Chris Daly Withdraws His Charter Amendment

Supervisor Chris Daly shocked a room full of cab drivers this morning when he passed around a note saying that he had withdrawn his charter amendment regarding taxicabs. There was no explanation given so the matter is open to speculation.

One possibility is that he realized that the Two-thirds Rule predicted by a certainly blogger was indeed working against him. In fact, my sources tell me that the UTW was outnumbered eight to four at the general Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday June 30.

This may have opened Daly's eyes to the reality behind the UTW's claim to represent most of the cab drivers in San Francisco. In fact, the UTW was itself divided over Mark Gruberg's insistence on putting medical benefits in the proposal because this kept the SFCDA from backing it. Instead the SFCDA lined up alongside the MHA against Gruberg.

At least one medallion holder who had attended the meeting thought that the rest of the Board had turned against Daly on the issue.

Daly may also have been influenced by City Controller Ben Rosenfield's financial analysis of the amendment which stated that "the estimated costs of the proposed benefits represent 30% to 100% of the (taxi) industry's gross revenue. If the taxi industry absorbed some of these costs, it would need to increase revenue ... possibly by increasing fares, or by some other means."

Another way to put it might be to say that the amendment wasn't financially feasible.

In any case, Supervisor Daly appears to have seen the writing on the wall and it spelled out defeat.

For the rest of us, count it as one victory in a long war.

Chris Daly's Charter Amendment

The charter amendment that Supervisor Chris Daly (seen working the press in the photo) is putting on the ballot would reinstate Prop. K with a few changes:

• 1. The full time driving requirement would be 800 hours only. There would be no option of driving 156 shifts.
  
• 2. The amendment, however, would allow for the MTA to "modify the personal driving requirement for a medallion holder with an injury or medical condition that precludes full compliance ..."
• 3. It further states that "the Agency shall make provision for the welfare of medallion holders and all taxi drivers who satisfy the personal driving requirement of 800 hours per year, including health care, retirement and disability."

This measure of course would have several drawbacks.

1. It would end any kind of transferability.
2. Since the MTA has no money, any fees for the above "welfare" would fall on the backs of the medallion holders. Judging by Supervisor Chiu's plan (see Et Tu Chiu ) such fees could run as high as $10,000 a year.
3. The 800 hour requirement for this welfare (which was not in last week's version) appears to be ambiguous. How could a driver retire if he or she needs to work 800 hours to collect the benefits?
4. While the provision for "modifying" the driving requirement for disabled drivers is an improvement over the current situation, it's vague and doesn't appear to deal with people disabled because of age.
5. There is no provision for an exit strategy or mention of a way to "retire with dignity."
6. It also would short circuit the Town Hall Meetings and thus kill any attempts by the various sides of the taxi industry to mediate a rational and thorough reform plan that could appeal to and be backed by most of people in the business.

Supervisor Daly's putting this measure on the ballot appears to confirm rumors that he plans run for mayor. Win or lose, the proposition could help his liberal progressive resume as the candidate who wants to bring "welfare to the workers."

However, I think Supervisor Daly has badly misread the situation if he thinks he's going to have the "cabbies" at his back. Instead he's succeeded in unifying most of them against him.

• All medallion holders favoring transferability will be against Daly's amendment.
• Medallion holders favoring the preservation of K will be against the measure because of the "welfare" fees and the lack of a clear retirement plan or exit strategy. Barry Korengold is advising SFCDA members to work against it for these reasons.
• Many if not most of the people on list - including many drivers that the UTW claims to represent - will also be against it because the measure will devalue the worth of a medallion.
• Ordinary drivers who want to buy a medallion at auctions of course will also be against the measure.

In short, the cab driver vote would probably run 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 against the amendment.

Nobody really knows what effect the opinions of cab drivers have on their customers but, when it comes to the subject of taxicabs, my guess is that it is quite a lot. Companies pay thousands of dollars to advertise on the top of a cab.

I wonder if Supervisor Daly fully understands what the inside of a taxi is worth?

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.