the cars are registered which will make the job much easier. In the meantime, the duo spend a lot of time following bandit cabs and staking out places where they know fake taxis are usually parked.

If this seems like mucho work, there is a reward. Thanks to legislation drawn up by Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi, there is an administrative fine of $5,000. So far eight tickets have been given out (although three of those were for driving a legal cab without an A-card). Furthermore, these administrative fines cannot be lowered but in one case a Hearing Officer took pity on the bandit driver and gave him a 24-month payment plan.

Eric and Charles have a goal of wiping out fake taxis in San Francisco. "If there were fifteen illegal cabs in the Mission," Eric said, "and we only got five, we wouldn't be satisfied."

We started out in the Excelsior and Outer Mission checking out known places and hoping that the drivers would take the pseudo cabs out so we could bust them. Below are a few of the illegal cabs that are part of Charles' and Eric's 25.

Eric spotted 712 driving on Mission and we followed hoping that the driver'd pick up a flag but he only went home for a break. We drove back to Mission searching for more illegals.

Eric spent several years policing drug gangs in Oakland. I asked him if that was what made him such a polite person. He gave me a wry smile and said, "No - that was just a lot of fun" in a way that made me think I'd rather have him with me than against me in a fight.

He soon spotted a bandit that they'd been looking for carrying passengers on Mission Street. Eric whipped a wild u-turn that was worth at least two points on a DMV printout (I wanna be a cop in my next life) and followed the fake cab to a house in the Excelsior. We waited a half block away while the driver dropped off a family and drove back onto the street. The hunt was on.

Eric pulled the classic maneuver of passing the bogus taxi and letting it pass us a bit later.

Charles and Eric recognized the driver from a photograph that had been sent to them by a real cab driver. The real driver had confronted the fraud and threatened to call the cops. The guy jumped out of his vehicle, said that he was a cop and expressed his feelings about the threat. Eric now calls him Public Enemy #1.

It's not a good idea, by the way, to confront these guys. Nothing good can come of it. Just get the car's phony name and number, license and phone numbers as well as any photos or videos and send them to Eric at eric.richholt@sfmta.com.

We followed P.E.1 from Ocean and Mission to Valencia and Ceasar Chavez where he lost us at a red light. I think he made us and took evasive maneuvers but Eric didn't agree. Whatever - the dude was gone.

We went downtown, spent a couple of hours without finding much and were about to head home when we turned down Polk and spotted Day Cab parked across from McTeague's.

Charles got out, did his trout fishing thing "can't spook the fish" and flushed the bandit driver out by desperately flagging down full cabs. He used to be an actor and played the role beautifully.

Charles got into the bogus cab, went up Sutter to Gough and had the man pull over. Eric blocked off the car and politely busted him.

The fake cab driver turned off his meter and told Charles to say that he was only being given a ride. Charles stayed in character and just said, "Hey mon, what's happening?"

The man has gone to a great deal of trouble to make his car look like a cab. The meter even works though it starts at under $3 and goes up faster than a regular meter. After just two blocks it read $4.50.

When the word starts getting out about the $5,000 fines, my guess is that a lot of these guys are going to decide against using their cars to pick up a little extra cash.

Once again, Eric's e-mail address is eric.richholt@sfmta.com. Send all the names, license and phone numbers of illegal taxis that you might have his way along with any photos or videos.

Charles and Eric would also like you to call them to report any illegal vehicles you see. During most of the week they work the day shift but they are going to be hunting bandit taxis most Friday or Saturday nights from now on. Eric's cell phone number is 510-867-4694.

What Did the Cabbies Do to Get Themselves Killed?

2011-10-10T10:56:00.000-07:00

The above question was asked by a neatly dressed, educated 25-year old man. I answered the question with a question.

"I don't know - what do women do to get themselves raped?"

The man was "taken aback" by the passion of my response. He mumbled an apology of sorts and said he just wondered what was going on in the driver's lives that led to their being killed.

Was this an oxymoron or just moronic?

Talk about avoiding the obvious. The fact that a taxi driver carries cash, is supposed to pick everybody up no matter how they look, and can be easily taken to places where there are no witnesses (red dots on map) might have something to do with these murders apparently never occurred to the nice, young man.

What was startling was his unstated assumption that cab drivers are somehow different than he is meaning lower class and living in a culture of violence, or possibly violent themselves.

This is a popular theme on T.V. where the killed cab driver often turns out to be an ex-Serbian torturer who was revenged by his victims, or an ex-gang member or involved in a drug ring. More to the point, perhaps, was a Law and Order re-run where the driver was killed because he 86'd a customer for smoking a cigar in his taxi.

A number of assaults on cab drivers, and possibly murders, do start with analogous situations. A driver was recently assaulted and robbed in San Francisco after he tried to collect a hundred dollar "barf fee" from a customer who had thrown up in his taxi. A similar attack took place in Athens Georgia last August.

If you don't mind a personal note, I've had a few customers throw punches in my direction because I said something they didn't want to hear - like, "stop screaming and get out of my cab!" I've also had two customers who threatened to kill me.

My favorite was a guy who said he'd kill me if I didn't make an illegal left turn from the parking lane on Broadway onto Stockton across four lanes of heavy traffic during rush-hour. Claimed he'd be late for work if I didn't do it. I told him that he should start for work earlier and insisted that he leave my taxi. Talk is cheap. All he did was glare and leave.

But cab drivers frequently are attacked. I could have said exactly the same thing to another man and been by shot or savaged. In my opinion, the difference between being assaulted or not is simply a matter of meeting the wrong person at the wrong time as in this January, 2010 robbery of driver Balvinder Singh near the Castro. But, Mr. Singh survived. Many drivers have not been so lucky.

Twenty-seven taxi drivers were killed in San Francisco between 1947 and 2007 according to the Taxi Library that has been complied by Charles Rathbone, assistant manager of Luxor Cab. I've only personally known one driver who was murdered but I have a little information on a few more cab driver killing:

1969 - Paul Stine, 29, was apparently slain by the infamous Zodiac killer at the Upper middle-class intersection of Washington and Cherry for no rational reason.

1984 - Geogre Ring, mid-forties, was murdered at the then tough intersection of Grove and Scott. It appeared to be a botched robbery with about fifty bloody dollars strewn around in the cab.

1986 - Leonard Smith, 46, was apparently the victim of another botched robbery. He was probably shot in the Western addition. He was driving toward an emergency room when he died.

1989 (D. 1993) - John D. Colman, twenties, was a student who was driving a cab to pay for college. He was hit in the back of the head with a blunt object when he answered a radio call in the Ingleside district. He fell into a coma and died four years later.

1992 - Richard Harcos, forties, was killed at a housing project on Blythehdale Avenue. Harcos had carried the groceries of two elderly women to their apartment and was confronted by half a dozen guys when he got back to his taxi. One of them shot him in the face.

1993 - David Hayes, forties, who drove for City Cab in San Francisco was shot in Richmond, California about an hour after he started his shift at midnight.

He was the one murder victim I knew. He was a small Englishman from Liverpool. He played in bands and knew everything there was to know about rock and roll music. For this reason everyone called him "Star." I never heard his real name until after he was killed. He worked the midnight to morning shift so he could do his gigs first. He often drove me home when I finished working. He was one of the funniest and sweetest guys I've ever met. He was a delightful person to be around. There is no possibility that he confronted anybody.

My guess is that he was killed because he only had the twenty dollars in change on him with which he started every shift.

2002 - Sukpal Singh, 52, was shot at 4 am on 24th St. and Folsom by somebody outside the taxicab. Might have been a hate crime. Might have been a stray bullet. Nobody knows for sure.

I could go on but I hope I've answered the question of what these people did to get themselves killed. For more information, check out this memoriam for 2,149 murdered cab drivers compiled by Mr. Rathbone.

Mr. Rathbone has also done considerable research on how to prevent homicides.

It is necessary to be careful but it's also sometime hard to know what that means. The problem is to know when, and when not, to be paranoid. One article about the attack on Balvinder Singh, theorized that the fact that Mr. Singh was "lured" up States Street led to his robbery.

And, it's true that States Street is poorly lit, has "little foot traffic and "only one way in and out." But it's also in an upper middle-class neighborhood and is the fastest, cheapest way to go from the Castro to the Haight. I've driven customers up this street hundreds of times. If I didn't use States Street, I wouldn't be doing my job properly.

I think that the most important factor in a cab robbery or a murder is not where you are but who you are with.

Veteran drivers like myself think that we have a special radar that allows us to see who is, and is not, dangerous. But many of the people on the Taxi Library murdered list had driven cabs for years. The rest of us are just damn lucky.

TAC Votes to Lower Seller's Age to 60

2011-10-06T14:21:00.000-07:00

At the September 26, 2011 meeting, the Taxi Advisory Council voted 10 - 4 to recommend (for whatever it's worth) that the SFMTA Board lower the age for medallion sellers from 70 to 60. The legislation would include a 30-day window for potential sellers to agree to sell their medallions and a later 15-day window to decide not to sell once an eligible buyer has been found.

There were several motivating factors for the vote.

According to Mike Harris of Taxi Services, the SFMTA will have exhausted the list of eligible sellers by mid November.
Many of the original potential sellers had declined to sell because they either wanted to use their medallions for a longer length of time or they thought the price would increase. Many of them have since changed their minds and want to sell but are no longer eligible to do so. It's no accident that Carl Macmurdo of the MHA was one of the people pushing for the vote.
Most medallion holders and owners want the sales portion of the Pilot Program to continue.

There was some opposition.

SFCDA President and TAC member Barry Korengold wanted the age to be lowered to only 65 because he thought that lowering it to 60 would reduce the number of medallions available for drivers on the waiting list.
Councilor Rua Graffis of the UTW said that she wouldn't vote for any legislation helping company owners and medallion holders until ordinary drivers had been given retirement and medical benefits.

Personally, although I don't have a vote, I decided to support the age 60 limit (I'm 66 myself) because of a huge change in demographics over the last few years.

When we were putting the Pilot Plan together, 60 was the original age projected for a seller. It was changed after Taxi Services did a count and found that there were around 600 medallion holders over the age of 60. The people at the Town Hall Meetings reduced the age to 70 primarily because they didn't want to put too many taxis up for sale all at once.

The new figures show that there are now only 168 medallion holders over the age of 60. Selling about 150 medallions a year would be about all the system could handle anyway. Besides, there are only 39 holders between ages 65 and 69 so it didn't seem worth haggling over. Korengold claimed that it would make all taxis transferable in about five years but my arithmetic makes that closer to ten - providing, of course, that no other medallions are made available for the list, which is unlikely.

The reason for the 30 and 15-day time limits is that numerous original would-be sellers backed out on the sales at the last moment - in one case after a buyer had purchased a car. This made things very difficult for both potential buyers and Taxi Services.

It's unclear to me, however, whether or not these time limits set up a situation where, if a medallion holder turns down a chance to sell, he or she would never get a chance again???

A New Idea for Drivers on the Waiting List

The idea has been received with enthusiasm by many drivers.

On the Agenda

For reasons I don't fully understand the next TAC meeting won't be held until Monday, October 24th, 2011. There are two points of special interest on the agenda.

1. People who have an idea for reforming or modifying the Pilot Program will have a chance to explain their thoughts at the meeting. Chair Chris Sweis wants to receive a written copy of the plan in question by Wednesday, Oct. 19th, 2011. His e-mail address is "Chris Sweis" <royaltaxi@sbcglobal.net> The papers should follow the format below:

a. Summary of the proposed industry business model

b. Negative and positive impacts on:

i. Drivers

ii. Permit holders

iii. Cab companies

iv. SFMTA

v. Overall service to the public

c. Transition plan from how we currently operate to the intended model

2. Should the TAC recommend that Taxi Services become a Division within the SFMTA instead of the subdivision that it is now?

This subject was put forth by councilor Bill Minikel (photo) and agreed with by the vast majority of the TAC members. Show up on October 24th to give your input and find out what the recommendation will be.

TAC: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?

2011-09-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most interesting thing that came out of the September 26, 2011 Taxi Advisory Council meeting was the fact that nobody knows why a dozen or so recommendations made by the TAC have not been acted upon by the SFMTA Board.

Chair Chris Sweis (photo) originally thought that the council would report directly to the Board of Directors and that the TAC was analogous to the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC). What Sweis now understands is that "our recommendations go through staff first and then staff presents to the board."

In any case, TAC is an advisory council and the Board is not bound by the recommendations. The Directors can decide to accept or reject the suggestions, or send them back to staff to be modified.

