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.

Thoughts on Electronic Taxi Acess (ETA)

Director Christiane Hayashi would have had an easier time with the measure if she'd simply pushed for the Electronic Taxi Access part without including additional data collection. But the Director thinks the information to be gained will be invaluable in helping her regulate the taxi industry and she's never been one to back down from a fight if she thought she was right.

On the other hand, Yellow and Luxor killed a similar measure two years ago so she would have had a battle in any case.

I supported ETA, despite a few reservations about personal privacy, because I think this may be our only chance to get a universal dispatching system. And, without universal dispatch, we'll never be able to compete with Uber and the TNC's (Twit & Nerd Carriers).

Company Opposition

Hansu Kim, President of Desoto Cab, told me that he favored a universal App but was against the Frias Transportation Infrastructure (FTI) platform. He said that FTI had refused to co-operate with San Francisco taxi companies and that the taxi companies had offered their data to FTI but the tech company had refused to give them the technology necessary to transfer their data. He also seemed to fear that FTI (an offshoot of Frias Transportation which runs cab companies in Las Vegas) would try to take over the local business.

The compromise with the SFMTA would appear to render Kim's first objection moot. If the San Francisco companies provide the data necessary for ETA, FTI would have to provide the necessary technology to use it or loose their software contact.

As for Frias taking over ... I guess that is a legitimate concern. However, Hayashi has said that the contract with FTI includes clauses that will prevent them from entering the taxi business in San Francisco.

Down Dinosaur Walk

Nate Dwiri of Yellow cab presented his usual set of dubious statistics at the Board meeting and then pulled my-favorite-all-time-argument-for-more-taxis out of his cellar. He claimed that Yellow was unable fill their dispatch orders which proved (for him) that the city needs more cabs. In other words, he used Yellow's incompetence as a reason for the SFMTA to help him make more money. There is much to be said about this:

1. Sources tell me that, for years, Yellow has deliberately been holding calls in order create the stats that Dwiri gave out at the meeting. In short, Yellow has been deliberately giving poor service so that the city will give them more medallions. Bizarre – but entirely possible under the gate system.
2. Although I don't have definitive proof for the above assertion, the information gleamed from Yelp on Yellow shows that there are drastic problems with Yellow's dispatching service. Out of 91 Yelp reviews, 6 were positive. 80 of the reviews were negative, giving only one star (out of a possible 5). Many of these reviewers expressed regret that they couldn't give a negative rating. 
3. Yellow can't come close to filling their shifts now. Where would Mr. Dwiri park additional cabs?
4. Mr. Dwiri does not drive cabs anymore. If he did he would realize that that there already are far too many taxis on the street most of the time. 
5. I spent a couple of hours with Taxi Services' inspectors last Saturday night (see future post) and we watched empty cabs following each other down Mission and Polk streets while Lyft and Sidecars were picking up right and left. Why? The customers had hailed the same TNC's that had picked them up at home and taken them there.

Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab, on the other hand, argued that Luxor didn't want to provide the city with their data because their dispatching system gave them a leg up on their competitors.

I guess he means Desoto, Yellow, ect. More to the point might be Bay Cab.

Mr. Rathbone has expressed anger with me in the past for calling Luxor a dinosaur. But I don't know what other comparison to make: Neandrathal? Denisovan (early hominoids who had sex with Neandrathals)? Or, for a non-extinct species, the Ostrich?

Cab companies competing with each other is as relevant to the problems facing the taxi industry today as the Warring States Period of Ancient China is to modern geopolitics.

The real game today is taxi companies vs Uber & the TNC's. It's how to win back the hearts and minds of the riding public. The only way to succeed is to take back our turf in the outer districts and the only way to do that is a universal dispatching system. The only brand that's important for us now is Taxicabs.

Although many companies are against ETA, most drivers are for it, and I have yet to meet a customer who didn't find the idea "awesome."

We win those customers back and they'll be plenty of business for everybody.

Malcolm on Top

Might as well start with Jim Gillespie (photo, below). He walked up to me with a big smile as I headed across the square toward the MTA board meeting last Tuesday.

"Going to write something in your blog?" he asked with a smile.

"I just found out that Heinicke (photo left) appears to be be violating the Sunshine Ordinance. The meetings are a farce," I told Gillespie. "The proposals are decided in advance behind close doors."

