ETA??? The Universal App???

It's hard to know what's going on right now with ETA and the Universal App except that the "haves" want to make sure that the "have nots" get even less than they have now. But isn't that just the way of the taxi business - and the world?

The squabbling reminds me of a conversation I had over a beer last year with former cab driver and Taxi Advisory Council member Bill Minikel (photo).

Bill said that the way cab companies were reacting to Uber reminded him of a science fiction movie where the earthlings were so involved fighting each other that they didn't notice a gargantuan space ship hovering above the earth about to wipe out civilization.

An even better analogy today. The invaders have already zapped half the planet and our fearless leaders still think that the only way to fight them is to pursue the same self-indulgent policies that attracted the aliens in the first place.

Divided and ready to be conquered.

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.

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

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: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?

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.

What Happened to the Good Old Days?

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!"

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.

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

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.

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? 

LIMITED DRIVING REQUIREMENT - A Proposal by the SFCDA

The Taxi Advisory Council is still collecting data and reviewing some effects of the Pilot Program so far.   Because of delays in the implementation of the program and the many issues presented to the council, we have not yet discussed long term medallion reform.  I feel much further thought and discussion is necessary before making a final recommendation to the SFMTA  Board.

There are many who would like to see all medallions eventually transferable.  I would like to point out that if all medallions become transferable, there will no longer be the advantage of jumping the line by purchasing.  Everyone will have to wait again, only now when their name comes up, they'll have to split their medallion income with the bank.  This will exclude many older veteran drivers from owning a medallion.  We therefore feel a significant cap on the number of transferable medallions is essential.

Barry Korengold
President, SFCDA
Vice Chair, Taxi Advisory Council

Medallion Reform Proposal by the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association

We believe that as in most occupations, career cab drivers deserve a dignified end to their career. This plan will benefit a broad spectrum of interests. It will benefit the city by putting money into the SFMTA, it will benefit all cab drivers by contributing money to the driver's fund, maintaining gas and gate shifts, as well as continuing San Francisco’s long honored system of earning a medallion through time spent on the road, rather than by having to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. This plan will keep medallions going to veteran drivers at the top of the list and allows for elder and disabled medallion holders to reduce or eliminate their driving requirement or to sell their medallion. It benefits the public by maintaining quality, career cabdrivers in the industry.

We feel that although purchasing a medallion might be a good choice for some younger drivers early in their careers, many other drivers have already invested 20 years or more of their lives servicing the public for low pay, long hours, with no benefits, doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Therefore, there needs to be a way for drivers who have made a career of driving a cab to be able to obtain a medallion.

In order for medallions to continue going to veteran drivers, as has been the respected practice in San Francisco for the last 32 years, there needs to be a cap on the number of transferable medallions. We suggest a third. Because of the slow movement of the list, we feel two thirds of the medallions should continue to go to the top of the list without purchase. When new medallions are issued, one third of that number would become transferable. In other words, if 30 medallions are issued, 10 more medallions could become transferable.

The City should sell no more medallions outright, as each one deprives a career working cab driver from obtaining their medallion, which can be compared in other industries with tenure or a management position after usually at least 20 years on the road.

We propose that when a medallion holder reaches the age of 55, the driving requirement could be voluntarily reduced to 600 hours and the holder would contribute $100 a month or $1,200 a year to be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches the age of 60, the driving requirement could voluntarily be reduced to 400 hours and a contribution of $200 a month ($2,400 a year) would be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches 65 or becomes disabled, the driving requirement could voluntarily be eliminated with a $400 monthly contribution ($4,800 a year) to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. The medallion holder would still retain the medallion and still be able to drive.

To allow for inflation and market changes, these payments could also be set at a comparable percentage to medallion income instead of a dollar figure.

All reduced or eliminated driving requirement medallions would be run as a gate and gas cabs. This would create stability for companies as well as maintain available shifts for drivers.

A medallion holder would have the option to sell when they reach 65. If they chose to hold on to their medallion with a reduced or eliminated driving requirement, they would retain their medallion the rest of their lives, but would no longer have the option to sell. When these medallion holders die, their medallions would go back to the list. A medallion holder over 65 who continues driving, could make their decision at the time they wish to stop driving.

Since there would be a cap on transferable medallions, eventually there could be a waiting list to sell. A qualified medallion holder waiting to sell would not have to pay to eliminate their driving requirement until able to so, at which time they would make their decision.