So far, however, the only recommendation that has been discussed or acted upon by the Board was the recent meter increase.

Sweis says that all the other the recommendations are "in the hands of Sonali Bose," the Chief Financial Officer of the SFMTA and the person to whom staff at Taxi Services reports. But what Ms. Bose intends to do with them is a continuing mystery.

At the TAC, Sweis said that he didn't know why everybody should be wasting their time coming to the meetings if their advice isn't even going to be discussed or acknowledged much less put into effect.

The Chair has sent an e-mail inquiry to the SFMTA Board asking for clarification but so far hasn't received a response.

Tariq: Or, "It's True If I Say It's True."

2011-09-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

There were 170 hours of Town Hall Meetings leading up to the creation of the Pilot Plan in April 2009.

Tariq Mehmood showed up at around the 160th hour, after the plan was more or less in place. Claiming that 90% of the drivers were behind him, Mehmood declared that the taxis should all be sold at auctions.

This was similar to they way he behaved at the airport meetings in December 2010 where the record shows that he said,

"Each driver of the taxis industry knows me personally... 6,000 drivers are known to me but they cut me out. I had to push myself into it. As regard to the people, the 6,000 drivers, 18,000 family members has come to you to beg you."

Tariq rarely mentions the merits of an idea. In fact, he appears to be incapable of arguing rationally. Instead, he takes a position then claims that he has 90% of the drivers or 6,000 or 18,000 people behind him. He once told me that my thoughts didn't matter because I only spoke for myself.

Mostly what he did in 2010 at SFO and at the 2009 Town Hall meetings was try to take over and gum up the works.

Selling medallions at auctions was a position that had already been discussed and dismissed before Tariq showed up at the Town Hall meetings because it would penalize both drivers on the waiting list and those with A-card seniority.

He gave two memorable speeches at the Town Halls.

In the first, he said that he was fighting, not for himself, but for other drivers. He, Tariq Mehmood, didn't even want to be a medallion owner and had never put his name on the list.

In the second, he took credit for the medallion sales pilot program and praised Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi for her role in helping negotiating it.

At the last Town Hall meeting, Hayashi informed us that she had closed the Waiting List in order to preserve A-Card seniority for the purpose of future medallion distribution, which is a key element of the Pilot Program.

Mahmood started screaming at her that she shouldn't have closed the list without warning him. He hasn't stopped shouting at her since.

He was not arguing that she shouldn't have closed the list at all, mind you, only that she shouldn't have closed it before Tariq Mehmood - the man who'd claimed a week ealier that he didn't want to own a medallion - had had a chance to put his own name on that list so he could buy a medallion.

Flexible Reality.

The "truth" for Mehmood appears to be whatever he says it is at any particular moment.

This truth was borne home to me at the August 8, 2011 TAC meeting that resulted in recommendations to curb illegal brokering that were passed by the Council by a vote of 14 to 1.

Contrary to everyone else who spoke at the meeting, Tariq declared that brokering was a minor problem and shouldn't even be discussed.

My inside sources tell me that the practice includes from 200 to 500 cabs and involves millions of dollars a year.

Why would Tariq Mehmood, who lives in the milieu where the brokering takes place, deny that it exists?

A Man Who Lives to Hate.

"Tariq reminds me of the character in (James) Joyce who lives just to hate," a driver who'd known Mehmood for years told me.

The quote seems apt.

Hayashi isn't the first person that Tariq has trashed. Instead of arguing a position, he makes personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with him. At various times, this has included Mark Gruberg, Brad Newsham, Christopher Fulkerson, members of the Airport Commission, Sonali Bose and Tone Lee.

Mehmood and his disciples have sent dozens of attack e-mails my way. The one below is my favorite. It was supposed to have been sent by one of his goons but he can't hide his unique style from me.

"Bullshit and lies. That's what you are doing. Are you defending your girlfriend. Wait till she get fired. The die is casted. Murai did not defend her. I found Tariq the most powerful and great leader this industry has ever seen."

Mehmood, of course, has made a special project out of hating Deputy Director Hayashi and has spent over a year and a half going around trying to get her fired. At this point he probably can't even stop. He's boasted so often that he'd be able to get rid of her that he'd lose face with his followers if he failed to do so.

The 2011 Town Hall Meetings.

His animosity reached it's height during the these meetings when he showed up at every one of the three two-a-day sessions to harass and verbally attack Deputy Director Hayashi for long periods of time.

The Town Hall meetings are intended to be democratic with people being able to speak without time limits as long as they are reasonable and stay on the subject.

Tariq Mehmood, who has accused other people of being communists, actually borrowed an old trick that communists used to take over unions in the 1930's. He undermined the democratic process by bringing an entourage of 6 to 12 people with him for every meeting. Thus, he had a built in majority for almost every vote and, even when he didn't, he claimed he did. In one case, he went out into the atrium next door with 9 of his disciples and returned to claim that all 7,000 drivers were behind him.

Mehmood rarely stayed on point, constantly interrupted other drivers, monopolized the floor, repeated himself ad nauseam, and, incredibly, complained that he was not being given a fair chance to talk. His preposterous behavior would have been entertaining if he wasn't so vicious.

When he sat down, one of his disciples would usually take over to either express the same viewpoints or harass the Deputy Director. His acolytes repeatedly told Hayashi that if she did what Tariq wanted they would make her popular and successful among all the people of San Francisco, but, if she went against the great Mehmood's wishes, she would suffer the consequences of his wrath.

Hayashi responded saying, "it"s not my job to be popular."

In the end, the only thing that drivers not in Tariq's entourage agreed with Mehmood on was that they didn't like back-seat terminals. His insistence that the meter should be increased 40% was thought ridiculous and most drivers liked Hayashi's compromise plan on electronic waybills that would allow the MTA to gather statistical information without taking individual driver information.

Medallion Financial

Mehmood has repeatedly attacked Hayashi for conspiring with Hansu Kim of Desoto cab and Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union (SFFCU), to cheat San Francisco cab drivers by keeping a loan company "so big it's on the Stock Market" out of The City. These verbal assaults included a 40 minute diatribe carefully transcribed by Julie Rosenberg (photo) of the MTA during the Town Hall meetings.

Talk about Doublethink!

Setting up driver loans though SFFCU is actually one of Hayashi's finer accomplishments and the terms the drivers are getting are far better than many people expected when the Pilot Plan was drawn up. If anybody is colluding with anybody it's Tariq Mehmood and Medallion Financial of New York.

Tariq's "Evidence" for a Conspiracy.

Hansu Kim introduced Christiane Hayashi to Rebecca Lytle.

That's it, folks! That's the alleged evidence. That's all there is. Nada mas.

In short, Mehmood's accusations are pure slander.

Some Facts.

A taxi cab medallion hadn't been sold in San Francisco for over 30 years when the Pilot Plan was put together and many people, including Mark Gruberg of the UTW, thought that nobody would loan money to a cab driver.

Deputy Director Hayashi did indeed have trouble finding anyone willing to risk money on such a loan. At one point, she invited more than 35 banks and credit unions to a meeting to discuss medallion loans and only four loan officers showed up. Three of them left before Hayashi's presentation was over and the other guy never came back.

Even the San Francisco Federal Credit Union declined to participate because this was an untested loan program.

San Francisco Federal and Montauk Credit Unions.

Some time after the above meeting, Hayashi was contacted by the Montauk Credit Union of New York (with a lot of experience making loans to cab drivers), which got the ball rolling. Then, Rebecca Lytle became Vice President of Lending at the SF Federal Credit union and became interested in the Pilot Program. Lytle worked with the Montauk Credit Union and convinced her superiors at her credit union to rethink their opposition.

The result is the Pilot Plan Sales Program that is tailored to San Francisco's unique situation.

Two things that both Hayashi and the drivers who helped draft the Pilot Plan insisted on were: (1) there be no prepayment or other hidden fees and (2) that the loan payments be no larger than the monthly amount that a taxi company pays a "gates and gas" medallion holder.

Both of these conditions have been met by Montauk and SFFCU. The program has been going on for a little over a year and about 150 cab drivers have received loans. So far, no cab driver has been turned down for a loan nor has defaulted on one. In fact, no driver has even missed a payment.

Ms. Lytle says,

"We’ve moved our rates down twice now because of movement downward in the interest rate markets and because we’ve gained a little more knowledge about the borrowers ..."

For a look at the San Francisco Federal Credit Union's current rates click here.

So, are San Francisco's taxi drivers being cheated by Christiane, Rebecca and Hansu?

A good way to answer that question might be to compare SFFCU's rates with the rates of Tariq Mehmood's favorite loan company.

Medallion Financial of New York.

The problem is that - unlike SFFCU or Bank of America or Chase or Wells Fargo or any credit union that I checked - Medallion Financial does not publish its loan rates.

Why? It's one those questions that answers itself. If their rates were lower than the competition they'd certainly want you to know about it, wouldn't they?

And, they also hit their taxi customers with prepayment penalties. This means that, if a driver tries to pay off his or her loan early, Medallion Financial (from what I understand) hits them with penalties equaling three months of payments for every prepayment. Grotesque but apparently true. There are stories of cab drivers who've paid on their loans for years only to discover that they owed Medallion Financial more money than they had borrowed in the first place.

And, Tariq Mehmood has accused Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi of not letting this company do business in San Francisco. Can you imagine that?

But, like so much that Mehmood says, it's simply not true.

The Deputy Director will allow any loan company that meets her criteria to do business here. Medallion Financial did inquire about making taxi medallion loans locally and Hayashi sent them her guidelines (i.e. No prepayment penalties or other hidden fees, payments be no larger than the monthly amount that a taxi company pays a "gates and gas" medallion holder.)

The New York taxicab lender never got back to her.

So Why Does Tariq Mehmood Keep Trying to Bring Medallion Financial into San Francisco?

That's another question that answers itself, isn't it?

A driver who had allied herself with Mehmood during the first few summer protests changed her mind after watching Tariq spend 3 or 4 hours a night at the airport trying to sell drivers on Medallion Financial.

"He'd tell them not to worry about the prepayment penalties because nobody paid off their loans early," she said.

"I mean, it's so obvious that all Tariq cares about is money."

Tariq Mehmood, the self-proclaimed powerful and great leader of the taxicab drivers, has himself declared that he has no connection with Medallion Financial of New York.

Taxi Robber Arrested

2011-09-17T11:03:00.000-07:00

I'm passing along a note from Green Cab driver Dave Schneider.

FROM THE SFMTA

We are pleased to announce that an arrest has been made in the recent string of Taxi Cab Robberies. If you have posted any photos, please take them down. Thank you.

SFMTA | Division of Taxis & Accessible Services
1 South Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103-5417
Tel: 415.701.4400 | Fax: 415.

Dave, who belongs to the United Taxicab Workers (UTW), deserves special thanks for waging a lonely battle trying to improve communication on robberies between the police and cab drivers. His efforts have included speaking at innumerable Police Commission hearings and SFMTA Board meetings as well as talking to the policemen in charge and Taxi Services. The fact that photos of robbers are being passed around and posted (although not soon enough by me) is due at least partly to Dave's efforts.

Thanks Dave.

TAC 9-12-11: Or, What Happened to Civility?

2011-09-14T12:36:00.000-07:00

Barry Korengold (photo) of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association (SFCDA) had the dual and unenviable task of both chairing the meeting and explaining his proposal for modifying the Pilot Plan called, Limited Driving Requirement. Since John Han has already done a good job of covering Korengold's plan and other aspects of the meeting Taxi TownSF, all that's left to me to do is editorialize.

However, one idea that Han did not emphasize enough was that the reason for the MTA not to sell medallions outright was that "each one deprives a career working cabdriver from obtaining their medallion..." Indeed, the thrust of the proposal is to help the drivers at the top of Waiting List get their "earned" medallions and to keep the List going into the future. Korengold's plan could work, if you wanted it to work, and aspects of it were actually part of the Pilot Plan prior to the final cut.

Therefore, the behavior of TAC's Owners and Managers block toward Korengold's proposal was rude and inappropriate. This ranged from the patronizing sarcasm ("I can see that you've worked very hard on this but ...") of the Medallion Holders Association's (MHA) Carl Macmurdo to the open hostility of Athan Rebelos of Desoto Cab, Dan Hinds of National Cab and John Lazar of Luxor Cab.

On top of this, Rebelos appears to have borrowed a page from Tariq Mehmood and packed the TAC with a group of eight or ten drivers.

