How Demoting Christiane Hayashi Backfired

To briefly summarize:

San Francisco voters approved Proposition K in 1978 which put an end of the sale of taxi medallions.

San Francisco voters passed Proposition A in November 2007 giving the Board of Supervisors the option of transferring the powers of the Taxi Commission to the SFMTA. The Supervisors did so and the SFMTA took over the regulation of the taxi industry on March 1, 2009.

In January of 2009, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had promised not to put medallions up for sale if Proposition A passed, came out with a plan to take all the taxis medallions away from the current medallion holders and sell them in order to cover San Francisco's $500 million dollar debt.

TAC 10.24.11

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

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

"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.

Supervisors Lack a Resolution

The Board of Supervisors failed to pass a resolution "opposing proposed taxi fare increase under consideration by the Municipal Transportation Agency in the absence of improved taxi service" yesterday because it did not have unanimous support.

Sponsored by Supervisors Scott Weiner, Malia Cohen and Mark Farrell, the measure required a unanamous vote because it had not been discussed in a committee.

We didn't realize that the public would be able to address the subject until the Board was already in session so only Mark Gruberg of the United Taxicab Workers, Barry Korengold of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and myself argued against the resolution.

Gruberg said that we needed a raise because we hadn't had one in eight years; Korengold mentioned that the SFMTA Board had failed to implement Open Taxi Access which would immediately improve service to the neighborhoods; and I commented on the weirdness of Democratic politicians, the party of labor, refusing to back a cost-of-living raise to working people. We all expressed a sense of unfairness at being punished for problems beyond our control.

The Board, however, had already decided the issue behind closed doors - this time to our advantage. Supervisor Weiner said that the resolution did not have the necessary support so no vote was taken and the measure was tabled until the Board's next meeting.

Weiner went on to say that the resolution was not intended as a criticism of cab drivers but that we needed more taxis on the street. He just thought that any meter increase should be coupled with peak time cabs.

Supervisor John Avalos, from my District 11, true to his labor roots, spoke against the measure saying that taxi drivers needed a fare increase.

Supervisor Malia Cohen, from District 10, remained adamant in her belief that there should be no meter increase until cab drivers start picking up in the Bayview.

Supes Pass Watered Down Enforcement Against Illegal Cabs et al

At yesterday's Board of Supervisors meeting, the board unanimously voted to pass their watered down version of legislation making it a misdemeanor to operate illegal taxis or limos, or to solicit or accept payment for referral of passengers, or assignment of shifts or dispatched calls, or other illegal activities that suck money off of legitimate cab drivers and both cheat and endanger the general public.

The Supes voted to okay their own amended version of the ordinance that lessened the penalties that the police can give from $2,500 and $5,000 to $1,000.

A confused message: crime doesn't pay ... too much.

Whatever - as my mother used to say, "it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

The legislation will allow MTA investigators to issue tickets to illegal vehicles et al. Taxi Services Director Christiane Hayashi hopes to hire two full time investigators who can devote all their energy to enforcing the laws against illegal cabs, sticky palmed doormen and the like. This will mark the first time that anyone has seriously and systematically gone after these felons.

The Board of Supervisors also passed a resolution supporting Peak-Hour Taxi Permits.

MTA Board OK's Peak Time Cabs; Supes Spank Cabbies

The MTA Board and the Board of Supervisor both met yesterday and both dealt with similar cab issues - changing and clarifying the transportation code so that it would be easier to stop illegal activities - including doormen selling rides to illegal vehicles and illegal cabs and limos stealing rides from licensed taxicabs in San Francisco.

The legislation had the support of almost everybody in the taxi industry (drivers, owners, managers and medallion holders/drivers). It seemed like no-brainer and, for the MTA, it was. Malcom Heinicke spoke highly of the measure.

The Board of Supervisors, however, had a different take on the subject. Two amendments were added to the legislation by Supervisor Scott Wiener of District 8. One of them called for Taxi Services to report about progress in improving service 4 times a year. The other called for reducing penalties given to illegal limos and cabs from $2,500 to $5,000 down to $1,000.

