A Short History of San Francisco's Taxi Crisis: Bigoty & Cabbies, Part 2

When Mayor Newsom discovered that he was $600 million in debt, one of the first things he DID NOT DO was tell the people of San Francisco that he was going to cut back on their bus service. Instead he came out with his plan to "improve" taxi service by taking taxis away from cab drivers, auctioning them off and keeping the money for the city.

People in San Francisco take ten times more buses than cabs. In short, the issue was and is a red herring, a pump fake, a sound bite designed to take the public's mind away the fact that they are going to be waiting longer for buses.

Mayors from Dianne Feinstein on have used taxicabs for similar ploys, but Newsom is the first mayor to claim that he could improve taxi service by attacking San Francisco's cab drivers.

His justifications rest on a series of half truths coupled with assumptions that are essentially racist. But first - the facts, just the facts.

San Francisco has a unique cab system.

• Taxi medallions are not for sale. They are leased to drivers on a first come first serve basis.
• There is a waiting list to get a medallion that is currently 3,000 applicants long.
• The wait for a medallion is about 15 years.
• The medallion goes back to the city when a medallion holder either stops driving or dies.

Now some half truths followed by facts.

Half truth: Auctioning off cabs would give more taxi drivers a chance to own one.

• Fact: Almost 1,400 out of 1,500 of San Francisco's taxicab medallions are owned by individual drivers. About 1 driver in 5 owns a medallion. In other words 90% of the taxis are owned by individual drivers. This is by far the highest percentage in the country.
• Fact: In New York City by comparison, 5,525 out of 13,107 are owned by individual drivers. This works out to 42% of the medallions - less than half the percentage in San Francisco.
• Fact: Johnny Marks of www.nycabbie.com/ writes: "That % (the 42%) sounds a little high, what with the cost of the city license (medallion) presently going for $750,000.00 which does not include the cost of the cab itself."
• Fact: According to the Asian Law Caucus only 1 driver in 20 can afford to buy a taxi in NYC.
• Probability: Most of the cabs in NYC are actually owned by people financing the cab drivers, not the drivers themselves.

Half truth: According to Mayor Newsom's man at the MTA, Director Malcom Heinicke, taxi medallions are "essentially free."

• Fact: The medallions are not dropped from the sky or won in a lottery.
• Fact: A driver puts in an average of 15 years of hard labor to get the medallion and pays about $200,000 in rental fees. Therefore, the medallion is "earned" not free.

Half truth: Aging medallion holders are not working and because of this the service is bad.

• Fact: About 20% of the medallion holders are indeed too old to drive. This does not, however, mean that the cabs are sitting idle. Ordinary drivers work the cabs when the medallion holder doesn't. Almost every cab in the fleet is in operation 20 hours a day, seven days a week.

Doublethink: According to Newsom, "If drivers had more of a stake in their industry ... that could translate into better service for the customers."

• Opinion: I don't see how somebody would have "more of a stake" by getting a cab in an auction than working 15 years to own one.
• Fact: If you own the medallion you own the medallion. It doesn't matter how you got it. The stake in the industry is the same.

There are subtexts to Newsom's arguments that basically racist. He's morphing the stereotypes formally associated with blacks. What's he's saying in other words is:

• The service is bad because the drivers are lazy.
• We're paying them too much money so they aren't working.
• If we pay them less (put them in debt to pay for the auction price) they'll work harder.

Newsom has no idea if the cab service is good or not. (The average waiting time in front of his most famous restaurant, The Balboa Cafe, is about 15 seconds.) But Newsom does know that he can always gain political points by appealing to people's prejudices and bashing "cabbies."

• The truth is that the medallion system has created a class of professional drivers. The promise of being able to own a medallion someday keeps experienced drivers in the business.
• Fact: San Francisco has the most knowledgeable cab drivers in the USA.
• Fact: Replacing San Francisco's veteran drivers with deep-pocket newbies would most certainly make the service much worse.

The idea that medallion holders aren't working because they make too much money is absurd.

• At one public hearing, a woman claimed that medallion holders weren't working because they were home eating pizzas. Did she mean to say that they were home eating watermelons?
• Facts: Medallion holders average about $45,000 per year. The average salary in San Francisco is $65,000. Medallion holders get paid $2,000 a month to lease out their cabs. Studio apartments start at $1,500 per month. Most cab drivers can't afford not to work.