But, gosh, am I slandering Athan? Of course they could have all spontaneously showed up. The fact that they were all young, all on The List, all worked for Desoto, were all attending their first meeting and all wanted open transferability doesn't necessarily mean a thing.

They all were also ignorant. One speaker after another said he was in favor of the "Pilot Plan" when what they really wanted was to end the part of the plan that "gives" medallions to drivers on the basis of their position on the Waiting List.

One of them said a couple of amazing things.

He appeared to be about 40, said that he'd been on the List for 13 years and couldn't see any difference between his situation and that of Councilor Bill Mounsey who's been on the List for 15 years but is 65 years old. They could both buy couldn't they?

The Desoto driver also said that he was number 2004 on the Waiting List but 97 on the Buyer's List. Struck by the disparity of the figures, Korengold tried to find out where the driver got those numbers (which seemed to annoy some people) but he didn't get a satisfactory answer.

At any rate, the driver clearly hadn't thought his position through. If the MTA stops giving away "earned" medallions, the Waiting List and the Buyer's List would become one and the same and he'd have 2003 buyers in front of him. The best outcome for him would be a continuation of things as they are.

The main person in the room actually defending the Pilot Plan was Barry Korengold. He's also one of the few people on the TAC who's interested in doing anything other than feeding his own face. From a personal standpoint, the best outcome for Korengold would be an open auction with no age limit. Instead, he remembers his roots and is trying to do something for people who are in the same situation as he was in a few years ago. Whether you like his ideas or not, he deserved a hell of a lot more respect than he was shown at the TAC meeting Monday.

Some people told me that they thought Korengold shouldn't have chaired a meeting where he was presenting a proposal. He would probably agree but he didn't have a choice. Chris Sweis, the usual chair, couldn't be there. Some people thought that Korengold got a little angry but he was dealing with a lot of hostility and probably did better than I would have under the same circumstances. Some people thought Barry talked too much but he'd been waiting a year to speak and look at who's complaining:

Dan Hinds and Carl Macmurdo who took up three whole meetings forcing a vote on a subject that wasn't even on the agenda. And, Athan Rebelos and John Lazar who voted to make themselves and their children eligible for medallions without having to follow the same rules as a working taxi driver.

Lazar's sidekick, Charles Rathbone (photo), topped them all by rudely shouting out that Korengold had already spoken 30 times - A ridiculous and asinine accusation since he was both chairing the meeting and explaining his proposal. As Korengold pointed out, Rathbone shouldn't have been speaking at all. It wasn't during public comment and he isn't even on the council - for good reason. The only person Rathbone represents is his master.

But I digress ...

Dan Hinds tried to force a vote on Korengold's proposal but Barry said that he was only trying to open up a discussion. Indeed, I think he's the only member of the TAC to even address the problems of the people on the Waiting List or the Driver's Fund.

The Owners and Managers Block, on the other hand, doesn't see a problem. Hinds and Macmurdo, both of whom got their own medallions by waiting on the List, along with Lazar and company want to stop the MTA from giving out any more "earned" medallions to working drivers and make everybody buyers.

I ended my first post on the Taxi Advisory Council by writing,

"Given the make-up of the council, it would behoove drivers on the Waiting List and ordinary drivers to attend. It's a good idea anyway."

I would add a note of urgency. If you guys don't start showing up at the TAC and MTA Board meetings, nobody's going to know you exist.

And, if anybody has any ideas or proposals about the Waiting List, the Driver's Fund, driver retirement, medical insurance or any other subject relating to the Pilot Plan you should send them to Chair Chris Sweis before the next TAC meeting on Monday the 26th.

Ed Reiskin Takes the Reins

2011-09-07T09:57:00.000-07:00

Ed Reiskin (pronounced Riskin) made his first appearance as Director of Transportation at the SFMTA Board meeting on Tuesday September 6, 2011.

He seems an affable, competent individual with a good sense of humor. He spoke well of some the projects completed by Transportation and gave awards to a few MTA employees.

During comment on the Director's Report, taxi driver Christopher Fulkerson asked why such awards were never given to cab drivers. To his apparent surprise, Board President Tom Nolan agreed with Fulkerson and said that he had been thinking along the same lines and that the MTA would see about putting out such awards in the near future.

A Push For A Division

Numerous people during Public Comment expressed a desire to see Taxi Services returned to it's former status as a Division with current Deputy Directory Christiane Hayashi as full Director. Among those speaking in favor of this position were drivers Victoria Landsdown, Paul Harting, Brad Newsham, Christopher Fulkerson, Mark Gruberg, Barry Korengold, myself and others.

Cab industry people, who wanted to speak in favor of Hayashi and a Division but couldn't make the meeting, included Ruach Graffis, Hansu Kim, Francios Spiegleman, Athan Rebelos, Dave Schneider and Murai.

Making a Mountain out of a Mogul

Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab spoke about a "loophole" (below - colored red) in a clause of the August 2nd resolution to put 87 more cabs on the street which goes like this,

"A single operator can use any model of hybrid, CNG or electric vehicle that is already being used as a San Francisco taxi, with the exception that if a vehicle costs more than $25,000 other fuel choices may be authorized depending on other vehicle performance factors such as passenger capacity, accessibility and/or fuel efficiency."

Charles made the point that most taxis now cost more than $25,000 and thought that this could open the door for "all 1,500 cabs" to once again becoming gas vehicles.

Paul Gillespie, the former head of the Taxi Commission, who is rightly credited with starting the move toward a green taxi fleet was very concerned about the "big loophole" which he saw as potentially undoing all his work. Mark Gruberg also expressed his concern about the issue.

I called up Charles this morning and asked him if he had talked to Deputy Director Hayashi. This seemed like a reasonable question since Hayashi had written the alleged "loophole."

Charles responded with a definitive "no" so strong that he sounded hostile to my query. I then asked him why he thought Hayashi had written the "loophole." He said that he wouldn't say but that I should figure it out for myself.

I'm not good at figuring out my own motives much less somebody else's so I did the unthinkable and actually called Christiane Hayashi to ask her about the resolution. She said:

1. That the exception was for Ramp taxis where there isn't a good low-emission vehicle or vehicles like the Volt that get good gas mileage even though they aren't hybrids.
2. Except for the Ramps, this would only apply to the 50 Single Operator Permits. She said that one such driver wanted a vehicle like the Ford Flex that would carry 6 or 7 people and that such vehicles would be rarely used in any case because they are so expensive.
3. Hayashi hasn't bought a car lately and thought that almost all taxis sold for less than $25,000.

"I guess I can change the numbers," she told me, "but it'll have to go through the Board again."

Which is Another Reason Why We Need a Division

All that Rathbone, Gillespie or Gruberg had to do was call Hayashi up and she no doubt would have changed the wording of the loophole to anything that was mutually agreeable. She could have presented the change to the MTA Board yesterday and the problem would already be solved.

Instead Gillespie and Rathbone followed the path set down by former Director Nat Ford of going behind Hayshi's back or over her head but never talking to her - the only person who could understand the resolution - directly.

As it is, as I understand it - members of the Board (i.e. Director Heinicke) will talk to Sonali Bose who will talk to Hayashi who will talk to Sonali Bose who will communicate with Reiskin who will communicate with the Board who will communicate with Sonali Bose who will talk to Hayashi who will re-write the resolution and show it to Sonali Bose who will ...

Do you think this is what the Chinese had in mind when they invented Bureaucracy?

Tariq - Or Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

2011-09-02T13:54:00.000-07:00

Note the irony. Tariq Mehmood, who proclaims himself to be the "powerful and great leader of the drivers" siding with Yellow Cab in trying to remove Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi.

Of course Yellow, Luxor, Town and Checker, not the drivers, would be the major winners of a successful Hayashi coup .

There are several reasons for this.

These cab companies coerce their drivers to tip and Hayashi has made this practice a $5,000 misdemeanor. She recently started busting limos. Enforced tipping and other illegal company activities are also on her hit list.
The recent meter increase did not include a gate increase. The companies, especially Luxor, blame Hayashi who drafted the legislation.
Hayashi helped create and has promoted Open Taxi Access (OTA) which Luxor and Yellow hate.
Yellow and Luxor want 500 taxis to go to them - now. Hayashi doesn't want to put cabs out without public hearings.
John Lazar of Luxor wants himself and his two sons to be given medallions without following the rules. Hayashi thinks medallions should only be given to working cab drivers.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that Yellow and Luxor are used to running the taxicab industry through backdoor politics and Hayashi has created a culture of transparency through her Town Hall Meetings. For the first time, medallion holders and regular taxi drivers (not just the owners) have a say in how their business works.

So, why is Tariq Mehmood, "the driver's advocate," lining himself up with guys like these?

Well, fact is - he's done it before. Awhile back, when Yellow Cab was trying to force their drivers to pay $2,000 or $3,000 in gates a month in advance, Tariq attacked the UTW which was fighting to stop the pre-payments. Mehmood later backed legislation at the Board of Supervisors raising gates and ratifying gate overcharges. This did Yellow a tremendous service.

Why he did this? I can't say.

Busting Limos

2011-08-31T16:35:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday morning August 30th, I rode along with Taxi Services Investigators Eric Richholt and Charles Castillo as they went hunting for limos engaging in illegal activities. Their main focus was on moving limos out of the white zones around hotels by giving them $90 tickets for parking longer than 10 minutes.

Eric is German American and Charles is from New Mexico and of mixed Mexican and Isleta Pueblo heritage. I mention this contrast because it helps them work well together. Charles has his hair braided down his back to his waist and wears a black leather jacket. He looks more like a drug pusher than a cop. Eric, on the other hand, wears an MTA jacket with his badge on the front.

"We're like Yin and Yang," Charles told me. "Nobody could figure us hanging out but we work great together."

What they want to do is give the tickets to the limo drivers before they have a chance to take off. The usual M.O is for Charles to scope out the limos and write down the information then give it to Eric who makes the bust.

"I do my Pueblo Indian thing," Charles says, "You don't want to spook the deer ... you don't want to spook the fish..." And, indeed, he did his job without the limo drivers ever noticing that they were targets.

Charles and Eric start out most days by checking out the Park 55 and moving on to the Hilton, the Nikko, the Westin and Union Square. On Tuesday, we ended up at the Grand Hyatt.

They gave out a couple of tickets at the Park 55 and the Mason Street side of the Hilton. Then, they pulled a double on the Taylor Street side of the Monaco Hotel.

On the far right side of the frame you can see the Monaco's doorman trying to gesture to a limo driver to leave before Charles (behind the doorman) can give him a ticket. The driver understood the gesture too late and got nailed.

Of course the limo drivers and the doormen collude with each other. Giving out a few tickets has a reverberating effect when the drivers and the doormen begin calling each other and their friends. Tuesday's ticketing turned out great for the cab drivers in front of the Nikko, four of whom were given airports that probably would've gone to limos a month ago.

"All these white zones used to be lined with limos before we started handing out citations," Eric said, "One driver told me that he hadn't had an airport out of a certain hotel in five years. Now almost all the white zones are open" so cab drivers are getting better loads.

Eric ticketed a limo in front of the Clift (See lead photo.) The driver didn't like this very much and argued that the hotel had told him that he could park there.

Eric politely told the limo driver that parking in a white zone was illegal.

The doorman of the Clift (looking in the window of a Yellow Cab) gave the taxi driver an airport while the limo driver yelled expletives after Eric.

I was impressed by the professionalism of both Charles and Eric as they dealt calmly and politely with sometimes angry limo drivers.

Cab drivers, on the other hand, were applauding or shouting words of encouragement to the duo. "The real satisfaction of the job," Eric said, "is getting thanked by the taxi drivers."

Charles added that both he and Eric come from working class families so they can relate to the problems that drivers have earning a living and putting food on the table. He said that they, "want to help out and go to bat" for the drivers "to help make a level playing field."

We ended up in the parking garage across from the Grand Hyatt spying on the infamous "Big Mike" who is reputed to be the greediest and most arrogant doorman in the city. We watched as Big Mike talked with a limo driver and then pocketed a bill (below) as he walked away.

The limo drove into an alley where the vehicles usually wait until Big Mike signals them. This, by the way, is a tribute to the work of Charles and Eric who have chased the limos off the white zones and forced the doormen into backdoor deals. The usual scenario now, according to Eric, is for Big Mike to give a hand sign to a limo driver if there is an airport and then limo comes around the block to pick it up. But, if there is a short, Big Mike blows his whistle for a taxi.