Directory of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayahsi was unable to attend the meeting because she had jury duty. Attorney Michael Harris was supposed to speak in her place but apparently was unable to do so because the amendments were approved prior to the meeting.

Nothing like transparency, no?

What was the reasoning of Supervisor Wiener and the rest of the Board? The illegal vehicles are supposedly filling a niche and thus doing a public service???

There is more than a bit of irony here:

1. Supervisor Wiener is from the Castro - that's right! The second or third best served district in San Francisco. Cabs flood the area 90% of the time and I've never seem an illegal taxi there. Well ... everyone has their servant problems.
2. The amendment would give tacit support to a group of people who pay no license fees or business taxes and put customers at risk by not being insured. Or, is the paltry $1,000 Wiener's idea of a business tax?
3. The only service I've ever seen illegal taxis and limos do is steal my fares - often with the collusion of doormen who apparently would also have their fines reduced.
4. The only reason illegal cabs and limos have a niche is for the same reason prostitutes do - their expenses are almost non-existant and nobody has systematically gone after them.
5. After backing the amendment, members of the Board spent a fair amount of time urging each other to support low-paid workers of various kinds. Apparently they don't think cab drivers, who are among the lowest paid workers doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, are worthy of such consideration.

This isn't a done deal. The proposal with the amendment has to be "read" again at next week's board meeting and then will be voted on the week after that. As I understand it, unless the legislation goes back to a subcommittee, there will be no public comment allowed on the subject.

This might be a good time to remind our respective supervisors that we are not the uncouth, illiterate serfs that they appear to think we are. It might be good to let them know that we are voters - voters who talk to around 15 or 20 other voters each every day. ( The math is 1500 cabs x 2 shifts x 20 = 60,000 potential voters a day.)

Drivers can find the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of their respective supervisors at SFGov.org. You can find the voters in your taxis.

Peak Time Permits

The MTA Board also passed a resolution to send a proposal for Peak Time Permits to the Taxi advisory Council in order to work out a plan.

Director Malcom Heinicke was very happy because this was his baby and he was very pleased to see drivers as different as Tone Lee, Carl Macmurdo and myself all backing the idea.

However, there were, and are many drivers, who are strongly against putting additional cabs on the street - including possibly myself. My position depends upon what they do, how they do it, and who benefits from it. The devil is in the details.

At any rate, the TAC meetings should be interesting for a change. The next one's  on March 15th - the  Ides of March - the date when Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.

Should we beware the Ides of March?

Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Transportaion Code

The ordinance that Director Christiane Hayashi intended to present to the MTA board today (it will be heard on 11/4/2010) does several things:

1. It puts the enforcement of specific laws concerning the taxicab business under the San Francisco Transportation Code.
2. It creates a class of misdemeanors.
3. It clarifies and describes various violations of the law.

For instance, it prohibits "Solicitation and Paid Passenger Referrals" and then spells out in detail exactly what this means.

I intended to do a summary of the ordinance but the Director has already done it far better than a humble cab driver like myself could hope to do, so I'll simply copy her prose for you.

SUMMARY:

 The proposed ordinance would grant express authority to Taxi Services’ field enforcement staff the ability to enforce specified parking regulations. Such authority would also support their ability to tow illegally parked vehicles in violation of those sections in accordance with state laws.

 The proposed ordinance would move several existing misdemeanors from the Police Code to the
Transportation Code: § 7.3.8 (to knowingly make false statement or conceal information in connection
with a motor vehicle for hire permit); § 7.3.9 (to refuse to pay the legal taxi fare), § 7.3.10(a) (for a Driver to overcharge a passenger); § 7.3.5(a) (to drive or operate a taxi on City streets without a permit).