"I thought that's the way it worked," Jim said.

If anybody would know about such things it would be Gillespie. He was seen making one of those back door visits with his pal John Lazar and the way he jauntily bounded up the steps to City Hall told me how the vote would go.

MTA Board did indeed choose to lease 150 to 200 medallions or permits to taxi companies. The permits are supposed to go to the best run companies but "word on the street" is that Yellow will get more than its share anyway.

Jim used the incompetence of his company during the meeting as a reason for the City to give him more cabs. He especially mentioned that a high percentage of the people who call Yellow hang up before the dispatcher answers or cancel before Yellow picks them up.              

What he didn't bother to tell the Board was that Yellow often deliberately fails to answer the phone and then holds the orders for 9 to 12 minutes before dispatching them.  That way the company can use their poor service to ask for more taxis. And, the City is going to do it. Another doublethink classic.

The board will lease the taxis to the companies despite the fact that a study being done by Hara and Associates will not be finished until January.

This caused some discussion and the only dissenting vote. Chairman of the Board, Tom Nolan (photo left) thought that they should wait until the study was completed. He also wanted to revisit the decision if Hara came to the conclusion that no cabs were necessary. But, as one driver said, that's like closing the barn door after the horses are out.

There was an extended discussion by the Board members but it was one of those experiences where reality trumps satire.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with ignorance. But, it does take humility to learn and the Board has adamantly refused to listen to anybody - the Taxi Advisory Council, the drivers at the Town Hall meetings, the drivers at the MTA Board meetings, Director of Taxi Services Chris Hayashi, Dan Hara - who could teach them what's what.

The tone was actually set a few Board meetings ago when Director Joel Ramos (photo right) fervently thanked Director Malcolm Heinicke for helping them understand the taxi business. I have nothing to add. This is the level at which the Board functions.

Ramos thought the fact that Uber, Sidecar and other illegal Apps started in San Francisco was a priori proof that there must be a shortage of cabs. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that this city is one of the Tech start up capitals of the world and that the businesses are being set up in such a way that it's almost impossible for them to lose money. Not to mention that these Apps are invading cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago that are flooded with taxis.

"Word on the street" has it that Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin (along with the Mayor's office) is responsible for raising the payout to medallion holders back up to $200 thousand from the $150 thousand that Heinicke wanted them to suck on. Although Reiskin is clearly being pressured from above to "show them the money," he appears to be struggling to do as best he can by the drivers and the cab riding public.

The problem is that he clearly does not understand the most basic things about the cab business. Nor does he know the characters in it.

And, why should he? He has the entire MTA under his purview. How could he know the nuts and bolts of every division? Especially one as complex as taxicabs? That's what the Director of Taxi Services is supposed to be for. But, of course, the Board has her on the top of their list of people not to listen to. (Hmm. I've just ended two perfectly good sentences in a row with prepositions. Take that Sister Pauline!)

Director Reiskin thought it was refreshing to hear from people outside the cab industry during public comment - after the usual collection of professional shills (most of them paid by Luxor or Yellow) came up calling for as many 700 more cabs. My favorites were the hotel rep and the woman from the Chamber of Commerce. They always want more cabs no matter what the situation. They wanted more after 9/11.

The hotel guy said that they couldn't find cabs at the hotels. Of course not. With all the limos lined up to grease the doorman, where would a cab park? The Commerce lady, as always, cited the expanding population of San Francisco as a reason to put out the taxis.

 She's right of course. In 1950, the population of San Francisco was 775,357. By 2010, it was 805,235. At that rate, one additional medallion a year should do the trick.

When another speaker and myself told Reiskin that, even if they started the process tomorrow, the additional cabs still wouldn't be ready for the Blue Angels, he was disconcerted. He thought about it for few moments and decided that "we have to get them out as soon as possible." He seemed to be unaware of the fact that, if the taxis were needed at all, it wouldn't be until May. Yes - there are no tourists between October and the summer.

The ideal time to add taxis would be in April. That way they wouldn't lower the incomes of current drivers and they'd be ready for the boat races next summer. There was no need to rush. Reiskin had plenty of time to read Hara's study and still add cabs if needed. Anyone in the taxi business could have told him so - if he'd been willing to listen.