We’d like to make this comparison of revenue from the current transfer fee of $50,000 per medallion to the revenue from this Limited Driving Requirement plan. With the amount of debt undertaken when buying a medallion, the purchaser will likely hold onto their new medallion for more than 10 years, probably closer to 20 or 30 years. After 10 years of participation in our recommended program, a 75 year old driver will have contributed $48,000 to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. If the same driver took advantage of the plan starting at the age of 55 he will have paid in $66,000, and still be contributing to the fund and the SFMTA.

We feel this plan is healthier for the industry overall. It will allow senior and disabled medallion holders to stop driving and allows older career drivers to still obtain a medallion. This will also help color schemes maintain gas and gate medallions, and provide more available shifts for non-medallion holding drivers.

TAC 3-14-2011 Part 2

The rough draft of the TAC report on the Pilot Program was put together by Council Chair Chris Sweis (photo) after going through more than 12 hours of tapes. For this he deserves an award.

However, as councilor Carl Macmurdo and others pointed out, Sweis forgot to include Medallion Holders as one the four primary participants in the S.F. taxi industry. (A Freudian slip? Sweis wouldn't be the first owner of a taxicab company to wish that medallion holders would disappear. ) The Chair admitted that it was an oversight and promised to include a section on medallion holders in an amended draft at the next session.

As for the rest, I simply want to deal with a few points of the draft. You can read the full text in TaxiTownSf.

The discussions at TAC were mostly about the effects on Taxi Companies and Drivers on the waiting list.

1.The major effect on companies was the change from Gates and Gas to Affiliate Leases.

• In 2003 there were few cabs operated on as Affiliates.
• By 2010 more than half the taxis were affiliates.
• 56% of the medallions purchased during the pilot program have chosen to become affiliates.

Sweis and others see this as a negative.

• G and G operations, according to Sweis, "provide greater control over vehicles and drivers."
• Loss of G and G medallions "will reduce company revenues and quality control."
• Companies are losing taxis to Affiliates.
• Experienced drivers are losing good shifts when Affiliates replace them with less experienced drivers.
• Which "would lead to a decline of taxi service to the public."

Driver Tone Lee (photo) disputed this claiming that Affiliates and LTLs did a better job because the drivers worked harder and took better care of the cars that they, themselves, purchased.

Gratchia Markanian, the head of Checker Cab, made similar points and predicted that all taxis would someday be Affiliates.

Hansu Kim (photo), on the other hand, who has been strongly in favor of Affiliates, reversed his position and said that taxi companies needed gate and gas arrangement to be profitable. Coincidentally, Kim recently purchased Desoto Cab.

Councilor John Lazar of Luxor Cab said that the frozen gate rates had "killed gates and gas" arrangement. He also said, as he's said before, that new buyers couldn't afford to work under gate and gas because their loan payments were too high.

I have a few problems with these arguments - namely that neither one of them appears to be true.

• The payments on a 15 years loan are $1,798 per month. The lowest amount that a GG medallion holder is paid is $1,800 per month and the highest is $2,400 per month. In addition a medallion is worth $5,000 to $10,000 per year in better shifts etc. What can't they afford?
• If the cab companies are so strapped for cash, how come they are engaging in medallion bidding wars?

Companies are currently offering bonuses as high as $5,000 and medallion payments as high as $2,400 a month to wrest medallion away from each other. If they're so broke, where are they getting the money for their campaigns?

In the end, they passed a motion by 10 to 4 to have all cabs that are awarded to drivers on the list to be worked as Gates and Gas for the first three years.

Next: The effect on Drivers.

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?

Flashing and Other Crimes

The SFPD have resurrected and re-interpreted an old law concerning the inappropriate use of flashers and are now ticketing cab drivers who use flashers when they are picking up or dropping off fares.

Vehicle Code Section 25250 says that: “Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as otherwise permitted.” 

Vehicle Code Section 25251(a) lists the circumstances in which flashing hazard lights are permitted:

        (2) When disabled or parked off the roadway but within 10 feet of the roadway, or when approaching, stopped at, or departing from, a railroad grade crossing, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

        (3) To warn other motorists of accidents or hazards on a roadway, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights while the vehicle is approaching, overtaking, or passing the accident or hazard on the roadway if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

        (4) For use on authorized emergency vehicles.

        (5) To warn other motorists of a funeral procession, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights on all vehicles actually engaged in a funeral procession, if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.”