One consequence of this, Eric told me, is that many cab drivers don't stop when Big Mike whistles because they know the ride has to be a short.

On this day, however, Big Mike has heard about us on the grapevine and knows he's being watched. For a change, he blows his whistle for taxis to pick up the airport rides. There are no limos around.

All in all, I saw about 15 airports being picked up by beaming and delighted cabdrivers during our short tour of the hotels.

Charles and Eric have only been ticketing for five weeks but they've already had a huge effect on the business. So far they've given out 28 white zone violations including the seven they handed out during their time with me. They have also given out three of the $5,000 citations that Chris Hayashi drew up the legislation for and these tickets all were given to people without A-cards driving Long Term leases.

This is a good start but problems remain. For one thing, Eric is fairly sure that hotel managers are getting kickbacks from the doormen. The hotels have been notified that accepting tips from limo and taxi drivers is now criminal conduct but there is a lot of money involved and, just like with tipping at cab company windows, the laws are hard to enforce.

Another problem is that limos are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Taxi Services has no control over them except for where they park. Citations for illegal limos can only be given by the PUC or the police. Fortunately, Charles and Eric have recently contacted the PUC's investigative arm and they have been very co-operative. A PUC investigator has begun working with Taxi Services and has photographed and cited several illegal limousines. The police department apparently has also set up stings for limos playing flags.

The final problem is that the District Attorney's office so far has been reluctant to prosecute. Apparently, they see this as a lot of work for very little gain. Eric and Charles are hoping to show multiple and repeated offenses that the District Attorney would find worth pursuing.

At least progress is being made and we are seeing the signs already.

Charles wanted me emphasize the "appreciation and respect" that he and Eric feel for Deputy Director Chris Hayashi's "leadership, courage and vision" and say that this "motivates them to do better" work.

In fact, Hayashi created the Taxi Investigator civil service classification; recruited, hired and trained the Investigators; got authority from the Board of Supervisors to tow, write parking tickets and create a new misdemeanor against doormen; got permission from the SFMTA Board of Directors for adjustments to penalties; and took numerous other steps before Charles and Eric could hit the streets.

All in all, Hayashi worked for two years to make these busts happen. She's now hoping to get a few more investigators soon - which would become a much easier and faster task if she became the Director of the Taxi Services Division of the SFMTA.

Eric and Charles

We Need A Division

2011-08-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

One of the first things that I think new Executive Director Ed Reiskin should do for the cab industry is return Taxi Services back to a full Division.

In 1998 the voters passed Proposition D which elevated the taxi industry to an independent Commission [http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November3_1998short.pdf]

According to the voter guide, the reason for doing so was to create a dedicated group of knowledgable stakeholders and a forum where all elements of the industry, especially drivers, would have a voice. For all its faults, for ten years the Taxi Commission provided this oversight by mostly people who knew and understood the business.

When the Taxi Commission came to the SFMTA in March 2009, the position of Executive Director of the Taxi Commission, which reported directly to the Mayor, became a Director of the Division of Taxis and Accessible Services, combining the former Taxi Commission staff with the staff of Accessible Services, which works with the taxi industry through the Paratransit program. The Director of Taxis and Accessible Services Christiane Hayashi reported directly to Executive Director Nathaniel Ford.

I can’t pretend to get inside the mind (nor would I want to) of Nat Ford, so I can only speculate on the reason why he demoted Taxi Services, but it appears that he was punishing Hayashi for doing the job that she was hired to do - help the taxi business reform itself. Although Ford spoke large about wanting input from people in the taxi industry, it was always clear that what he really wanted was to implement the agenda of Mayor Newsom and his man on the MTA Board, Malcolm Heinicke, on a plan to rape the taxi industry.

We were told that we could make suggestions or tweak the plan but, in one form or another, that it was to be the future. We tweaked it all right. We ripped it to shreds and blew it to bits. After two or three Town Hall meetings, Ford relented and allowed Hayashi to get input from taxicab people again and we came up with a plan that everyone could live with.

These Town Hall Meetings created a culture of transparency, openness and respect where everyone within the taxi industry was allowed to express and develop their ideas on how the taxi business should be improved. This led to a consensus that resulted in the Pilot Plan which was put together primarily by cab drivers and is a model of how an industry can come together to reform itself.

Hayashi tried to institutionalize the openness and transparency of the Town Hall Meetings by setting up a Taxi Advisory Council (TAC) where taxi issues could be discussed and voted on with the results given in the form of advice to the MTA Board. She also started to set a up processes whereby questions like “should there be a meter increase?” or “should we put more cabs on the street?” could be rationally studied and answered by experts with some degree of scientific method.

Nonetheless, the demotion of Taxi Services has caused confusion in leadership that has led to an undermining of Deputy Director Hayashi's authority. Taxi Services sometimes has been under the wing of Debra Johnson in the "Administration" division of the SFMTA (along with Human Resources, Equal Opportunity Contracting, Marketing and Customer Service et al) and sometimes under the "Finance Division" headed by Sonali Bose. These are two talented and intelligent women who lack the knowledge to make informed decisions about the taxicab business but still are making them.

This situation has led to various people going around Hayashi to knock on as many backdoors as they can find. Although both Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab and John Lazar of Luxor Cab belong to the TAC, they were the first to breach the sense of community practiced in the Town Hall and council meetings.

The two taxicab presidents set (I think) a precedent by going around TAC and Deputy Director Hayashi to take their case directly to individual SFMTA Board members and her supervisors, Nat Ford, Sonali Bose and Debra Johnson. They also knocked on as many City Hall back doors as they could find. In July the Big Three (Yellow Luxor and DeSoto) met with the Mayor, Supervisor Weiner, members of the SFMTA Board and Nat Ford. Lazar and Gillespie used the opportunity to insist that 500 new taxi medallions be issued immediately without any supply and demand studies.

Now that the path above and behind Hayashi to her bosses, the Mayor and the Supervisors is well-worn by taxi companies, other individuals who claim to represent all drivers are pushing for agreements to be made that are in their own personal financial and political interests. Decisions, indeed, are seemingly being made by everyone except Hayashi based on these back room meetings.

The result has been a chaotic process that adds to the anxiety of all concerned. After Tariq Mehmood and his followers stormed the SFMTA Board meeting in April to protest against credit card fees, decisions made by Executive Director Ford further undermined Hayashi’s position and, I believe, led to an intensification of the protests. Despite the fact that cab drivers have protested credit card charges in every city where they have been forced pay these fees, Ford and the Board acted as if Hayashi was personally responsible for all the noise.

The MTA's panic reaction resulted in a series of Town Hall Meetings to revisit all credit card policies - not a bad thing in itself. However, instead of leaving the Deputy Director in control as she had been in the past, Ford assigned two people to observe and take notes on the meeting. Ostensibly there to make certain that everyone’s ideas were noted, Mehmood understood this to mean that Hayashi no longer had the trust of the agency and acted accordingly.

Tariq tried to take over every meeting he attended and loudly insulted Hayashi with a series of personal attacks and character assassinations. At one point, when Mehmood was making criminal accusations against another member of the taxi industry who was not there to defend himself, Hayashi in desperation asked the notetaker to act as referree hoping that the notetaker would also instruct Mehmood to stop such personal attacks. Instead the notetaker apologized to Mehmood for Hayashi, saying that it had been a long day and everyone was tired and grumpy. Tariq continued to insult Hayashi with a deranged, incomprehensible conspiracy theory for another thirty minutes while the notetaker took careful notes. Thus, one of the low points in my experience of Western Civilization.

I could go on into greater detail but I’ll simply summarize.

The politics of community, rational compromise and mutual respect that Hayashi helped initiate and foster has been almost totally undermined. It’s been replaced by a culture of secret soirées and argument by intimidation. Cab drivers don't believe much in transparency any longer because there isn’t much to be found. Any person who doesn’t like a decision by TAC or Hayashi immediately goes knocking on back doors and finds most of them open. SFMTA Board meetings are now devoted almost entirely to cab driver’s angst and Tariq Mehmood, who is considered to be a crackpot by most taxi people, has apparently got the SFMTA running around marching in step to his screwball demands.

There is a simple solution to all of this. Turn Taxi Services back into a Division and put Director Christiane Hayashi back in charge. She is by far the most knowledgeable and creative person in the cab business and, noise and insults aside, she has the support of the vast majority of San Francisco’s taxi people.

SFMTA Board Okays Meter Increase and 87 New Taxis

2011-08-03T09:37:00.000-07:00

The threatened honkathon was a non-event yesterday.

Tariq Mehmood claimed that he called off his taxi strike to give the SFMTA to make changes he liked. But, I think he was really reading the same tea leaves I was. I had lunch in the plaza across from City Hall at 12:30 P.M and, in the half hour I sat eating, only 3 cabs came by looking for a protest.

But on to the business that was.

1. The Meter Increase

The topic for a vote by the SFMTA Board was actually whether or not to increase the flag drop by 40 cents to $3.50. The MTA had already okayed a meter increase of 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 10 cents per minute of waiting time.

The measure was a slam dunk. Not only did the board pass it with a unanimous voice vote but hardly anyone spoke against it. A few people expressed fears that the raise would lose business and others asked for cost of living reviews every couple of years but that was it.

The raise of both the meter and the drop will equal about a 24% increase in the cost of a fare.

2. The second vote was on whether not to put out 50 new Single Operator part-time medallion permits, 25 new medallions to drivers on the List, 2 temporary electric vehicles and to sell 10 new medallions to drivers on the list.

The measure passed 6 to 1, but the ideas of the MTA selling medallions and leasing the Single Operator Permits proved controversial.

Mark Gruberg and Barry Korengold both attacked the idea of the SFMTA setting a precedent by selling medallions saying that the organization had a conflict of interest. Possibly - but neither of these speakers addressed the fact that the 10 new medallion would be part of the 60 medallions that the Pilot Plan allows the MTA sell - more than 20 of which have already been sold.

The 50 Single Operator Permits, on the other, took a lot of flak.

Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union and Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim both experssed fears that allowing the MTA to lease taxis would undermine the value of taxicabs as well as lead to a future takeover of the taxicab business by the MTA.
Desoto manager Athan Rebelos thought that the idea of the permits was not sound from a business standpoint.
Medallion holder Christopher Fulkerson expressed fears that the drivers of these vehicles would lose money.

The most entertaining objections, however, were put forth by John Lazar of Luxor Cab and Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab.

First, they tried to delay the measure by claiming a legal technicality that the MTA's attorney noted but thought unimportant.

Then, the owners claimed that they hadn't had time to study the plan for Single Operators and said that the permits should not be put out without PC and N hearings. Gillespie also claimed that the subject hadn't been discussed at Town Hall or TAC meetings.

Tara Housman, John Han and I all pointed out that the measure had been debated at several Town Hall meetings in addition to being debated, voted on and passed by the Taxi Advisory Council, of which Gillespie is a member.

The idea of Lazar and Gillespie asking for PC and N hearing is comic. This dynamic duo has spent much of the last year knocking on back-doors trying to get 500 cabs put on the street WITHOUT PC and N hearings.

President Nolan of the MTA Board said that both PC and N hearing and cost of living meter increases should be done on a regular basis.

John Han (photo) was praised by members of the board for his efforts to make the Single Operator Permits a reality.

Will There Be A ...

2011-08-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

A while back, Tariq Mehmood announced a 24 hours strike on August 2nd, but the winds of revolt may have died down. I don't keep up with Mehmood's decrees but, last I heard, the self-proclaimed "powerful and great leader" was thinking about pulling back to the usual ho-hum honkathon at City Hall.

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I think other protest leaders have decided to either follow suit or not protest at all. And, indeed, why should they? The MTA has already compromised or agreed to compromise on most of the driver's concerns.

Plus, it doesn't made a lot of sense to protest on a day when San Francisco's cab drivers almost certainly will be given a 20% raise.

The raise is one of two taxi items on the agenda for the SFMTA Board meeting on Tuesday.

1. A Meter Increase

of 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 10 cents for every minute of waiting time, which was worked out by drivers at Town Hall meetings, has already been approved by the board.

In addition the board will discuss adding 40 cents to the flag drop thus raising the drop to $3.50.

That there is to be no discussion of a gate increase at this meeting is a good sign for the drivers. Hopefully, this means that the board has wisely decided that there should be no gate increase for the foreseeable future. If so, drivers will get a 20% raise even if credit card fees continue to be passed on by the companies.