On the other hand, someone else is clearly pushing Reiskin's buttons. (See the title of this post.) The only real reason to put the permits out fast is to funnel funds into the income streams of a few cab companies and the SFMTA.

One thing the Board members did right ...

was finally come out in favor of an Uber like App for taxicabs. Finally?

I wrote my first post on Cabulous and Open Taxi Access(OTA)  on January 28, 2011. The idea has been presented to the MTA Board on numerous occasions. The Taxi Advisory Council voted in favor of it. Cab drivers almost universally support it. Chairman Tom Nolan even said that the Board should look into the idea.

Cabulous started at approximately the same time as Uber in 2010. If OTA had been supported by the Board when it first came to their attention, everyone might be talking about how Uber is like Cabulous and not the other way around.

About the only people against it were the managers of Yellow and Luxor Cabs.

So what happened?

"Word on the street (dude sees all, hears all, knows all)" is that OTA died when President and General Manager of Luxor cab, John Lazar (photo), told former Executive MTA Director Nat Ford to kill it.

On the other hand, funds have recently been allocated to Taxi Services for electronic dispatch (The new name for OTA). Hopefully the Board will follow through this time.

Why $1,900 a month?

Of course this figure was not vetted (What is these days?) but the going price for medallions leased to taxi companies is currently $2,500. Yet here is the SFMTA selling permits on the cheap. To say the least, this runs contrary to their normal behavior. It also gives credence to the "word on the street" that John Lazar and Jim Gillespie worked out a back door deal after threatening to sue the SFMTA. At $1,900 a month Yellow and Luxor will make out like bandits - which isn't too far from their normal behavior.

Yellow takes in between $8,000 to $12,000 per day by encouraging its drivers to "voluntarily" tip. And, of course, John Lazar was asking for $10 per day plus $2 for the gasman at Luxor when I was there three years ago. At that time, he was also asking his cashiers to "voluntarily" tip him.  This meant that John's cashiers had to make $100 per shift in tips from drivers through Luxor's dispatching window (photo below) before they could make anything for themselves. This gives the word "voluntary" a whole new meaning.

What we have here, then, is the SFMTA getting together with two of the most dubious taxi companies in the business to divvy up money that had been headed to ease the old age of working cab drivers. This would appear to leave Director Malcolm Heinicke with a profound moral quandary:

Should the MTA take 15%, 33% or 50% from the companies' tipping jars? For the public good - as is, of course, understood.

City Slapps Taxi Company Owner

In March 2012, Gratchia Makarian, owner of Speck Cab Co. d.b.a Arrow/Checker Cab, sued the City of San Francisco, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and Deputy Director of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayashi (photo). Using a spaghetti against a wall approach, Mr. Makarian alleged more than a dozen different violations ranging from denying Speck representation on the Taxi Advisory Council to engaging in “unlawful inspections” and investigations because of ethnic prejudice against Makarian. 

On June 19, 2012, the Superior Court of the State of California ruled in favor of the defendants. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Speck complaint was a “SLAPP Lawsuit.” 

For those of us who aren’t lawyers an explanation seems in order.  “SLAPP” is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” which is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate or silence critics so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. In other words, the Court found that Makarian had filed the complaint in order to stop Hayashi from investigating him.

If the person being sued convinces the court that the lawsuit is intended to intimidate, the “SLAPP” law requires that the lawsuit be dismissed and that the person who filed the lawsuit pay the legal costs of the defense.

In this case, Judge James J. McBride of the Superior Court wrote in his ruling,


“The Court denies the Anti-SLAPP motion as moot because plaintiffs dismissed the action. The Court concludes that the complaint is a SLAPP and awards $5,637.50 in fees to defendant City and County of San Francisco.”

Endemic Corruption.

Industry insiders broke out laughing when I first told them about the suit. Why?

How shall I put it so that I don’t get sued myself? To say that corruption is widespread in the taxicab business is like saying that my Irish relatives occasionally drink. Taxi companies make tens of millions of dollars a year from, among other things, forcing drivers to tip and pay illegally high leasing fees. There are three San Francisco cab companies - Green, Metro and Desoto - that DO NOT engage in such practices. No one in my presence has ever alleged that Gratchia Makarian has any connection with those three companies.