Director of Taxi Services and Taxi Advisory Council Liaison Christiane Hayashi said at last Monday's TAC meeting that she interprets the law differently and is trying to work with the police to get them to change their policy. In the meantime, she suggested that turn signals might be an alternative when stopping for customers in order to avoid being ticketed by the police for the use of hazard lights.

I experimented with this technique Tuesday night and concluded that it was much like playing Russian Roulette - especially when pulling off to the right at corners. If you put your right signal on, the car behind you is likely to think that you're turning and smash into your rear end. If you put no signal on but merely brake, the driver might conclude that you're only slowing down and smash into your back end. If you put your left signal on, the dude might conclude that you're a Darwin Award candidate and try to kill you before you breed. In short, it's a lose-lose-lose tactic.

Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab thought that the PCOs were causing much more of a problem as did John Lazar of Luxor cab.  Mark Gruberg of Green Cab added that there had been an upsurge of tickets during the last month.

Hayashi said that she had been talking with SFMTA Enforcement as well as the SF Bicycle Coalition with some success. It is now supposed to be okay to pick up or drop off in bike lanes and in bus stops - as long as the cab pulls up as far as possible. It's just that the PCOs don't appear to have gotten the message.

One driver said that he had stopped to take a radio call on Market between 3rd and 4th when a cop told him that he had to move along. He did move along and a got a ticket in the mail anyway.

Another person pointed out that elderly people might need to be dropped off near a corner with a ramp.

Hayashi said that you should protest the tickets by following the instructions on the reverse side and let Taxi Services know when you have received a ticket while loading or unloading passengers.

John Han, who has written on this problem in Taxi Town SF said that he had fought two tickets by arguing that he wasn't supposed to get tickets because he was a cab driver and lost both times.

My take on this is that the cops and the PCOs see us as a revenue stream and an easy  target with which to hit their quotas. I think that the only chance we have of influencing their behavior is to go over their heads.

Therefore, I think the best course of action is to show up at the SFMTA Board and Police Commission meetings until they stop giving us ridiculous tickets. I'm not talking about being rowdy. Just go up and state your case.

The next MTA Board meeting will be held on January 18, 2011 at 1 pm in room 400 in City Hall.

The Police Commission meets every Wednesday. The times vary.

Taxi Services Speeds Up the Medallion Applicant Process

Medallion applicants will no longer necessarily have to have a hearing in order to be issued a medallion. In the future the process will go like this:

1. The SFMTA will notify the applicant of the availability of a medallion.
2.  They will concurrently post the notices on the SFMTA website and several other places inviting the public to assist in its investigation of the applicant.
3.The applicant will supply proof that he or she is qualified for a medallion.
4. SFMTA investigators will review the materials and decide whether to issue or deny the application for a medallion.
5. If they decide to issue the medallion, a member of public will have 20 business days to protest the issuance and request a hearing.
6. The SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days.
7. The burden of proof for not issuing the medallion would be on the member of the public.

If, on the other hand, the applicant is denied issuance, he or she has 20 business to request a hearing and the SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days. The burden of proof would be on the applicant.

These procedural changes were presented by Jarvis Murray (photo, standing) at this week's TAC meeting.

The official explanation is that the change is being made because the hearings have become a bottleneck slowing down the entire process. But I suspect that the ignorance of the taxi business exhibited by many of the hearing officers (an officer at a recent hearing reputedly berated an applicant for NOT playing the airport) may also have had something to do with the decision. Hopefully, with fewer cases to be heard, only officers schooled in the cab business will be presiding from now on.

A Change in the Public Speaking Format


Also at the Taxi Advisory Council meeting, Chairperson Chris Sweis announced a change in the order in which the public will be allowed to speak on an item. Prior to Monday's meeting, the public spoke first. From the last meeting on, the order will now be:

1. Reports on a subject will be given.
2. The council members will discuss the subject.
3. The public will be allowed to comment (without asking specific questions).
4. The council members will be allowed to make motions and vote.

The change was made because many members of the public, including myself, felt that they were unable to address a subject properly unless they were given the opportunity to speak after the council members had spoken. And, indeed, I think that the public contributed much more to this weeks discussions than they had in the past.

I also think that Chris Sweis (photo) is to be commended for showing the largeness of mind to change his procedures in order to suit us.

TAC Votes to End the Driving Requirement for "Key" Cab Company Personnel on the Waiting List ... Or the End of Daly/Ma?

