MHA 2010 Meeting

The Medallion Holders Association held its annual meeting Monday at the Mars Bar and Cafe.

A nice buffet which included hot wings, hors d'oeuvres and delicious hamburgers seemed to be enjoyed by just about everybody. Board member Mike Spain briefly summarized his plan for peak-time medallions and President Carl Macmurdo discussed various subjects and strategies important to the members. But the highlight of the evening was an appearance by Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi.

Showing her usual charm and charisma, the director fielded questions and used them as a springboard to express her thinking on various topics. Not necessarily in order, these included:

The Fixed Price for Selling Medallions.

Hayashi said that she liked the fixed price because:

• It's unique to San Francisco and other cities have shown an interest in it.
• The price is low enough to be affordable for drivers. 
• It thus allows buyers to get reasonable loan options.

She pointed that in New York, where medallions often sell for $500,000 or more, only high interest loans with balloon payments are available and that buyers rarely succeed in paying off their loans.

One medallion holder said that the $150,000 that a holder would clear by selling the medallion would not be enough to retire on.

Ms. Hayashi responded by saying that the medallion sales were never intended to be a retirement but rather a way to help people retire in conjunction with other savings.

She added that she didn't expect the Fixed Price to go over $300,000. Otherwise medallions would no longer remain affordable for working drivers.

Peak-Time Medallions

After hearing plans about peak-time medallions for as long as I've been in the cab business, it looks like an idea whose time has come.

Director Hayashi said that people in city government wanted to see it happen so it will - probably early next year.

Various plans for how this will happen are being discussed at TAC but she did say that her plan called for the peak-time medallions to be leased from the MTA.

Not, on the other hand, a popular idea among MHA members.

Watch Those Flashers

Medallion holder Norma Greer had recently written to Hayashi about being harassed by a policeman when she tried to drop in a bus stop. The cop also threatened to cite her for using her flashers illegally.

The director said that she looked up the law and there is indeed an obscure vehicle code against using the flashers for anything except emergencies.

Hayashi said that it was legal to drop in a bus stop - as long you pull "as far forward as possible." She also said that she would discuss enforcement policy with the PCOs (meter maids).

In the meantime, she added that you should fight any such tickets and report the incidents to her office. It's also helpful to get the badge number of the officer involved.


Electronic Waybills and Credit Cards

Hayashi said all taxis would probably have electronic waybills installed by the first quarter of 2011. She added that Luxor and Yellow Cab were already equipped to handle them right now.

She expressed enthusiasm for the new technology because "we'll be able to gather accurate information" about the number of rides and so forth "for the first time ever." This could prove invaluable to the Controller's office in helping to figure out how to improve taxi service.

Ms. Hayashi also said that systems for handling credit cards would be installed on the back seat of some cabs at the option of each company.  One such system, VeriFone, would:

• Allow the customers to swipe the cards themselves.
• Prompt the customer for a tip.
• Automatically transfer the funds into a driver's bank account.

There would be a 5% charge to the driver but Hayashi says that studies have shown that drivers make more than the additional 5% off the tips because of the prompting.

She also said owners and medallion holders could use other systems if they wanted - citing Yellow Cab that has chosen to keep their own system - but, in such cases, it would be illegal to pass the credit card charges onto the drivers.

This naturally segued into ...

Calling 311

Director Hayashi went on to say that every cab driver in San Francisco was required to take credit cards and, if they didn't, other drivers should report the culprits on 311. She also added other crimes such as being rude to customers or reckless driving to the list of things that should be reported.

So ... next time you see a cab driver holding up a customer with a Uzi be sure to call 311.

(Okay. Okay. Off with the sarcasm.)

I did point out to Hayashi that my information was that the taxi drivers, who were turning down credit cards, mostly drove for companies that were illegally charging the drivers 10% - 12% per transaction.

Hayashi said that we should let her know which companies were doing this.

Taking her at her word - the number to call (if your company is illegally charging you for credit card transactions) is 415.701.5235

In the past, Ms. Hayashi has promised anonymity and protection to any driver who makes a complaint against a company. I've never known her to go back on her word.

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.

How to Improve Service? Centralized Dispatch?

Before entering this debate, I think it would be helpful to imagine an ideal business model. And, this model should be looked at strictly from the standpoint of picking up cab customers in the most efficient way possible. It should have:

1. One dispatching system. As to whether this would be one big company like Pre-K Yellow Cab or a centralized dispatch is not important. What's essential is that all the taxis in the city would be connected to it.
     A. You ask why? Primarily because it would minimize the major curse of all radio/computer dispatch players - the NO-GO. No mas customers calling 7 cab companies simultaneously.
     B. No mas 4 taxis showing up for an order while passing 3 potential calls en route.
     C. This would work for the customers as well because they wouldn't be calling for, say, a distant Yellow when there was a Luxor a block away.