Who is defaming who?

In the complaint Makarian alleged that Hayashi and other members of the SFMTA had “defamed and discriminated against Speck because of Makarian’s national origin” and “perpetuated rumors that the Speck owners are part of Russian organized crime.”

In an interview with The Bay Citizen Makarian said ,“It is an extremely stupid allegation because I am Armenian ... “I have never been involved in any crime related to organized crime. I have a clean record.”

I found Makarian's allegations and statements interesting for a couple reasons: 

First, Ms. Hayashi is among the least likely people I've met to discriminate along racial or ethnic lines. 


Hayashi is currently taking time off to work as a volunteer interpreting for master Cuban percussionist, Lazaro Pedroso (photo left). She tells me she has been using her spare time to translate books he has written because, she says, "he deserves to be recognized in the English speaking world for his work in preserving Afro-Cuban religion and culture."


She has also worked as a volunteer with indigenous Mayan peoples in Mexico and speaks Japanese after living in Japan for several years and majoring in Japanese.

Second, rumors of Mr. Makarian’s supposed mafia ties are rife in the taxi industry, although I’ve never actually heard anyone say that he was a gangster. One person who gave me some details about Makarian's business practices did not want to go on record because  "Gratchia might belong to the mafia.” Other people have asked me, “Do you think Gratchia belongs to the Russian Mafia?” 

I put the same question to Hayashi a couple of months BEFORE Makarian filed his suit against her. The Deputy Director  told me that there was a difference between Russians and Russian speakers. She said that “Makarian was an Armenian who spoke Russian.” She concluded by adding, “just because somebody speaks Russian does not make them a member of the Russian Mafia.”

Let me repeat - this was months before Mr. Makarian accused Hayashi of claiming that he belonged to “Russian organized crime.”


Running a bluff.

Zusha Elinson in The Bay Citizen wrote that Makarian fancies himself a poker player who views the cab industry like a game.

“You have to read people and you have to know how people are coming at you,” he told Elinson.

Playing on this theme, an informant, who of course wishes to remain anonymous, suggested that Gratchia Makarian himself might have started the gangster rumors. Why not? Making cab drivers sign "independent contracts" leaves taxi company owners unfettered by labor laws or unions. They have the power to fire a driver without notice for any reason or no reason at all. Half of them strut around like Mafioso. Pretending to be a real thug would give Makarian an edge up in his game.

It might also have helped him to read the law more carefully so that he knew what game he was actually playing with Hayashi.

When the City Attorneys led by Leila K. Morgan filed an Anti-SLAPP motion, Makarian folded his hand and pulled back the complaint.

However, unlike most American laws, the Anti-SLAPP statute assumes that, if the plaintiff withdraws the complaint after the defense alleges that the only purpose of the action was to intimidate the defendant, the lawsuit was not legitimate. Not to answer an anti-SLAPP motion is an admission of guilt and the plaintiff must pay for the defendant's legal costs.

Makarian’s bluff did shackle the SFMTA’s investigators for a few months. But, in the end, it gave the agency legal and moral sanction to continue its fight against taxi company corruption; not to mention the $5,637.50 Makarian has to pay for the his losing hand.

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

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 its 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 speak. 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 Of New York

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. 


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 had 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 originally 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 (which has a lot of experience making loans to cab drivers) to get 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  uredit union to rethink their opposition to medallion loans.


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 & 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 anyone defaulted on a loan. 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?


What Rates?

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


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


Why? It's one those questions that would seem to answer 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 drivers tries to pay off their loans early, Medallion Financial charges them 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 & gas" medallion holder.) 


Medallion Financial never got back to her.


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


Is that another question that answers itself?


A driver who had aligned 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. 

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

Review of the Protests: Successes

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

1. 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.
2. There was a major compromise on Electronic Waybills proposed by Hayashi.
3. 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.

1. 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.

Bye Bye Electronic Waybills? Bye Bye Waybills?

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.

Tariq Mehmood Stages Bitch-In at the SFMTA

Cab driver Tariq Mehmood (photo) doesn't like Director of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayashi. There are two reasons for this: 

1. Hayashi closed the Waiting List to new applicants last year in order to protect the seniority of long time drivers who had not put their names on the list before. Although Mehmood has driven for many years, he never put his name on the list but would be relatively low in seniority. He wanted to jump on the List before it closed and didn't get the chance - meaning that it will be a long time before Tariq will be eligible to own a cab. 