At the 10/25/10 meeting, the Taxi Advisory Council voted 12-3 to recommend ending the driving requirement for key cab personnel on the Waiting List. From the discussion leading up to the vote, "key" here means, not only managers, but mechanics and dispatchers as well. Only driver representatives John Han, David Kahn and Bill Mounsey voted against the motion.

There is a lot to be said about this motion but first I think you need to see the agenda item under which it was voted upon.

"Medallion Sales Pilot Pilot Program: Review buyer/applicant qualification procedures for the Medallion Application Process (Discussion and Possible Action.)

A careful reading of the above naturally leads to a few questions.

1. What does giving cab company personnel medallions without their having to drive cabs have to do with Pilot Program?
2. What does it have to do with the agenda item?
3. What happened to public comment?

Barry Taranto, a sometimes driver and a member of the public, started to object about the lack of connection between the motion and the agenda item only to be silenced by Yellow Cab's Jim Gillespie who said, "Barry - we don't think we need your comments."

Nor did they think they needed comments from the rest of the public. The specific subject of the motion wasn't brought up until AFTER public comment on the theoretical agenda item. So, as a member of that public, I have no choice but to make my comments now.

Arguing in favor of zapping the driving requirement for taxi company personnel were Anthon Rebelos, Jane Bolig and John Lazar. Lazar said that mechanics and dispatchers were so important to running the companies that they shouldn't be burdened with having to drive taxis. Rebelos said that managing a cab company was a very demanding job and he had trouble finding time to meet the driving requirement. Medallion holder Jane Bolig, (a little off topic but perhaps looking forward to a future motion) seconded this idea saying that she was not even paid for being the president of Desoto Cab.

I'd like to look at these "key" personnel groups one by one.

Mechanics?

As David Kahn and Bill Mounsey pointed out, being a mechanic is its own trade and it can be a good one. If they belong to a union, mechanics have it made - retirement and all the other stuff that cab drivers, including medallion holders, don't have.

Unionized or not, why should mechanics be entitled to a medallion simply because they work for a taxi company instead of a bus company or a garage?

Dispatchers???

This is may favorite.

These are the guys who used to give me cars without brakes if I didn't tip them enough. But we all know about the corrupt practices that are "key" to their income flow so I won't go into the subject here.

Let me just say that, almost without exception, dispatchers are ex-drivers who quit driving cabs for one or all of three reasons:

1. Dispatching is easier.
2. It's safer.
3. It pays a lot more money.

John Han mentioned the five or ten dollars that drivers have to tip in order to "get out" but he didn't total it up. I've heard numbers as high as $400 or $500 a shift but I suppose that's rare. Nonetheless, it's well known that dispatchers make two or three times more money than cab drivers do.

It must be a good deal. Once they start being fed those five dollar bills through the window, dispatchers almost never go back to driving taxis.

I think being dispatcher is a perfectly legitimate life choice - unless he or she wants a medallion. In which case, they can put in the time just like the rest of us.

Management Problems

I can certainly identify with the demands that meeting the driving requirement puts on people like Chris Sweis and Athan Rebelos. We all know what it's like.

Take me for instance. During the nine years leading up to the day I received my medallion, I worked two different jobs - teaching driving in addition to driving the cab - six or seven days a week. I did this because these are both low paying jobs and I needed money to take care of my loved ones.

I suppose I could have simply driven a cab six days a week like Francoise Spiegelman but, for the ten years prior to taking up teaching, I had been driving a cab over 2,000 hours per year and I began getting all sorts of repetitive stress injuries. I took up teaching because it's much less physically demanding. Of course you have to concentrate all the time when you teach or the kids might suddenly go on the freeway the wrong way or try to whip a left in front of a charging semi; so, it's not exactly relaxing.

In short, I know how tiring putting in the hours for the driving requirement can be. But managers, like other "key" personnel and unlike regular drivers, can pick and chose the shifts they want to work. They can schedule their time any way they want. And, remember, they only have to work 156 four hour shifts or 624 hours a year. That's a lot less than the time that Francoise, I and hundreds of other medallion holders put in to earn our medallions.

In addition, like all other medallion applicants, "key" personnel only have to drive four out of the five years prior to applying. They can take a year off and kick back whenever they get close.

If, as "key personnel" they can't find the time to drive, being a manager is still a very good job. Managers certainly make considerably more money than I do.  In fact, a few of them could be considered wealthy.

Unlike regular taxi drivers, they shouldn't need a medallion to help them retire.