2. The Issuance of New Medallions

The plan on the agenda calls for:

50 new single operator part-time taxi permits.
25 new full time permits given to drivers on the list.
10 new full time permits to be sold by the MTA.
2 full-time temporary electric vehicle permits.

The presence of this item is a good sign because it means that the back-door efforts of John Lazar of Luxor Cab and Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab to kill the item (so that they could flood the city with taxis) failed.

Appointing Edward Reiskin to the position of Director of Transportation, effective August 15, 2011, will also be on the agenda.

What can also be expected is an hysterical, full-bore, slanderous, misogynistic attack on Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi by the Mehmood. I'm sure that Tariq sees this as his last best chance to get rid of the nice lady that he's demonized. In this he'll be backed by a group of misinformed drivers who've never met and don't know Hayahsi, and a few of the more corrupt cab companies who want to continue cheating drivers out of their money.

It would be nice if taxi people who have worked with the Deputy Director and know what a fair, honest and brilliant administrator she has been would speak on her behalf. If you've done this before, please to do it again if you can. Show Director Reiskin the support she really has in the cab community. You owe it to yourselves.

The SFMTA Board meeting will be held at Room 400 City Hall at 1 P.M. Public comment usually takes place fairly soon after the meetings begin.

What Happened to the Good Old Days?

2011-07-27T12:26:00.000-07:00

The taxicab industry has always been divided but not that long ago we all came together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation and saved the business with a plan that gave a little to everybody but not too much to anybody.

Look at that picture. They're all there: representatives from all the major companies and driver's organizations and drivers themselves sitting or standing around the mediator of that peace, Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi.

That was only a year and a half ago. Hard to believe isn't it? Look what's happened since:

We've had a Taxi Advisory Council that, as one of their first acts, voted to give their own members and their kin medallions as key personnel, without having to follow the same rules as everyone else.

We've had Tariq Mehmood (sitting so politely in the second row) turn himself into a local fool by running around making asinine slanders against Hayashi at every city meeting he can find and to every public official who will agree to listen to him - as if lies could become truth through repetition.

And, of course we've had endless protests lately - including a few against agreements that many of the protesters themselves helped to formulate at Town Hall Meetings. And now they're threatening to strike even if they get what they want - despite the fact (as previously noted) that the protesters have no unified goal. And, if they do strike on August 2nd, it will be on a day when (in all probability) new medallions will be issued to the Waiting List and drivers will get a 22% raise.

Adding to this absurdity, we have Luxor, Yellow and Desoto Cabs going behind Hayashi's back to temporary Executive Director of the SFMTA Debra Johnson, trying to undercut a plan that was developed through Town Hall Meetings for the issuance of 50 Single Operator Permits and 35 medallions to the List (25 issued to the top of the list and 10 sold by the SFMTA). And, this is a plan that their own company representatives agreed to at a TAC meeting.

They don't want no Single Operator Permits or 35 new medallions right now because issuing a these few medallions might relieve the pressure to flood the city with taxis later. They don't want no studies of whether new medallions are needed or not. They don't want no outside input. They want 500 taxis, they want them immediately and they don't want to give anyone else a chance to speak. Corporate oligarchy at its finest.

As if Ms. Johnson would be stupid enough to unleash another whirlwind of protest over 500 new medallions during her last few weeks as SFMTA chief, just before she steps down to work for her successor, Ed Reiskin.

When Johnson didn't go along with their plan, the company reps went running off to peddle the same soap to Mayor Ed Lee with hopefully the same result. Why would Lee undermine Reiskin, his own favorite candidate for SFMTA director?

And all this when the country is on the brink of a politically induced recession.

I'm tempted to make a call for unity - like the Beatles' song "Come Together Right Now." But, with all these clowns running around out there, I don't know if it's worth the gesture.

At least we in the taxicab business don't need to worry about being divided and conquered from the outside.

TAC Advises Taxi Companies, "Pass No Mas!"

2011-07-25T21:16:00.000-07:00

Monday afternoon 7/25/11, by a count of 8 to 7, the Taxi Advisory Council voted to advise the SFMTA Board to no longer allow taxicab companies to pass on credit card fees to their drivers. You read right. No more credit card charges for the drivers. Now - this is a reason for honking and dancing in the streets. Only I don't hear any horns. Maybe because nobody is sure what this means ... It's complicated.

But first the play by play.

The meeting started with Tariq Mehmood loudly launching one of his patented, semi-coherent, cretinous, psychopathic rants against "staff" and was allowed to do this by Chair Chris Sweis because Mehmood didn't mention his victim by name although we all knew who he was spewing out his hatred at.

Then Councilor John Lazar and his sidekick Charles Rathbone tried to have Councilor Barry Korengold dismissed from the Council for talking during a vote at the previous meeting to limit the right of the MTA to sell medallions. When this failed Lazar tied to get a re-vote only to be told that only the winning side could ask for one.

This drama was followed by about three hours of excruciating boredom as everyone recapped their positions on 5% credit card charges and back-seat terminals (PIM's). Not that I'm knocking boredom. It's part of the democratic process.

The theme of the meeting was set by Councilor John Han who seems to have read every document, note or e-mail ever written on the subject of credit card fees and back-seat terminals. Han's research has convinced him that, if the back-sear terminals were trashed and burned, the driver's fees could be lowered to 3% or 3.5%.

John Lazar, on the other hand, claimed that the companies were treading water at 5%. An idea seconded by Councilor Athan Rebelos and Desoto President Hansu Kim although Kim did admit to John Han that the rear-seat terminals might indeed add to the charges.

Barry Korengold said that he'd never met a driver who liked the PIM's. Councilor Tim Lapp of Yellow Cab countered him by saying he had been one of the drivers testing the terminals at Yellow and loved them. He said that he was making $12 to $15 more a shift using them and wasn't going to let anyone take the one in his cab away. Hansu Kim added that he had completed his study of the PIM's vs front seat terminals and that it showed that the PIM's earned drivers about 20% more.

Councilor and owner of Metro Cab, Richard Hybels said that his drivers were making a lot more money since he'd installed front-seat terminals in his taxis. Before that Metro didn't take credit cards. Hybels also said that he'd be forced out of business unless he could pass the charges on to the drivers.

Councilor Dan Hinds said that the companies should use whatever they earned from the PIM advertisements for the relief of driver's fees.

Councilor William Minikel thought that the credit card fees should be passed on to the customers - an idea that other people in the room liked.

Penultimately, a motion was made by John Han to end the requirement for rear-seat terminals in order to pass on credit card fees to drivers and limit the fees to 3.5%. A vote was taken and the motion failed by a count of 10 to 5.

Shortly afterwards Councilor David Kahn (photo) made his motion to stop allowing taxi companies to pass any credit card processing fees on to the drivers.

Yellow Cab driver Murai, who sat next to me, and I both thought that the measure was doomed to failure and half wondered why TAC was even bothering to vote. We foresaw another 10 to 5 defeat.

Then, Wham! The motion passed 8 to 7. I mean it was staggering. The idea had hardly even been discussed because it seemed so random.

Tara Housman, who voted for the measure, later told me that she didn't even know if she liked the idea. She said that the only reason she voted as she did was to make Kahn feel better about losing.

Nobody really knows what this means. TAC is an ADVISORY council and I'm sure that (even as I'm finishing this post at 9 am) the MTA is fielding calls from desperate owners pleading, "say it isn't so."

If nothing else this vote should help the Taxi Services negotiate lower fees from the vendors.

Strike! Or the Fine Art of Shooting Oneself in the Foot

2011-07-20T09:10:00.000-07:00

"There was no one else but Tariq who did almost everything except that we all joined him and came along to sing national anthem. Everyone was left with no choice but to follow his leadership. It became scary for leaders that if they do not follow they will be left alone. I guess one of the most largest strike in this town is coming soon. The one you have seen it was the preview."
Anonymous Tariq Mehmood Disciple

I received this the day after the June 28th "strike." That is to say that Tariq Mehmood was already planning the August 2nd strike before the last one. Just like he'd planned the last one before the one before; or, was it before the one before that?

And, his followers and many admirers like medallion holder Brad Newsham are enthused about this coming strike. They talk about "keeping the momentum going" like it's a football game. They seem to think that if they honk and holler long and loud and often enough the world will give them what they want - whatever that is. They act, in fact, as if the rest of the world doesn't exist - a common miscalculation among groups that spend too much time talking to each other and not enough time talking to anybody else.

The World as It Relates to Taxis

Consists of San Francisco officials (Mayor Ed Lee, SFMTA Board, Board of Supervisors) and the public. Would it be wrong to speculate about what they want?

The Mayor - wants more cabs and better service.
The MTA Board - wants more cabs, better service, lots of our money and a board meeting with no cab drivers in attendance.
The Board of Supervisors - wants a lot more cabs, a lot better service and don't want to give cab drivers a raise until these things come to pass.
The Public wants better service, more cabs and more taxis that will accept credit cards.

Protests vs Strikes; or Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 1.

A protest is a way to tell the government and/or the public about injustices done and policies that should be changed.

A strike is a way to inconvenience, to intimidate, to punish the government/public for not making those changes.

The public in this country, in this city anyway, tends to cut protesters a lot of slack. People don't mind a little inconvenience. Everyone has the right to complain. It's the American way. But, if the protests go on too often or too long, if the inconvenience grows, the public become annoyed.

From conversations with my riding public on the effects of the the recent taxi protests have exactly followed this path of regress.

After the first protest, everybody was smiles and understanding. They were on my side.
With protest two, they were concerned and confused. What was this about again?
With the protests that called itself a "strike,"it was like, "I just wanna go home."

What the threatened "24 Hour Strike" really threatens to do is alienate the public and turn them completely against us.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 2.

Brad Newsham wants the SFMTA to get out of the taxi business; or, barring that, he wants to pass a proposition that will keep the SFMTA from spending money taken from the cab industry on anything except cab drivers.

Well - the possibility of the MTA firing itself is pretty slim. The only way to keep the money for the drivers would be to get the public to pass ballot proposition. The best way to get a proposition on the ballot is to have either the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors vote to put it on the ballot.

Whoops.

Mayor Ed Lee, who wants to become a permanent mayor, is unlikely to back a group that alienates the voters and, most of the Supervisors, who have never much liked us much anyway, really dislike us now.

Meaning that the only way to get the proposal on the ballot is finding enough of the alienated public to sign a petition to put it on and then getting enough votes from the same alienated public to pass the measure.

Whoops. Whoops.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 3.

Perhaps the most consistent complaint that cab drivers have is about the illegal limos, town cars and cabs that steal legitimate cab driver's fares.

Perhaps the most consistent complaint that the public has is that taxicabs are not picking them up with enough frequency.

So, Mehmood and his minions intend to punish the public by making sure that they get fewer cabs than usual?

Now, that's what I call a brilliant strategy - for the illegal limos, town cars and taxis that is. Ubercab and that ilk should have field day.

And, you know? I've yet to hear anybody call Tariq Mehmood a genius.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 4.

Mehmood has claimed that his drivers would be striking if the MTA didn't agree to compromise on the credit card fees, the electronic waybills and the back seat-terminals. Of course we know this is a lie. He called for this strike before the last protest (see lead quote.)

Besides, the MTA has already compromised, or is considering compromising on all these things. And, this ignores the one thing that the strikers talk about the least. The elephant in the room. The fact that this Board meeting is about passing a meter increase of around 24%.

This means that even if credit card fees are not renegotiated (as the MTA says they will be) the cab drivers will still get a raise of about 18% to 20%. I would call that a compromise. Some drivers want the credit card fees passed on to the public. What do they think a meter increase does?

The only important issue on August 2nd will be to try and make certain that the cab companies do not raise the gates.

Is the MTA more or less likely to do this if they are surrounded by honking cabs who refuse to pick passengers up?

With the probable exception of Supervisor John Avalos, the Board of Supervisors is recommending that the meter increase not be put into effect.

If drivers are going to strike no matter what the MTA does, the Board might just follow the supes advice.

I'd hate to see Tariq and his troops ruin things for the thousands - the vast majority of San Francisco's hard working taxi drivers - who won't be on strike.

A Review of the Protests: A Unified Front?

2011-07-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

Ursula, "He's got go anyhow."
Gudrun, "I know - ccertainly he's got go. Unfortunately, where does his go go to?"
D. H. Lawrence Women in Love

Cab driver and medallion holder Brad Newsham (photo, center) has been charged up by the protests at City Hall and by Yellow Cab driver Tariq Mehmood's ability to organize demonstrations.