According to a source who wishes to remain anonymous, Newsom came up with a plan when he was a city supervisor to solve the homeless problem by detoxing homeless people and having them drive taxicabs.

Newsom's callous disregard for the fate of the drivers is certainly consistent with this attitude. In his world, cab drivers are lowlifes and undesirables. They are not "one of us," not real San Franciscans. If the drivers are too old, you just take the cabs away and let them fend for themselves. If they waited 15 years and paid $200,000 in fees with the idea that they were going to own something at the end of it, that's their problem.

This is the way you treat a member of an underclass, not a fellow human being.

When these stupid, lazy cab drivers mounted a series of protests against his plan, Mayor Newsom had his man Heinicke take it off the table.

This was in March 2009. But that wasn't the end of the matter. Only the beginning.

A Short History of San Francisco's Taxi Crisis: Bigoty & Cabbies, Part 1

An African American customer of mine was waxing sympathetic.

"I don't know how you do this job," he said, "I mean they're rude, they abuse you, they demean you ... it's almost like being black."

"Except," I said, "I don't have to drive the cab home."

But he had a point. The stereotype is almost exactly the same. Cab drivers supposedly are dumb, dishonest, lazy, dirty and smell bad. Although they're stupid, you have to watch them because they're clever and they'll cheat you if they can.

The cliché is also fed by the fact that many cab drivers are immigrants and minorities of various kind. Snobs who are way too PC to utter a racial or ethnic slur can still get their jollies by slandering "cabbies."

Of course labeling a class of people as inferior leads to more than mere insults. Inferior people are treated differently. If you want to complain about a bus driver, you call your local MTA. If you want to complain about about a cab driver, in most cities you call the police.

Far too many people would probably agree with the former Director of the San Francisco Taxi Commission, Heidi Machen, who wrote, "All of the ex-cons and alternative types who can't make it in another profession ... eventually wind up driving ... taxis."

At best, we're seen as a collection of foreigners and lowlifes.

Certainly San Francisco's "liberal" mayor, Gavin Newsom, was not thinking of cab drivers in February 2009 when he wrote, "Our job (during the recession) is ... to save San Franciscan's from losing their homes, losing their jobs and losing their small businesses."

On the contrary, Mayor Newsom intended to help fight San Francisco's budget deficit by taking the taxis away from San Francisco's cab drivers, selling them at auctions and keeping "most of the money..."

Newsom never mentioned the fact that his plan would cause most of San Francisco's 1,200 taxicab owners to lose their small businesses, their jobs and no doubt their homes.

"This city asset (taxis) has been underutilized and the (taxi) industry has underperformed," said the mayor who ran for election on a platform of balancing the budget. The city was $600 million in debt at the time he spoke.

And he talks about us underperforming?

That's the nice thing about spouting stereotypes. You don't have to worry about facts. If by "underutilized" the mayor means the taxi industry isn't paying its fair share, this is nonsense. The cab business actually pays millions of dollars per year in fees and taxes. Medallion holders alone pay $1.5 million per year in licensing fees.

If the mayor means (as he seems to imply) that he can solve San Francisco's deficit problems by selling cabs, he's dreaming. If he auctioned off all of the fleet's 1,500 taxis for $400,000 a piece, it would indeed cover his deficit. But (legal issues aside) who would buy the taxis in such a scenario?

Can you imagine the outcry that would take place if Newsom tried to pull a stunt like this in another industry? What if he decided to take over the city's trucking businesses? Or beauty salons? Or even massage parlors?

He would be condemned by the unions on one hand and civil libertarians on the other.

But cab drivers? Who cares? They're "underperfoming".

Mayor Newsom fought against a 1.395% business tax that could have raised millions of dollars for the people but would have hit his friends and himself.

Gavin Newsom apparently thinks that somebody has to sacrifice themselves for the good of the city but it's not going to be him or his cronies.

Let it be the cabbies.

Looking for Bands

The new Deputy Director of Taxis, Christiane Hayashi, is looking for entertainment for the upcoming holiday celebration of the taxis. Although this is the first that I've heard of it, she says that this is an annual event.

Maybe this will be the First Annual Celebration of Taxis Day. The event will take place during the first few weeks of January.

She's looking for talent of all kinds especially musicians. But any kind of entertainer is welcome. So far she has a juggler.

If she can't get anybody else, I'll be forced to sing Beseme Mucho, Old Man River and Unbreak My Heart. Please help.