Conflict of Interest?

Since this clearly is a foreign concept to the Taxi Advisory Council, a definition is in order. From Wikipedia:

"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."

"More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."

Chris Sweis, Athan Rebelos, John Lazar, and any other members of TAC who are the list, have engaged in a conflict of interest by using their positions on the council to vote to give themselves medallions worth a minimum of $250,000, or $25,000 for life, without meeting the requirements demanded of everyone else.

The ideal of K

I voted in favor of Proposition K long before I ever drove a cab myself because it promised to reward taxi drivers for working. When I started driving myself, and realized that unions were a thing of the past, I began to understand that a medallion was the only reward that a working taxi driver would ever get from this city. As I got close to getting my medallion, I began to see how much this system contributed to public service by keeping the best and most experienced cab drivers in the business.

Of course it was never perfect. In the old days, anybody could put his or her name on the waiting list. It was common for mechanics, dispatchers, lawyers and cops to put their names on the list and then claim that they intended to drive when their numbers came up. As Hansu Kim has pointed out, this resulted in all sorts of people (including a few millionaires) getting medallions who wouldn't dirty their hands by driving a cab.

With the advent of Daly/Ma back in 2001, a concrete set up of rules was adopted to insure that medallions would only go to working taxi drivers. Once again, of course, the system wasn't perfect. People could still fake waybills - although it was much more difficult to cheat than it had been earlier. 

Now, with electronic waybills on the horizon, the ideal of "K" can finally be realized.

And, at this precise moment, TAC is trying to change the rules so that non-cab drivers can once again own medallions.

This is no small thing. It's a radical change in principle.

One no longer has to drive a taxi to get a medallion, it's enough to work for a cab company. The medallion is now to be rewarded to people the companies "like" instead of working taxi drivers. The specter of medallion holders who have never driven a cab and never will, once again becomes a possibility.

The 3,000 or so drivers who have already qualified under Daly/Ma will just have to take a step back in line to move room for taxi company personnel.

TAC Votes to Limit Down Payment Assistance

On Tuesday October 12, the Taxi Advisory Council voted unanimously (William Minikel and Dmitry Nazarov were absent) to grant Down Payment Assistance only to buyers who choose to work their taxis as "gate and gas" for at least three years. 

The motion to do so was put forward by National Cab's Dan Hinds (photo, left) in order to limit the number of new buyers who operate their cabs as Owner Operators or Affiliates (i.e. owners who operate their cabs as Long Term Leases).

The vote came after a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of GG vs LTL and the problems of trying to run a full service cab company.

Declining Profits

Desoto's Jane Bolig said that: problems with the EDD (California's Employment Development Department), the costs of medallion holder bidding wars, and the increased number of cabs going LDL were causing declining profits in companies giving full service.

(Her comments on the EDD referred to suits that the EDD had filed against both Luxor Cab of San Francisco and Yellow Cab of San Jose that charged the taxi companies with millions of dollars in back Unemployment taxes.)

Yellow Cab's Jim Gillespie said that the EDD "only has issues" with GG drivers and leaves LTL alone. However, he added that it was possible to structure GG leases in such a way that "doesn't" turn GG drivers into "employees." He gave the practice of having drivers pay for their shifts in advance as an example.

Jane Bolig said that she thought that giving Fleet Medallions to full service companies would be about the only way for them to survive.

Green Cab's Athan Rebelos (photo, left) said that he agreed with the necessity for fleet medallions and added that he'd been in the taxi business in New York City where they had a combination of Fleet medallions and individual medallion holders and suggested that San Francisco follow a similar policy.

But he also said that declining profits were a "national problem" and that in many cities neither the taxi companies nor the cab drivers were making any money at all.

Scheduling Problems

Lease Driver John Han (photo, right) said that he wanted to be a GG driver and that, if taxi companies would actually honor the "Independent" contracts that their drivers sign, fewer drivers would want to become LTL drivers.

Han gave the example of his own shift which is listed as being from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm according to the lease he signed. He usually can't get started driving, however, until 9:00 or 9:30 am - unless he pays the dispatcher "some huge tip."

Council President Chris Sweis chose to describe this as "a scheduling problem." And, indeed, it no doubt is. The company Han works for is clearly scheduling a "short" that overlaps John's shift. The "short" apparently runs from 3:00 am or 4:00 am to 9:00 am. This allows the company to get an additional three or four hours of profitability (not including tip) from the medallion. The "short" takes up part of Han's shift  because the company would be unable to sell the "short" without including the 7:00 to 9:00 morning rush hour.