"Tariq ... has at least tapped the passion of the larger driver body in ways that I, and others, have hoped to do over the years, but at which we have failed miserably," Brad wrote to me in a comment. "I hope we can use this moment of passion to throw off the MTA's yoke, to reject and demolish their plan to use the cab industry as a cash cow ... And I hope we can find some unity of purpose as we move forward."

Judging from the above and other statements he's made, Brad appears to think that if enough drivers passionately unify to "strike" often enough and loud enough the "yoke" and the "cash cow" will somehow magically disappear.

You'd think the unity of purpose would have to come first. But here are few things more addictive than an adrenalin rush.

I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that a great deal of that "passion"of the last "strike" was directed, not against the SFMTA or their policies, but by one group of drivers against others. Newsham himself (along with fellow protesters like Mark Gruberg and Rua Graffis of the United Taxicab Workers and others) was slammed by Mehmood and his followers for supporting Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi whom Tariq pathologically hates.

Other drivers were booed by some taxi drivers at the MTA Board meeting following the protests for supporting a plan that had been negotiated by taxi drivers (including a few of the one's doing the booing) at a series of Town Hall Meetings.

In addition, Mehmood and Newsham have diametrically opposed ideas of how the cab business should operate. Brad wants a return to the days of Prop-k when medallion were not sold but given to drivers on a waiting list. Tariq wants open auctions.

A Divided Industry

This is not a business where a word like unity makes much sense. The normal divide between owners and workers is but a hint how split this industry is. There are divisions between:

Large cab companies and small cab companies.
Medallion holders and companies.
Medallion holders who bought their medallion prior to Proposition K (Pre K's) and those who "earned" their medallions (Post-K's).
New medallion holders who've recently bought their medallions and other medallion holders.
Medallion holders and non-medallion holding drivers.
Non-medallion holders who are on the Waiting List to either get a medallion or buy one and non-medallion holders not on the list.
Drivers who work for companies with good dispatching services and those who don't.
Yellow Cab driver Ivonne (photo) and the rest of us.

And none of the above takes into account the interests of the City, the MTA or the general public.

A Short Study in Complexity; or, How Not to Negotiate

MTA Director Malcom Heinicke wanted Peak Time Permits that were run by the taxi companies to be part of a compromise plan to add more cabs to the taxi fleet. This has been talked about for 30 years because it makes sense. There is way too much business for taxis to handle on Friday nights and way too many cabs on the street on Monday nights.

But at the Town Hall Meetings nobody wanted such permits - least of all the taxi companies. Instead the idea of Single Operator Permits (SLP) held sway. The SLP's would serve the same purpose except that they would be operated by cab drivers instead of companies - specifically drivers who had worked in the industry for a long time but were not yet eligible to earn or buy a medallion.

It seemed like a win win win. More drivers would become their own bosses, there would be no more cabs on the street during slow times and the public would be served by having more taxis when needed.

A group of non-medallion drivers on the Waiting List presented some opposition because they wanted all new cabs to go to them. But the SLP concept was liked by most people at the Town Hall Meetings including Tariq Mehmood. There were different ideas, though, concerning how the SLP's should operate.

Mehmood and his disciples wanted the cabs to be run at fixed times. Most other people at the meetings like the ideal of a more flexible time frame.

I won't go into the details but the logical thing to do would have been to try one solution and, if that didn't work, to try the other.

What Tariq Mehmood did instead was to take his clique into another room, come back, claim that all nine of his people favored his plan and that they were the majority so the majority should rule.

Other people at the meeting disagreed with them so Mahmood included an attack against Single Operator Permits as part of his "strike."

Enough Protests Already

A major reason for having a protest is to have the Powers-That-Be negotiate with the workers. The SFMTA has indeed done this with a series of Town Hall Meetings.

A more important reason is to get the Powers-That-Be to change their policies. The MTA has done this by:

Granting a 20% meter increase.
Putting an end to the need for waybills.
Putting Open Taxi Access on the agenda.
Trying to reduce the 5% credit card fees.
Re-examining their policy on back-seat terminals.

On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect anything more than a compromise. The City and the public have their interests too. It's also childish to expect complicated issues to be solved immediately. It might take months to negotiate lower credit card fees, for instance, and (partly because of the constant protests) there hasn't been time to complete a study on the effects on the public of back-seat terminals.

The most recent protest was probably already one too many. The MTA was (and is) already negotiating with the drivers - which is more than any other Power-That-Be has done in the twenty-seven years I've been driving taxis. The one positive - looking into 3% credit card fees - could have been achieved without a protest.

There also were negative aspects to the "strike" that people like Newsham choose to ignore (see next post.)

I have a simple question. In an environment of "passion"as opposed to compromise or thought, in a world where people"strike" over petty details, how does one decide which group of strikers and which policies to support?

The truth is that it's simply not possible to balance the various interests and solve the complicated problems in this business by honking horns and shouting.

Next: Perpetual Strikes or the Fine Art of Shooting Yourself in the Foot.

Review of the Protests: Successes

2011-07-14T10:10:00.000-07:00

Friday, July 8, 2011

As entertaining as I found the recent protests, I'm a believer in real politics. Fun is fun but was anything accomplished?

If the purpose of the protests was to give drivers a chance to vent about injustice and create a feeling of empowerment, the demonstations were a resounding success.

If the purpose was to bring the SFMTA to a bargaining table, they were also successful.

If the purpose was to change certain working conditions, they were successful in some ways, not so successful in others. For this post, I want to look at the successes.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

I actually started this post last week but got sidetracked. I forget to take it off the blog and I've already got comments from people who apparently think that I don't see any successes. Not True. Sorry.

Town Hall Meetings

The most successful aspects of the tumult were the Town Hall Meetings themselves which gave drivers a chance to give their opinions on credit card charges, back-seat terminals, electronic waybills, etc.

It could be said (and was) that Taxi Services should have held these meetings before legislating major operational changes but such criticism is a little unfair. The subjects were discussed at a couple of TAC meetings and there was at least one previous Town Hall Meeting concerning various PIM choices and credit card fee options but almost nobody showed up.

This is typical. In addition to the other meetings, Taxi Services also recently held a Town Hall Meeting concerning the future of the Pilot Plan (potentially much more important than anything currently being discussed by protesters and there were only ten or twelve drivers in attendance). In this town, most cab drivers don't pay attention to taxi politics unless they're traumatized.

But I digress ... every protest (and the ensuing meetings) did stimulate at least one positive result for the drivers.

Protesta Número Uno

The major proposal that came out of the first series of Town Hall Meetings was a meter increase that should work out to around 22%. This was already in the works but there is no doubt that protests speeded up the process - possibly by several months.

Many in the taxi industry (including myself) have said that NO GATE INCREASE should accompany the rise on the meter. The Taxi companies have already been given a quid pro quo by the passing on credit card fees to the drivers.

If you do the math (assuming that half of a driver's rides are credit cards) this means that cab drivers should be getting a 19% or 20% raise - even if they are charged a 5% fee on credit cards.

Protesta Número Dos

As you may recall, some companies, supervisors and others were pushing to put as many 500 taxis on the street while these Town Hall Meetings took place. Coming up with a compromise plan was one of three proposals that come out of the discussions and the following TAC meeting

25 Single Operator Permits, 2 Electric Vehicles should be added to the taxi fleet and 25 Medallions should be given to drivers on the Waiting List. This has since been magically changed by the SFMTA to 50 Single Operator Permits, 2 EV's, 25 to the List and 10 medallions to be sold by the MTA.
There was a major compromise on Electronic Waybills proposed by Hayashi.
A recommendation that the MTA Board reconsider Open Taxi Access.
Protesta Número Tres

The great time out protest - which was planned at least three weeks before it took place - lead to exactly one accomplishment.
SFMTA Board President Tom Nolan asked Hayashi to see if the credit card fees could be lowered to 3%.
He also said that it was time for the Board to take another look at Open Taxi Access but that was the result of the previous TAC.

That's it kids!

Next: Not so positives.

Take Me Out from the Ball Game

2011-07-10T13:52:00.000-07:00

The Giant's game had just ended on Saturday 7-9-11 at about 8:15 P.M. I drove down Townsend from 3rd to 2nd Street. A throng of people were lining the curb as I approached the corner, several of whom flagged me. I thought about pulling around the corner to the official pick up area on 2nd but the street was so crowded that I was afraid of running over people's feet. Instead, I pulled off near the curb.

Four middle-aged men got into my cab. Simultaneously parking cop number 309 (photo) ran over and told me that he was ticketing me for stopping on a green light (probably true) and creating a "hazard" (false.) I had pulled off to the right, was not blocking traffic and a Yellow Cab had stopped safely behind me.

I asked the cop for his badge number (which he wasn't wearing. Has he had similar confrontations before?). He said his badge number would be on the citation that he was writing. I waited for him to fill out the ticket and asked him to give it to me.

He refused, saying that he would send it to me in the mail. I told that I wanted the ticket and his badge number. He repeated that his number was on the citation. I asked him again for the ticket which he had finished writing and had folded into his ticket book.

First, he said that the wouldn't give it to me because I had customers in the cab. Then, he said that I'd have to wait around for it and began to walk off with the ticket in his pocket.

Then, I stupidly called him an "asshole" (thus making him look good) and drove my customer to the Hyatt Regency.

My customers couldn't believe that he'd given me a ticket. One man was so angry that he gave his phone number and said he'd testify on my behalf. Always a good idea to have a witness.

I drove, legally parked my car, grabbed my camera and went back to video him. I won't go into the ensuing screaming match in detail but I did get his badge number. It was either that or he'd have to explain to me on video why he'd refused to give it to me in the first place.

His story also grew on the second telling. He then claimed that I'd not only created a "hazard" but had double parked.

I went back to pick up fans from the game two more times but I went down 4th Street to Cal Tran. There seemed to be more taxis working this location than there had been on 2nd Street.

I'm wondering if it's simply easier to go down 4th? Or if other drivers have had similar experiences with this clown?

This was the second time that I've gotten a ticket after the game. The other time was for picking up customers after stopping at a red light. This cops also claimed that I was blocking traffic thus creating a "hazard." The only thing that interfered with the traffic flow in either case was the cops wasting 5 minutes of everyone's time writing me citations.

I've recently spotted several other drivers being similarly harassed by PCO's while trying to provide service for customers. Would it be unfair for me to suggest that these characters have their priorities backwards? Shouldn't they be concentrating on getting taxis to the public instead of penalizing drivers for trying to do their jobs?

Deputy Director Hayashi told me later that any driver who gets tickets like this should fight them and send a copy to Taxi Services.

A Change in TAC ... tics?

2011-06-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

There were three new faces on the Taxi Advisory Council on Monday who are likely to mean a change in direction. Until now, the TAC has pretty much been an owner's council. But the addition of Rua Graffis, Tara Housman and Tone Lee seems certain to challenge that dynamic.

Ms Graffis (Left) is a leader of the United Taxicab Workers (UTW) and has spent over thirty years fighting for driver's rights. She replaces non-medallion holder not on the list, Timothy Ajaegbu, who regularly missed council meetings.

Mrs. Housman (Middle photo) is a medallion holder who also takes a driver's point of view. As she pointed out at the meeting, medallion holders can also be drivers. She replaces Laurie Graham who routinely gave Yellow Cab a second vote.

Tone Lee is a leader among the drivers at the airport. He replaces Dmitry Nazarov who was a lease driver at Luxor Cab and has bought his own medallion. Nazarov, who was supposed to be representing drivers on the list, voted with President John Lazar of Luxor Cab absolutely every time.

All three of the new councilors have regularly attended and spoken at TAC meetings so that they are already up to speed.

When you add another recent addition, Richard Hybels (owner of Metro Cab who is well-known as a maverick that sometimes sides with drivers) to the mix, the council promises to be much more evenly balanced than it has been in the past.

Council Business

The council voted to have Chair Chris Sweis and Vice Chair Barry Korengold continue in their positions for another six months.

Driver's Fund

The main subject for discussion was, what to do with the drivers fund?

This was the first time that the council has seriously discussed the issue and it was primarily a brainstorming session. The councilors generally agreed that the sum of money (currently $1,462,500) was too small to pay for medical or retirement benefits. Some ideas put forward for the fund's use were:

Scholarships for the children of drivers.
Catastrophic insurance.
Benefits for injured or traumatized drivers who needed time off from work.

Councilor Barry Korengold introduced a plan to use a 25 cent drop fee to build the fund more quickly but the drivers could not use their share unless they were vested for 5 years.

