Airport Commission Rubber Stamps Sidecar, Uber & Lyft SFO Okay

Commissioner Crayton actually wasn't asleep during most speeches at the Airport Commission today but she might as well have been. When we finished speaking she said that the Commission didn't have any choice but to okay the rulings of the CPUC and allow the TNC'S into the airport.

If so, why did they need to vote on the issue?

There were some excellent speeches by Mark Gruberg, Barry Korengold, Mary Mcguire, Jeffery Rosen, Tara Houseman and others whose names I've forgotten or never knew.

To summarize, these points were made:

• TNC vehicles are not going to be inspected by the SFO – and should be.
• TNC drivers are neither given DOJ background checks nor fingerprinted – and should be.
• TNC vehicles and drivers are not properly insured – and obviously (to anyone but a government official) should be.
• All this endangers the public.
• Why should taxis and limos have to meet higher standards?
• SFO might be held liable for lowering their standards to oblige the TNCs.
• Pollution and congestion will increase at SFO because of the TNCs.
• SFO will be putting customers at risk.
• Allowing double stands is creating unfair competition for taxi drivers.
• Letting TNC's enter the airport could spell the death knoll for the taxicab business.

Cab driver and video maker John Han pointed out that all the drivers who buy new cars to use as TNC's are committing insurance fraud; and, if taxicabs are put out of business, the fraud would be massive.

Another speaker said that this was just the start of a war of the rich on the worker and that workers in every other business will soon be facing similar assaults on their professionalism and incomes.

Yet another speaker dissed the Commission for calling this a three month test period – the only purpose of which was to push the legalization of TNCs through without public comment.

Several drivers raised the likelihood of a massive strike. 

All blowing in the wind.

John Han thought that the speeches were good because they would be part of an official record.

So it's back to the CPUC ... for justice?

Just in case you've forgotten, I'm closing with an updated partial list of TNC attacks.

• The scary and ridiculous - like the Uber driver who locked a woman in his car  so he could steal her phone and give himself a five star rating.
• The creepy – like the Lyft driver stalking his passenger.
• The frightening – weird harassment.
• An alleged assault on a pedestrian by a Lyft driver.
• An alleged homophobic verbal and physical assault by an Uber driver.
• An Uber driver charged with fondling a customer in Chicago.
• An Uber driver arrested for sexual assault in Washington D.C.
• An alleged kidnapping and rape by an Uber driver in L.A.
• Another Uber driver arrested for raping a teenager  in Washington D.C.
• The Hammer attack
• Monday's Battery

And no – there is no comparable list for cab drivers.

The Airport Commission voted unanimously to let the TNCs operate at SFO.

Director of the Airport John L. Martin said that he would have liked to have the vehicles inspected and the drivers vetted but couldn't get it done for some reason. He's hoping that the standards will improve in the future.

Commissioner Larry Mazzola thought that this was a good first step to solving the problem of the TNCs. He pointed out that they'd been operating illegally for two years. He didn't say it but the next sentence should have been ... "at least this way we're getting paid."

The logic of a Mexican mayor "legalizing" a drug cartel.

BTW –  SFO sets the rules for us. They can certainly set the rules for anybody else who wants to operate in their domain. What Commissioner Crayton was in essence saying was, "We're just as corrupt as the CPUC."

This youtube video was sent to me as a comment but I'm including it here because it's a good summary of what we've been hammering on for the last two years. It's very well made.

Four Things You Wish You Never Knew About Uber.

A Micro History of S.F. Taxicabs with Definitions

In order to understand the issues involving the Mayor and San Francisco cab drivers, a few definitions and a little background are necessary. For starters, it's impossible to understand anything unless you know what a medallion is.

• Medallion = a license to own and operate a taxicab. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that all U.S. cities have some form of medallion system. In all cities, except San Francisco (once again, correct me if you can) these medallions are for sale, usually at auctions. In New York City they cost upwards of $500,000. They are currently not for sale in San Francisco because of:
• Proposition K = which was passed by San Francisco voters in 1978 and gave the city a unique system. The medallions are not for individual sale but are owned by the city and the rights to use them are sold to working drivers for a fee. There is a limit of one medallion holder (often called an owner) per taxi. He or she can use the medallion as long as he or she follows certain rules. When the holder retires or dies, the medallion reverts to the city and the rights to use it is sold to the the first driver on a waiting list. Over the years, the rules covering the holding of medallion have evolved. Currently: 

1. It takes an average of fifteens years to get to the top of The List.
   
2. A driver has to have worked a minimum of 800 hours per year for five of the last six years to qualify for a medallion.
3. Medallion holders have to work a minimum of 800 hours per year to keep their medallions.
4. If the holders cannot work because of disability or illness, the medallions are be taken away and given back to the city.
5. The San Francisco Medallion Holders Association has filed a lawsuit against the above rule on the basis that it violates the American Disabilities Act. A verdict is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
6. Proposition K could not be changed except by San Francisco voters. Numerous attempts to eliminate Prop K were all overwhelmingly voted down. 
7. Then along came:

• Proposition A = which was passed by the voters in 2007 as a way to raise money for the reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA). The money was primarily to be used for the repair, rebuilding and improvement of the bus and rail system. The measure contained a one sentence rider that put taxicabs under the control of the MTA. The Mayor took this to mean that the voters had overturned Prop K.

Definitions 

• Independent Contractor = those who have signed an independent contract with companies rather than work for a salary. All the cab drivers in San Francisco are Independent Contractors. It is an accurate description of the condition of Medallion Holders. For ordinary drivers, however, the contract is pure fiction. About the only thing they are really independent of is the protection of most labor laws. Thanks to a Supreme Court reject named Robert Bork, independent contractors can't legally form a union.
• The List = the waiting list that cab drivers sign up for the right to own a medallion. The medallions are awarded on a first come first serve basis.
• Medallion Holders = guys who have bought the right to own and operate taxicabs. Often incorrectly called "owners."
• Medallion Holders Association (MHA) = what it sounds like. An organization devoted to the interests of the medallion holders.
• Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA, SFMTA) = The agency that controls San Francisco's buses, light rail, taxis and other vehicular sevices.
• Transferability = The right to transfer or sell a cab medallion to someone else.
• United Taxicab Workers (UTW) = what is sounds like. An organization devoted to the interests of non-owner cab drivers. It's an association, not a union.