You can contact Ms Hayashi at:

Christiane Hayashi

Deputy Director of Taxis

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

1 South Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94103

(415) 701-5235

or

christiane.hayashi@sfmta.com

Town Hall Meeting Schedule

Upcoming 2009 Dates/Topics for Town Hall Meetings

Date	Topic/Event	Material
October 5 2 to 5 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 9 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 16 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 19 9 a.m. to noon, 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 20 1 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 23 9 a.m. to noon	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 26 9 a.m. to noon, 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 29 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted
October 30 1 to 4 p.m.	Proposition K Reform	To be Posted

Nat Ford Serves a Facial

It's official. As of Monday 9/21/2009, Taxis & Accessible Services became Administration, Taxi & Accessible Services under Director Debra Johnson.

Instead of having our own division within the MTA we are now lumped into a cat-call sub-division that looks like this:

• Equal Opportunity Contracting
• Human Resources
• Marketing and Customer Service
• Employee and Labor Relations (for MTA employees)
• Organizational Development and Training
• Taxis
• Accessible Services

Can't you just see the logic of the grouping?

Christiane Hayashi is still the head of Taxis but she's now Deputy Director who reports to Director Debra Johnson as well Executive Director Nathaniel Ford.

In practical terms, this means that Ms. Hayahsi has lost some of her freedom and power and will have to clear her actions with Debra Johnson before going ahead with them. As to whether this will effect her plans to crack down on illegal taxis and limos remains to be seen.

As to how this will effect the forthcoming Town Hall Meetings is also an open question.

One thing is certain: If Director Ford chooses to ignore the wishes of everyone in the Taxicab Business in going ahead with this change, it must be his way of telling us that:

• What we want doesn't matter.
• The Byzantine internal politics of the MTA are more important than the needs of the cab industry or the City of San Francisco.
• We are under his thumb.

Welcome to the MTA.

The MTA's double Message: ?

The MTA met Tuesday, September 15, 2009. I haven't written about it until now for two reasons: I wanted to think about what the meeting meant and I wanted to see if Executive Director Nataniel Ford would change his plan to demote Taxis & Accessible Services to a subdivision.

Last things first. As of today, I don't know if the reorganization plan is going forward or not.

Taxis & Accessible Services still exists as a division on the MTA's web page but the change isn't supposed to place until Monday 9/21/09. Director Ford did not mention the subject in his report. Numerous drivers including myself spoke out against reorganization. Director Ford appeared bored and distracted during our talks. We'll have to wait and see.

Director Ford did announce the scheduling of 35 hours of Town Hall meetings during October. Echoing Director Cameron Beach, he said that the meetings would give us a chance to see if we could come up with something to "improve"or "add to" the Mayor's plan.

The director's message sounded positive - as if we were finally being given the opportunity to have a say in the future of our business. But everyone in the taxi industry had expressed hostility to this plan a week earlier. How do we add on to something we hate?

Of course the board members, serving as they do at the Mayor's pleasure, could hardly throw his ideas out the window. So it remains unclear as to how much effect our input will really have on taxi reform.

Director Malcolm Heinicke further clouded the issue with a weird speech. He started by acting magnanimous, saying that he had proven that he was flexible. He said he had listened to cab drivers and made changes in his original ideas.

This struck me as strange. I thought that the plan was supposed to be the Mayor's? But, except for a provision allowing Prop. K drivers to retire at 65, the plan does indeed look much like a plan that Director Heinicke came up with during taxi Charter Reform meetings in 2007.

Director Heinicke added substance to the idea that he was the one making the decisions by using the word "I" instead of "we" when discussing matters between the taxicab industry and the MTA board.

Instead saying "we" want to look at your proposals, Director Heinicke used the word "I." Instead of saying "we" will evaluate your ideas, Director Heinicke again used the word "I."

In short, it appeared as if Director Heinicke was telling us that he, not the MTA board, not the Mayor and certainly not us, would be the ultimate arbitrator of the shape of taxi reform.

One thing that particularly rankled me (and I think many other drivers) was a statement by Director Heinicke to the effect that we should show him our plans in a clear and presentable manner "with the points listed so I" can easily look them over. The implication being that we have been sitting on our hands for the last several months forcing the MTA to make decisions without our input.

What a ridiculous distortion of the truth!

If Director Heinicke really wants to read our ideas, he can find most of the dozen or so plans that we have submitted posted on the MTA's own website - where they've been since March 27, 2009. He can also find my Notes Toward a Compromise Plan (with points nicely numbered) along with other plans readily available at Taxi's & Accessible Services.