Christopher Fulkerson liked the idea in general but thought that the fund should be invested in an IRA that drivers could access whenever they wanted.

Tone Lee wanted to set up a lottery that would pay $100 to fifty drivers every two weeks on the provision that they showed up at TAC to collect it.

In the end, the council voted for a motion make by TAC member and general manager of Desoto Cab, Athan Rebelos, to make certain that the funds would be managed by the beneficiaries (i.e. the cab drivers) and not the MTA.

The Protest: A Great Time Out

2011-06-28T13:21:00.000-07:00

Green Cab driver Joe Mirabile was still pumped up when we finished our shifts last night.

"Biggest protest we've ever had," he enthusiastically told me. "We've never been so unified."

Very true. Three to four hundred people and over a hundred honking cabs (there would have been more except the cops started turning the taxis away after 1:30 pm) were clearly unified in their dislike of 5% credit card fees, backseat terminals and the way the MTA has been running the cab business for the last two years; and everyone was having a grand old time expressing their hostility.

When you looked beneath the surface, however, you could see divisiveness lurking.

For one thing, not everybody knew what they were actually protesting. The driver in the Luxor on the right was joyfully honking and waving. But when I asked why he was against Single Operator Permits, he said that somebody had just stuck the sign on his cab.

Another driver was holding a placard that said "Sonali Bose Must Go." I asked him who Sonali Bose (The MTA's CFO and Chris Hayashi's immediate superior) was and he said he didn't know.

In short, much of this so-called unity was orchestrated. During the course of the protest and the board meetings. I came across people who were:

Against Single Operator permits.
For Single Operator Permits.
For more medallions to the list.
Against medallions to the list.
For the sale of all medallions.
For the end of medallion sales.
For the end of the list.
Against the Driver's Fund.
etc ad infinitum

We are taxi drivers. Having our own opinions is in our DNA - and thank God for it.

Unified Themes

John Han summed up the feelings of many protestors when he said that the rear-seat terminals should be taken out and that the MTA should try to negotiate credit card fees down to 3%.

Aside from the other usual complaints (electronic waybills, etc) drivers were critical of what they took to be highhanded methods on the part of the MTA.

SFCDA President and TAC councilor Barry Korengold said that the board should not have cancelled all taxi items on the agenda because the meter increase doesn't have to be tied to additional cabs or service improvements. He also said that it bothered him that every improvement involved making money for the MTA. If they were really interested in service improvement, he wanted to know, "why aren't they considering OTA?"

Support for Open Taxi Access was also mention by a few more drivers.

Some drivers criticized the MTA board for changing the proposals that we had worked out at the Town Hall meetings. A sentiment that I can only second. If they intend to plug in their own formulas anyway, why are they wasting our time?

Soon to depart Executive Director Nat Ford also took his lumps from the drivers. Some criticized him for they way he's treated the taxi industry. Others, to put it mildly, disliked the idea of his walking off with over $400,000 as a departing gift. My complaint against him is that he demoted Taxi Services from a division to a sub-division of the MTA, thus making it difficult for the Deputy Director to deal on our behalf with other city agenices like the police.

The former Night Cabbie Emil Lawrence, who hates Ford, came by for one last semi-sane rant against the Executive Director; thus giving him a small taste of what his Deputy Director has been getting lately from Tariq Mehmood.

A Hayashi Love Fest

The "Strike" that Mehmood had intended to be the coup de grâce to Deputy Director Chris Hayashi's career instead turned into what Hayashi later jokingly called a "love fest." And, compared to the abuse that she's put up with for the last few months, it was.

Taxi driver Murai (Photo, left), who is strongly against 5% credit card fees and hates back-seat terminals, told the MTA board that she missed the good old days when Republicans and Democrats would argue over policy and then go out and drink with each other later. She then spoke strongly against the personal attacks that Tariq Mehmood and his followers had been making against Hayashi.

Brad Newsham, a strong supporter of the "Strike" who wants to limit the taxi "income streams" of the MTA, praised Hayashi highly at the end of his speech.

Others who spoke strongly in favor of the Deputy Director included medallion holder Norma Greer, driver Bill Mounsey, Burmese driver David Kahn, Barry Korengold and myself.

Although they didn't include her in their speeches, both Mark Gruberg and Rua Graffis of the UTW told me and others at the protest that they strongly backed Chris Hayashi and very much wanted her to continue as the head of Taxi Services.

Shortly after people starting speaking in favor of the Deputy Director, Tariq (showing his usual respect for human rights and freedom of speech) brought a gang of his followers into the room to jeer and boo Hayashi supporters along with anyone else who expressed a thought contradicting the dogma of the "powerful and great" Mehmood.

Both Brad Newsham and Mark Gruberg (who had also backed the "Strike") were verbally hassled at the rally by Tariq disciples for favoring Hayashi. The loudest boos, however, were reserved for Burmese driver Tone Lee (an ally of Mehmood's?) when he spoke in favor of Single Operator Permits.

Final Notes

The protest and/or the public comments did have some positive effects.

SFMTA Board President Tom Nolan asked Hayashi to see if the credit card fees could be lowered to 3%. He also said that it was time for the Board to take another look at Open Taxi Access.

Murai and I spoke to the Deputy Director for a few minutes after the meeting and she said that she has been studying credit card charges and thinks that it might be possible to negotiate lower rates - especially with the MTA Board behind her.

If my daily attack comment from a Mehmood acolyte is to be believed, however, it appears that Tariq is already planning another "Strike" no matter what anyone does or does not do for the drivers.

Some Photographs

Mark Gruberg and Bud Hazelkorn

listening to Dean Clark

David Kahn of

The Burmese Cab Drivers Association and

Taxi Advisory Councilor.

Who says taxi driving isn't glamorous?

Ivone who drives for Yellow

and is studying photography.

On Protests and Strikes

2011-06-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

Contrary to a commenter to my blog, I do not write in a dark room. My study is very well lit and overlooks a yard where a couple of wild cats are lounging in the uncut grass. Furthermore, I communicate with numerous taxi people either in person or via the Internet.

My resume also includes participation in numerous protests including ones against the Vietnam War (from 1964 to 1975) and every war (declared or undeclared) since then - in addition to various taxi demonstrations like the March 2009 one in the photo.

On top of that I've read a little history and watched CNN.

In short, I think that I've earned the right to shoot my mouth off on the subject.

What interests me are questions like: When is a protest justified and when is it not? When is a protest successful and when is it counter productive? Which tactics work and which don't?

But it takes money to protest and I have to drive a shift.

Sunday Morning.

This morning I wake up to discover that I'm already being anonymously attacked (see comments) and I haven't even written anything yet.

This is a symptom of the irrationality and emotionalism that has taken over seemingly everybody in the taxi business. Apparently, you no longer have to have an idea to be slandered. Having the possibility of having an idea is enough. But then, why should these people too cowardly to sign their names wait for an idea since all their slams are personal anyway?

Response to those Too Cowardly to sign their names.

If you want to know what I stand for read my blog in more detail.

As for the SFMTA seizing my medallion ... I'm one of a dozen or so people who helped stop Gavin Newsom from grabbing the medallions two years ago. I think Malcolm Heinicke still wants to do it. How is bashing me going to stop him?

Two things I stand for are common sense and fair play. I also highly value clear thinking which means I try to discuss an idea instead of attacking the person who holds it. I don't always succeed (as in the title of this section indicates) but I try.

Strikes vs Protests.

What is planned for Tuesday is protest not a strike.

A strike means refusing to work - usually for an extended period of time. Unless they are supported by a union, workers can't strike for very long. This is especially true in the taxi business where a driver loses $100 to $150 a day by not working.

When Protests Work.

Protests tend to work:

When they have a goal.
When the goal is possible to achieve.
When the protesters can get the public behind them.
When they either are not too frequent or don't go on for too long.
When they aren't confusing.

Protests with a Goal

The protest in the lead photo was partially successful.

It let the people in power know that the drivers were unhappy and led to a series of Town Hall meetings that resulted in the Pilot Plan. The MTA wanted $30 million for one year and ended up with $10 million in two years which means that the taxi industry paid $50 million less than the MTA originally wanted.

But, as noted by my friend Brad Newsham, it was only a partial victory and the problem still exists.

Brad, by the way, gave a pretty good example of an impractical goal at the last protest. He carried a sign calling for an end to "Cannibalism" by the MTA. If he meant that literally, I would hope that his goal has already been met. If he meant it as metaphor, the practice is unlikely ever to stop.

Newsham has clarified his goal a bit since then and now wants the MTA to channel all the money they take in from the sale of taxi's back into the cab industry. Although, this will probably take a long time and require legislation, it is possible and I'm firmly in support of it.

Goals Impossible to Achieve.

One driver told me that he was striking because he wanted "respect." Well - you're in the wrong business, dude. They don't respect me, whey should they respect you? You might get them to fear you but they probably do that already.

The Public ...

largely supported the May Protests. Most of my customers told me that they thought that 5% was unfair, and that it should be closer to 2% or 3%. They were also tipping me higher to cover the credit card fees.

When Protests Go On for Too Long ...

the public begins getting annoyed. If you inconvenience them too much, they will turn against the protesters - especially if the public becomes a direct target of the protests.

People are beginning to really complain about drivers not taking credit cards because they are being directly inconvenienced. And, they are starting to blame the drivers for this - not the MTA.

Tariq Mehmood was quoted in a newspaper as threatening to possibly block traffic as part of the "Strike."

He might want to reflect on how popular Critical Mass has made the Bicycle Coalition.

Deliberately blocking traffic would be the kiss of death for public support of the drivers.

Later: Confused messages.

TAC Proposes: 25 Single Operator, 25 to the List, Restart OTA

2011-06-15T19:43:00.001-07:00

On Monday, June 13, 2011 the Taxi Advisory Council held its most productive meeting so far.

It started with the introduction a new councilor, Timothy Lapp (Photo front), who replaces Jim Gillespie as the Yellow Cab delegate. Tim and I started driving taxi on the same day almost 28 years ago. I know him as a creative person who has travelled widely in Europe and Asia with a definite mind of his own. I'm sure that he'll make great contributions to the council when he's not parroting his firm's propaganda - maybe even when he is.

Then, a ghost proposal popped up. At the Town Hall meetings (of which TAC was supposed to be an extension) Peak Time Permits had been given the thumbs down and left for dead by everyone. Yet, there they were back on the agenda under the new name of "Part Time Company Permits." They certainly couldn't be peak time because they could be operated up to 80 hours a week.

Veteran MTA watchers recognized this as the handiwork of Director Malcom Heinicke. Heinicke has occasionally spoken about "transparency" but appears to have only the vaguest idea of what the word means. For the director's elucidation allow me to include a few definitions from Wikipedia:

Transparency, as used in the humanities and in a social context more generally, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings ....

In politics, transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public ... when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.

In short, what's the point of putting us through 3 days of Town Hall meetings and then going back door to whimsically change what the drivers had decided upon? Did the director think we wouldn't notice?

Heinicke is in danger of turning all these meetings into the farce that Brad Newsham, Tariq Mehmood and others claim they are.

Whatever - the TAC didn't like the Heinicke Corporate Cabs any better than drivers liked Peak Time Permits at the Town Hall Meetings. Thumbs down once again!

Under the firm direction of Chair Chris Sweiss, the Taxi Advisory Council voted for:

25 Single Operator Permits.
2 Electric Vehicle (EV) permits.
25 Medallions to the top of the Waiting List.

The council also decided to urge the MTA Board to work out various ways to improve service before arbitrarily adding cabs to the fleet

TAC then voted to advise the Board to re-issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Open Taxi Access (OTA). This would invite bidding from tech companies to build the Open Taxi Access Platform. This would be the first step to making OTA a reality.

TAC also voted to encourage all companies to take dispatched calls.

Speaking of Tariq Mehmood (And how can one not?) ... he showed up at TAC to tell everyone that he was going on strike because, at the last Town Hall meeting, he took 9 of his friends into another room where they agreed that the Single Operator Permits should be operated at fixed times.

Most of the people at that meeting appeared to prefer a more flexible schedule.

But Mehmood, the self-proclaimed "powerful and great" leader, declared that he was in the majority, that 80% of the drivers were behind him and that, if the permits were not operated at fixed times, he would strike.

There you have it! Talk about motivation! A "powerful and great" man's gotta do what he's gotta do.