But I digress ...

Unintended Consequences

Dan Hind's original motion didn't impose any time limit but Jane Bolig said that having a GG taxi wouldn't do Desoto Cab any good unless they could keep the taxi for three years.

Lease Driver David Kahn (photo, right) then proposed an amendment to the motion calling for a three year time limit.

Athan Rebelos backed the motion saying that the Pilot Plan "had been developed around a gates and gas program" and that no one was prepared to deal with so many Owner/Operated taxis hitting the streets at the same time.

The unanimity of the vote came from the perception that the conversion of GG cabs to Owner/Operated leases has been having a negative effect on almost everyone in the business except the new buyers.

• Companies have been losing revenue from cabs.
• Drivers have been losing shifts.

"Warp Speed Scottie."

The Taxi Advisory Council, as its name suggests, can only advise the MTA on a policy. The MTA has to okay a change and then a new policy does not officially take effect for 30 days.

The San Francisco Federal Credit Union, however, already put the new Down Payment Assistance rules into effect on 10/14/2010. As of that date, "Supplemental funds from the down payment assistance provision in the Pilot Program are not acceptable for financing" Owner/Operator (aka Affiliate) leases.

TAC 10-12: This and That

Most of the TAC meeting was concerned with leasing but a few other subjects came up.

1. Chris Hayashi, wearing her flashiest dress ever, mentioned that she was re-staffing in order to end various backlogs.

She also said that an owner/driver has been putting stickers on cabs calling for an end to Paratransit. The man apparently has a website advocating violence against handicapped people. Chris said that she has started revocation action against the owner and added that any other drivers who knowingly placed anti-Paratransit stickers on their cabs would face disciplinary action.

"This goes way beyond the rights of free speech," she said.

2. Hayashi has revised and re-written Article 7 of Division 1 of the Transportation code to add several new misdemeanors. I intend to write a post on the subject later but the ordinance would:

• Allow MTA investigators to fine illegal limos and taxis $5,000 for violations.
• Make enforced tipping illegal.
• Make it a misdemeanor for a customer to refuse to pay the fare.

The ordinance will go before the MTA Board on Tuesday 10-19-2010. Public comment will be allowed and is usually listened to by the Board.

3. Speaking of public comment, I quietly suggested that TAC's policy of requiring public comment to come before the council discussed a subject instead of after was, "unheard of, ridiculous and outrageous" adding that TAC was the only committee that I knew of that followed such a policy.

Much to my surprise, Council President Chris Sweis discussed the issue with me after the meeting. I told him that the public could make more meaningful contributions if they were allowed to speak after the councilors but before motions and voting. I was backed up in this by Barry Korengold who noted that both the Board of Supervisors and the MTA Board conducted their public meetings in the manner that I was suggesting.

Sweis said that his main concern was that my approach would be less efficient. I told him that I thought that doing it (taxi reform) right was important than doing it quickly.

Swiess said that he'd look further into the matter and presumably make a ruling on it next meeting.

4. Mark Gruberg of the UTW, in one of his stranger (considering that he's supposed to be representing lease drivers) speeches, passionately attacked the provision in the MTA ordinance that would make tipping illegal. He said that it would be unenforceable.

Nonetheless it'll be on the books, Mark, making it more enforceable the than nada we have now.

5. As the meeting was winding down, John lazar, out of the blue, said that the taxi industry was being run by an agency that didn't know anything about taxicabs and was doing nothing. He added that the room was full of people who really knew what they were doing, implying (I think) that the cab business would be better off if it wasn't regulated.

Director Hayashi  responded heatedly to Lazar saying, "I take exception to the idea that we've done nothing here." She went on to praise her staff for their hard work and accomplishments under trying circumstances; and pointed out that, among other things, they'd re-written all the rules and regulations concerning cabs and cab driving in San Francisco.

I would add that, while Lazar and his knowledgeable pals spend over 20 years trying to get the right to transfer medallions, Chris Hayashi is the person who made transferability happen. She also:

• Negotiated the Pilot Plan.
• Set up a realistic method to rid the City of illegal limo and cabs.
• Created the Taxi Advisory Council that has empowered Lazar to influence the way the industry is run.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

Although I no longer think that Chris Hayashi is perfect, she's close enough for the cab business.

Next: More on Leasing.