In fact, if the Town Hall meetings had not been interrupted in July, the taxicab industry would almost certainly have come up with a consensus plan by now - albeit one considerably different than Heinicke's.

In any case, if Director Heinicke really is the final judge of what content goes into the taxi reform plan (and the Mayor's plan is actually Heinicke's), a "consensus" between the taxi industry and the Mayor would appear to be impossible. This plan essentially calls for the destruction of the taxicab business as we know it and the transfer of the profits from the drivers and the companies to the City. People in the taxi industry are not going change their opposition to this idea.

Maybe Director Heinicke thinks he can cram his plan down our throats. Maybe Director Heinicke can. And maybe Mayor Gavin Newsom wants 7,000 cab drivers trashing him to their customers as he runs for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

Mayor Newsom's New Plan to Soak the Taxi Industry

Yesterday, at the SFMTA's Police and Governance Committee, Mayor Gavin Newsom unveiled his proposed plan for taxicab reform. Although the presentation was made by Taxicabs & Accessible Services Director Christiane Hayashi, the plan was a modification of one originally drawn up by MTA board member Malcolm Heinicke during the Charter Reform meetings of 2007.

The highlights (really mostly "lowlights") of the plan are:

• The gradual destruction of the Prop K waiting list. The list would be cut off at 5 years ago, meaning that 178 people who thought they were in line for a medallion would get the shaft. Medallions would be given out as usual for the rest of the people on the list until the list was exhausted. Prop K would then be kaput.
• Post K medallion holders would be allowed to retire with an annuity estimated at $1,500 a month.
• Pre K medallion holders would be allowed to die peacefully.
• The city would be cleansed of medallion holders.
• All medallions, including those held by taxi companies, would eventually become M medallions.
• M medallions would be leased, not sold, to cab companies.
• The amount of money paid for the leases would be determined at periodic auctions involving only cab companies.

The main purpose of the plan is clearly to gain revenue for the City but there is no real estimate of the total amount that they expect to receive. They do expect to gain:

• $5.5 million a year from a 50/50 split with 300 K retirees.
• $1.73 from Pre K medallions that covert to M medallions.

But the math doesn't work - at least not for the Pre Ks - so I guess I'll do it for them. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Ultimately, (when all medallions are M medallions) the city expects to be able to earn:

• 1,500 medallions at $3,000 per month =
• $4.5 million per month =
• $54 million a year

No wonder they didn't do the math. City Controller Ben Rosenfeld estimates that the entire taxi industry currently brings in $65 million a year. The plan, in short, is insane.

The retirement option is supposed to be a sop to the medallion holders but $1,500 a month is not enough to retire on in San Francisco.

Newsom also threw a bone to the gate and gas drivers by stating that only non-medallion holders can drive M vehicles. This would indeed mean that more regular drivers would be given good shifts but the long term effect would be to take $2,000 a month away from drivers who would have become medallion holders and give the money to the City.

The plan in reality appears to be one of those Bush-type vehicles where the real intent is to destroy social value. Medallion holders would be wiped out as a class. Power and money would be taken away from both cab drivers and taxi companies and given to the MTA.

However, these figures involved appear to come from Heinicke's fervid late night fantasies.

• Given the small amount of the annuity, medallion holders aren't likely to retire until they are ready to die.
• Jane Bolig, Manager of Desoto Cab, said that her company couldn't afford to pay $3,000 per month and turn a profit. The companies are paying about $2,000 a month for a medallion now. Why would they bid $3,000?
• And, with only five or so companies bidding against each other, you'd could expect them to collude and bid less.

In sum then, the plan would:

• Destroy Prop k.
• Liquidate medallion holders.
• Take money away from both the companies and drivers.
• Destroy San Francisco's pool of professional drivers by eliminating the list.
• Ruin taxi service in the city by lowering the quality of both the drivers and the equipment.

Not surprisingly everybody in the taxi industry stood in unity against the plan including: Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab, Barry Korengold of the SFCDA, Mark Gruberg of the UTW, Carl Macmurdo of the MHA, Charles Rathbone and Tom Stanghellini of Luxor Cab, several drivers and myself.

Lost in the hubbub was the fact that the taxi industry also spoke in unity against MTA's reorganization plan to drop taxi's from an autonomous division equal to Transit to a subdivision and demote Director Christiane Hayashi.