Notes Uber's Comments on the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling

I wasn't able to read all the comments on the Proposed Modifications to Commissioner Peevey's CPUC Decision 13-09-45 on TNCs. Therefore I decided to restrict myself to making a few comments on Uber's comments.

My format will be:

First, I'll quote a passage from Uber's lawyers then I'll give my comment. The result will be the sort one-sided dialogue that you can find on Uber's website or in their online magazine Tech Crunch. Except – here I get the last word.

(Note: You can find an update on how safe (not) it really is to ride with Uber in an end note.)

Bay Cab Going Out of Business on December 1, 2013

Bay Cab is going out of business on December 1, 2013.

The company, which is owned by Roger Cardenas, has been hit with over $50,000 worth of fines by the SFMTA.

According to Taxi Services staff:

"The fines were for continuous violations of company reporting requirements and vehicle equipment problems (disconnected Paratransit equipment)."

Mr. Cardenas has agreed to go out of business as a settlement for the fines.

Bay's 109 medallion holders will have until November 1, 2013 to tell Taxi Services to which color schemes they choose to move their medallions. Because it won't be a voluntary transfer, the standard color scheme transfer fee of $611.50 will be waved. The transfers should be completed by November 29, 2013.

Board of Supervisors Again Delays Voting on MTA Budget

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

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

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

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

The event was covered by radio and tv.

Millionaire Mayor’s Plan to Bail Out San Francisco by Soaking Its Cab Drivers. Part II

My first blog on this subject ended up on an high note with angry cab drivers apparently backing down Mayor Gavin Newsom. But I think this created a false impression - at least with me. As it turns out the Major actually didn't back back off. He simply re-strategized - or maybe not. This is San Francisco politics: the subject is convoluted.

• Mayor's original plan had been introduced and withdrawn by Malcom Heinicke as the chair of the Taxicab Charter Reform Working Group which is now disbanded.
• Heinicke, who is a member of the MTA (see A Micro History of ...), reintroduced the plan as one of nine or ten Proposition K reform proposals to be discussed and considered by the Taxis and Available Services Town Hall Meetings. (Whew! No wonder these people use acronyms.)

The Mayor's plan is one of the stranger documents that I've seen - especially when you consider that it's supposed to end up as a law. The most striking thing about it is that it contains no hard figures or percentages.

• It states, for example,  "The City would call in a small percentage of the medallions (perhaps 10% per year) for re-issuance ... " and "current medallion holders will receive some portion of the ... proceeds."
• Even stranger is the idea that the buyer of the medallion could only own it "for a set term." If I understand this correctly, it means that the new medallion owner (or not) would "hold" it for, say, three to five years (or whatever) when he or she would be forced to re-sell it. 
• While the original medallion holders would receive a "minority of the proceeds," the new medallion holders would "receive a set percentage," which sounds better but might not be.
• In addition, "The MTA would have the authority to issue new medallions of a different nature ... " apparently at any time. This would necessarily lower the value of the medallions that had already been sold. In other words, the MTA would be able to change the rules whenever.
• Newsom and Heinicke seem to have been so mesmerized by their fantasy of endlessly milking their "cash cow" medallions that they failed to realize that no one in his or her right mind would buy a medallion under such conditions. 

Or not. The plan is so unworkable that it may have been drawn up simply to scare the shit out of the taxicab drivers - in which case it has succeeded admirably.