2. She neglected to put Mehmood on the Taxi Advisory Council.

Mehmood has repeatedly and bitterly complained about these things at  numerous SFMTA Board meetings. Last December he tried to make a major issue out of people waiting in line to renew their A-Cards - a problem that Hayashi had already solved as well as she could and one that won't be a problem in the future.

Yesterday, Mehmood finally had his moment in the sun when he led of group of angry, largely misinformed drivers on a rant against credit card charges, electronic waybills and in-cab video cameras.

Although the drivers raised some valid issues that should be considered, the tone of the protest was decidedly irrational and hostile.

At one point, trying to respond to a surge of shouting drivers led by Mehmood, Hayashi backed up against a railing. If she had fallen over the railing, she could have dropped one story and been seriously injured, if not killed.

The irony is that Hayashi has tried to put the back seat terminals and the video camera in for the purpose of helping some of the very drivers who were harassing her.

• Almost half the drivers in San Francisco are already being illegally charged 5% to 10% by Checker Cab, Royal Cab and Town Taxi others. The back seat terminals are intended to put an end to this.
• The PIM's in question are designed to prompt customers to tip large. Hayashi has seen studies showing that passengers who use these units tip 30% more than normal. That is - drivers should make more even after paying the 5% than they would make without the terminals.
• The in-cab video cameras are there to protect the drivers.

The fact is that Chris Hayashi is the biggest driver advocate around. She has written and had legislation passed making tipping and other corrupt taxi company practices illegal. She has written and had legislation passed that will allow Taxi Services to effectively fight illegal limos and taxis for the first time. And, after more than a year of pusing for them, she has finally gotten a couple of investigators to sic on the bad guys.

I would also like to point out for the umteenth time that the Drivers Fund wouldn't exist and the Waiting List would no longer exist had it not been for Hayashi's lobbying on their behalf. Indeed, I doubt that the Pilot Plan would exist had it not been for her extraordinary intelligence, dedication and negotiating skills. 

One other thing - these protesting drivers - many of whom have never been seen at a meeting before - seemed to be thought of the real cab drivers of San Francisco by Malcolm Heinicke. Yet this was clearly an ambush designed by Mehmood and fueled with misinformation and half truths.

How did these guys become more real than those of us who've taken the trouble to be at the various meeting and actually study the text of the proposals in question?

Do they really represent us? Or, do they just fit the "cabbie" stereotype of being loud, unthinking and out of control? 

Credit Card Charges: Illegal

It is currently illegal for taxi companies to charge drivers for cashing credit card slips. Period. 

Illegal? So what?

The illegality of credit card charges means little to the hundreds of cab drivers who are forced to pay fees as high as 10% or 12% to get cash back for their receipts.

Taxi Services Enforcement and Legal Affairs Manager Jarvis Murray, in fact, is looking into complaints against various taxicab companies for charging their drivers fees to cash their receipts.

Jarvis said that it is an ongoing investigation so he couldn't give me the names. But he did say that Luxor Cab, Yellow Cab and Green Cab do not charge for cashing the slips.

In any case, the anonymity of the offending companies will end soon.

At the last TAC meeting Councilor John Lazar of Luxor Cab insisted that Director Christiane Hayashi provide the names of these companies to the council and she agreed to do so at the Monday 3-14-11 meeting.

As a preview, I've been told by drivers that Royal, Town Taxi and Checker have all been charging 10% for the service.

At Checker, drivers go to a shed on the property where a Russian speaking woman cashes the receipts. Royal drivers were being sent to the same shed but rumor has it that Royal isn't using her services anymore. Town Taxi has recently reduced it's charge from 10% to 5%. Regent Cab, the other hand, discourages it's drivers from taking credit cards - also a violation of the rules.

Since the fees from the credit card companies are usually 3% or less, the Taxi companies are making themselves a hefty profit from these exchanges - with the money, of course, being taken from working drivers.

Many drivers simply don't take credit cards for this reason, putting themselves at risk for citations and and annoying the public.
  
Tmw - The new backseat terminals and legal charges.

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?