 The proposed ordinance would newly create the following misdemeanors in the Transportation Code:
o § 7.3.5(b): To operate an unpermitted dispatch service or color scheme.
o § 7.3.5(c): To drive a taxi without a permit or to allow a person without a permit to drive a taxi vehicle.
o § 7.3.6(b): For any person, and for any person or business acting in concert with that person, to take
payments for the purpose of referring passengers.
o § 7.3.7: For any permit holder to solicit or accept payments or gifts from drivers in exchange for
dispatch calls, shifts, vehicles or assignments.
o § 7.3.10(b): For any permit holder to charge drivers except such charges to drivers that are authorized
in Division II of the regulations.
o § 7.3.10(a): For a taxi driver to charge more than the legal rate of fare.

The complete text, as well Hayashi's summary of the ordinance, can be found here.

Mas Dinero Por Citations

The ordinance allows police to issue misdemeanor citations to illegal limos and taxis for $2,500 for a a first offense and $5,000 for a second. This is up from the current charge of $165.

 Taxi investigators for the SFMTA already have the ability to issue "administrative" citations to limos and taxis for $5,000.

Administrative Enforcement vs Criminal Enforcement

This is an important distinction because administrative laws allow SFMTA investigators to issue fines without having to go to court. This is similar to the fines that investigators can level against restaurants for sanitary violations or bars for allowing underage drinking.

To tell the truth, I'd never heard of this field of law until I talked with Director Hayashi. Yesterday I tuned on Law and Order as a break from writing and there stood Lt. Anita Van Buren threatening to bust a bunch of militia types for carrying rifles in NYC under "Administrative Code No ...." It seemed effective. They dispersed.

Administrative fines should greatly enhance the ability of the SFMTA to go after and penalize illegal taxis and limos, doormen soliciting tips and the hotels where they work as well as others violators of the misdemeanors listed above.

If this ordinance is okayed by the SFMTA it will go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Chris Daly Withdraws His Charter Amendment

Supervisor Chris Daly shocked a room full of cab drivers this morning when he passed around a note saying that he had withdrawn his charter amendment regarding taxicabs. There was no explanation given so the matter is open to speculation.

One possibility is that he realized that the Two-thirds Rule predicted by a certainly blogger was indeed working against him. In fact, my sources tell me that the UTW was outnumbered eight to four at the general Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday June 30.

This may have opened Daly's eyes to the reality behind the UTW's claim to represent most of the cab drivers in San Francisco. In fact, the UTW was itself divided over Mark Gruberg's insistence on putting medical benefits in the proposal because this kept the SFCDA from backing it. Instead the SFCDA lined up alongside the MHA against Gruberg.

At least one medallion holder who had attended the meeting thought that the rest of the Board had turned against Daly on the issue.

Daly may also have been influenced by City Controller Ben Rosenfield's financial analysis of the amendment which stated that "the estimated costs of the proposed benefits represent 30% to 100% of the (taxi) industry's gross revenue. If the taxi industry absorbed some of these costs, it would need to increase revenue ... possibly by increasing fares, or by some other means."

Another way to put it might be to say that the amendment wasn't financially feasible.

In any case, Supervisor Daly appears to have seen the writing on the wall and it spelled out defeat.

For the rest of us, count it as one victory in a long war.

Board of Supervisors Again Delays Voting on MTA Budget

Last week's post about the Board of Supervisor okaying the MTA budget turned out to be premature. 

As of yesterday, the Board of Supervisors still has not decided whether to okay the budget or not. Supervisors Chris Daly, John Avalos and others were against okaying the budget because of cuts to transportation while supervisor Sean Elsbernd seemed interested in working out wage concessions from the muni drivers. In the end the supervisors decided they needed more time for negotiation and a majority voted 7 to 4 to put off a decision until next Wednesday, May 27th at noon.

Once again the $15 million budgeted extraction from taxicab drivers was not a subject deemed important enough for discussion.

Before the meeting, however, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association (SFCDA) held a protest attacking the proposed $15 million theft. The general theme was that "the city should not try to fix it's budget problems off the backs of cab drivers." The action attracted a couple of dozen enthusiastic drivers including former MHA members: SFCDA president Barry Korengold, Victoria Lansdown and myself.

The event was covered by radio and tv.