The rest of the drivers at the Town Hall Meetings had pretty much agreed with TAC's recommendations.

The upshot is that the drivers should get a meter increase and (quid pro quo) 25 Single Operator cabs should be put out to work at peak times, 25 more taxis should be added to the fleet and a high-tec dispatching solution should link all the taxis in the city in one big network.

Hopefully this will help both the drivers and the public.

We'll see.

Taxi Items Dropped from June 21, 2011 SFMTA Board Meeting

2011-06-15T16:29:00.000-07:00

Notice from Taxi Services:

"This is to let you know that environmental review of the proposed issuance of new medallions will not be complete in time for the June 21, 2011 SFMTA Board of Directors meeting. Accordingly, all taxi-related items, including the flag drop fare increase and the proposed issuance of new permits, will be pulled off of the agenda of the meeting of the SFMTA Board of Directors on June 21st, and will be rescheduled to a later meeting. The Board will not calendar the item before environmental review on the proposed issuance of new medallions is complete. Therefore, I can’t inform you at this time whether these taxi-related items, including the flag drop fare increase and the proposed issuance of new permits, will be heard at the specially scheduled Board meeting of June 28, or whether it will have to wait until the following meeting, scheduled for August 2, 2011. I will send notice to this list as soon as I have updated information on when these items will be heard by the Board."

Perhaps Councilor Carl Macmurdo and driver Peter Witt suspected that something like this might happen when I shot them at the June 13th Taxi Advisory Council meeting.

Bye Bye Electronic Waybills? Bye Bye Waybills?

2011-06-13T10:27:00.000-07:00

Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi had an epiphany during last week's Town Hall Meetings on Electronic Waybills. Since the major cab companies are already computerized and collecting data on every ride, why have waybills at all?

The real question for Hayashi is, "What information do I need?"

The MTA needs data to:

Qualify medallion applicants.
Revoke medallions from medallion holders who are not disabled and not driving.
Investigate criminal complaints.
Identify key industry statistics.

And what stats do they need?

Times of pick ups and drop offs to help identify busy times and slow times - including days of the week.
The locations of pick ups and drop offs - to give the MTA the ability to plan taxi stands and white zones for drop offs. Or, to eliminate taxi stands that aren't needed.
Paid vs unpaid miles - in the aggregate - broken down by times and days of the week.
Number of passengers - how many people are riding in taxis.

The goals for obtaining this information are to improve driver income and service to the public by increasing the percentage of paid miles and increasing the number of taxi rides.

What the MTA doesn't need is a lot information on individual drivers.

In short, you probably won't have to fill out daily trip sheets because companies are already generating them. Medallion holders, people on the list, and drivers who want will be able to get waybills for their own records but drivers won't have to keep records unless they want to.

The MTA won't have to keep much information on file because it's being kept by the companies. When the MTA does need to know something for one of the above reasons, they can simply get it on a need-to-know basis from the companies.

Security Issues.

Director Hayashi has already stated that the MTA has refused to open up its files for Homeland Security.

As it happened, I had some high-level security experts in my taxi over the weekend (they were discussing attempts to hack U.S. Government secrets concerning Pakistan) so I picked their brains. They said:

Whether or not information can be hacked depends upon how the security is set up.
Keeping info in different locations makes it more secure.
Credit cards are usually insured against theft.

There was also a point that they didn't state but hinted at ... namely that thieves generally don't steal from the poor. Grifting my identity, for instance, wouldn't get them much and, as cab drivers go, I'm filthy rich.

Single Operators? 25 More Medallions?

2011-06-09T11:19:00.000-07:00

The spirit of compromise slowly asserted itself at the last Town Hall Meeting under Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi's patient guidance.

The meetings, which had begun with hostility, emotional outbursts, arguments, personal attacks and polarized positions, gradually became a forum where different ideas could be discussed in a reasonable manner. The results are a few proposals that most everyone can live with ... maybe.

The subjects for discussion were whether or how we should put more taxis on the street and electronic waybills.

A Few More Taxis

The original proposal sent down by the MTA Board called for 108 taxis of various kinds. By the time Wednesdays meeting started, the Deputy Director had whittled the number down to:

25 Single Operator Permits.
2 Electric Vehicle (EV) permits.
25 Medallions to the top of the Waiting List.

The EV Permits will be for full time taxis and will go into effect once a few battery switching stations are put in.

The plan for 25 Peak Time permits was dismissed at the last meeting because nobody in the cab community wanted them.

The MTA and Hayahsi also decided not to sell 25 medallions directly at this time because their budget for the year of $10 million has already been met.

Single Operator Permits

Although many drivers remain against these permits (and some are against adding any taxis at all), I think the majority at the meetings favored them. There were two main arguments against the permits.

That they give unfair competition to people on regular shifts by cherry picking the best hours. People who take this view think that more full time medallions should be given to the list instead.
That the plan is financially risky and would be hard to regulate.

In addition, medallion holder Christopher Fulkerson expressed concern that leasing the vehicles from the MTA might be the first step toward the MTA taking over the business and leasing all the medallions.

Although the plan is not yet fully worked out, the main features of the Single Operator Permit will be:

The permits will be leased from the MTA over a 3 year period.
The permits will be awarded on the basis of A-Card seniority. This will include drivers both on and off the Waiting List. This is to reward them for their years of service.
There will also probably be a skills test involved.
The vehicles will be operated a maximum of 60 hours per week.
For drivers over sixty - two drivers could share the vehicle.
Although they would not be used exclusively for dispatched calls, servicing such calls would be very important and, possibly, be given priority.
The amount of the lease would be reduced or eliminated if the operator took X number of dispatched calls.
The vehicles would be not be allowed to stay at the airport.

Things undecided:

Whether or not the cabs would have a special color or numbering system.
Which dispatching services they should be connected with.
Whether they should have fixed hours of operation or ...
Have a flexible schedule left to the discretion of the driver.
How to enforce the sixty hour limit?

I should point out that driver and TAC member John Han deserves credit for bringing the idea of the Single Operator Permit to the attention of Christiane Hayashi.

Adding 25 More Cabs

Although Hayashi didn't mention it, one reason for putting 25 more cabs on the street is to palliate the public under the guise of Supervisor Scott Weiner and MTA Director Malcom Heinicke.

The Deputy Director chose to push for more cabs to the Waiting List (as opposed to MTA sales) in order to help get the List moving again and help medallion holders near the top of it. The number "25" would match the average of medallions that have been put out by the City for the last 30 years. Hayashi noted that there have been no new medallions added since 2008.

Of course, there was division among the drivers - pretty much on the basis of whether or not they were on the list.

Drivers like myself feel that the public has to be shown that we are willing to accommodate them partway.

However, like many of the other drivers, I also dislike the idea of putting cabs on the street simply because there is political pressure to do so. Director Hayashi says that she is looking for an outside group of experts to study the cab situation here and have them work with the drivers to develop a more scientific manner to decide if taxis should be put on the street or not.

In short, she wants to hold real PC and N hearings instead of the farces that were held in the past.

Many drivers don't want to see any medallions added until limos and illegal cabs are taken off the street.

One new note in the meeting was a general call for citywide dispatch or Open Taxi Access. This was particularly noticeable among drivers who work for companies with poor dispatching services.

These drivers think that more cabs shouldn't be added until OTA is given the chance to improve service to the neighborhoods.

Finally, there are drivers like Christopher Fulkerson who don't think any taxis should be added for any reason at all.

Next: Electronic Waybills

Town Hall Meetings: More taxis? How many? What kind?

2011-06-04T11:38:00.000-07:00

The SFMTA now is proposing that several different classes of taxis be added to the cab fleet. (See Photo.)

Peak Time and Single Operator Permits dominated the discussions during the sessions I attended so let me deal with the other permits first.

2 Electric Vehicles have been given in a grant to Yellow Cab to operate as fleet medallions. They will not be used until two battery changing stations have been set up in San Francisco.

These are not to be confused with the 25 electric vehicles that will be given in a grant to the MTA at future time. I believe that these would be driven by Single Operators.

6 Ramp Medallions would also be added to the Ramp Taxi fleet. It's unclear as to which companies would get them.

50 New Full Time Medallions

25 going to the List.
25 to be sold by the MTA.

These would become part of the original "60 and 60" that is in Pilot Plan. In fact, it would almost fulfill the totals. Around 30 medallions each have gone to the MTA and the List so far.

Peak Time Permits

I'm not going to spend much time on this - mostly because no one wants peak time cabs except for MTA Director Malcom Heinicke and Supervisor Scott Weiner.

The Permits are supposed to be operated a maximum of 60 hours per week but the companies claim that they need 75 to 90 hours to make a profit.
The companies want full time, not part time, medallions.
Most drivers think that any permits given out should go to working taxi drivers, not the companies.

This appears to be a good subject for what I'll call the Brad Newsham test. Brad thinks that all MTA meetings are useless because everything is fixed in advance behind closed doors.

If Heinicke and the MTA put out Peak Time Permits, score one for Brad.

Single Operator Permits

This idea was much more popular at the meetings - certainly with the drivers. Many details were debated and argued with but an outline of the concept that most drivers found agreeable would go something like this.

The 25 taxis would be operated a maximum of 60 hours per week.
The driver would buy the vehicle and necessary insurance.
The driver could decide what hours he or she wanted to work.
He or she would have to join a dispatching service but would not be part of a color scheme.
Electronic Waybills would be used to check on the time in service.
The vehicles would be used primarily for neighborhood service and would not be able to pick up at SFO.
Fees paid to the MTA would be reduced, or even taken away, if the driver took enough dispatched calls.

The original calculations done by Director Hayashi figured that the single operator could make $150 per shift. But this was assuming that the driver would pay to join a color scheme and also would do other things that included additional expenses.

The basis for her estimate was an hourly gross of $30. But this is low for peak time hours and a meter increase would make a more realist estimate of around $40 per hour.

The details are up in the air but this seemed a much better option to the drivers at the Town Hall Meeting than the peak time permits.

Next: arguments for and against additional taxis.

Town Hall Meetings: Indians and Electronic Waybills?

2011-06-02T13:02:00.000-07:00

Last week Supervisor Scott Weiner talked about putting out 25 Peak Time cabs in exchange for raising the meter. This week the SFMTA wants 125. Or, is it the 108 that we discussed at this week's Town Hall Meeting? The numbers fluctuate.

Medallion holder Brad Newsham, noting this flexible and expanding taxi math, drew an analogy between the MTA's meetings with cab drivers and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs's pow-wows with American Indians. He thinks that the MTA will use the meetings to eventually steal medallions from us just as the U.S. used pow-wows to steal land from the Indians.

And, who am I to say he's wrong? There is at least one member of the MTA Board who is on record as wanting to grab all the medallions and lease them back to the drivers.

After saying that we should protest by walking out of the the meeting, Newsham went for a stroll himself - thus doing his part to turn his theory into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Brad may know a lot about American Indians but he's sadly lacking in his knowledge of the San Francisco taxicab industry's recent history - maybe because he takes too many hikes. The reason that MTA Board Director Malcom Heinicke did NOT succeed in taking all our medallions last year was because of the Pilot Plan we came up with at the Town Hall Meetings.

In short, you can't win a negotiation by refusing to negotiate. If we had acted like Brad last year, the MTA would own all the medallions right now.

For those of us who stayed at the meeting Wednesday the subjects were: Electronic Waybills, Peak Time Cabs and Single Operator Permits.

Electronc Waybills

Although this discussion took up a lot of time, there was little that was new added to previous talks on the subject.

People, like Driver Tariq Mehmood, who are against the electronic waybills, are concerned about:

Security.
Uncle Sam.
Big brother watching us.
Unhealthy emissions.
The possible inaccuracy of the waybills.

Those in favor of the the waybills, like Christopher Fulkerson and myself, think:

The security can be managed.
Big Brother is already watching us.
Uncle Sam has better things to do.
The statistics and the data that would be collected could be invaluable to improving the taxicab business.
Accurate data would gain us more respect
Are sick and tired of filling out the damn waybills by hand.

Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi tried to address some to the driver's fears by saying that Taxi Services was only interested in collecting statistical data, not data on individuals, and that they would only be looking at individual waybills if there was complaint - which would be the same as the current situation. She also said that studies will be done about the emissions from the various electronic devices in the taxis and the possible effects on the drivers.

In the end, Tariq Mahmood looked around the room at the dozen or so people in attendance and declared that 7,000 drivers are against electronic waybills and 3 are in favor of them.

Talk about flexible and expanding math.

To be continued.