2. I think the system should be computerized with a modern app like Cabulous and the cabs should all be GPS enabled.
     A. I have a vision of a computer or a dispatcher automatically assigning each order to the nearest taxi. No muss mo fuss.

3. All drivers should have to pick up whatever order they are assigned unless they have very, very good reasons.
     A. I'm not interested in the employee vs Independent Contractor debate here. This is an "Ideal" system.
     B. The drivers, for instance, could agree to pick up all dispatched orders as part of their contracts. As to whether or not this would play with the EDD is something I can't answer.
     C. In any case, certain orders would not be picked up (for one reason or another) unless such a rule was in place.

Of course the system would be overwhelmed from time to time like during conventions or rush hour Friday nights but, on the whole, I think it would give the City very good coverage with the number of taxis we have now. It might also allow a cab to do things like piggy-back pick-ups when it's the only taxi in an area like the deep Sunset. And, customers could be given a more accurate estimation of how long it would take for them to get a cab; thus easing their anxiety, hostility and their desperate desire to ride in expensive limos.

Coming Soon - Reality.

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.

A Conversation with Rebecca Lytle

I spoke last week with Rebecca Reynolds Lytle, Vice President of Lending at San Francisco Federal Credit Union (SFFCU).

Among other things we discussed the differences between a Gate and Gas and an Owner/Operator arrangement from her standpoint of making a loan to a new buyer. Other subjects came up during the conversation including, of course, her decision to require the full 20% down payment from those who choose the Owner/Operator lease and not accept down payment assistance except on a gate and gas arrangement.


Let Last Be First

It turns out that Ms. Lytle and SFFCU had already decided to require the full down payment from Owner/Operators before TAC voted to do so. The reasons for this were that an Owner/Operator loan:

• Costs more to underwrite and maintain.
• Has little or no way for the credit union to verify that various financial arrangement are, in fact, what the new buyers claim they are.
• Carries a higher risk because of this.

SFFCU wants to reduce their risk by getting the full $50,000 down payment from Owner/Operators.

In order to understand the reasoning behind this, it's necessary to see how these loans are structured.

Gate and Gas Arrangements

Lytle described these are "turnkey" arrangements because the company:

• Buys the car.
• Provides the insurance.
• Does the maintenance on the car.
• Hires the drivers and makes certain that they have good driving records and A-Cards.
• Etc.

The taxi companies are set up to do this and they have a vested interest in making certain that everything is done properly.  Therefore the credit union doesn't have to sweat the details.

Owner/Operators Arrangements

The Owner/Operator has to do all the above himself or herself.

In order to assure the safety of the loan, SFFCU and Ms. Lytle need to make certain that:

• The Owner/Operator owns the car and does have insurance.
• The drivers have A-cards.
• The Owner/Operator is complying with City regulations by not charging more than $104 per shift for a hybrid or $96.50 for a regular vehicle.
• Lytle is also considering getting copies of DMV printouts as supporting documentation that the medallion holder is complying with the Transportation Code.
• Etc.

All this involves considerably more work and thus more cost in terms of labor hours than a GG Loan. And, even after the additional issues, the loan company still has no way to guarantee that the information is accurate or kept up to date - although the credit union does require the Owner/Operator to provide updates on all the above annually, or sooner, if requested.

Because of the uncertainly, Ms. Lytle and SFFCU want to see a greater amount of financial responsibility on the part of an Owner/Operator. Lytle added that it doesn't make any sense to continue allowing  Down Payment Assistance on a loan with this type of lease arrangement when the MTA intends to stop this practice in the next 30 days or so anyway.

Forced into being Owner/Operators?

Prior to 10/14/2010, when SFFCU began requiring the 20% down, Ms. Lytle said that 63% of the loans were to Owner/Operators. She takes issue, however, with people who claim that new buyers have been "forced" by financial necessity into this type of arrangement.

Ms. Lytle pointed out that the $250,000 fixed price was chosen by the MTA requirement that loan payments not exceed the monthly amount that medallion holders are paid by taxi companies. The $250,000 number was arrived at by calculating the size of loan payments and comparing them to Gate and Gas monthly payments. Lytle also indicated that, in order to further validate the worth of the medallion, the MTA's fixed price was compared to medallion markets in Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia - cities similar to San Francisco.

SFFCU so far has made three types of loans;

1. 12 years with a fixed rate for $2,300 a month.
2. 15 years with a 3 year balloon payment for $1,798 a month.
3. 25 years with a 3 year balloon payment for  $1,440 a month.

The monthly payment is slightly higher if the borrower did not have the full 20% down payment and needed the down payment assistance loan. You can view examples of loan payments for all the different types of loans on the credit union’s website at http://www.sanfranciscofcu.com/loans/taximedallion_loan.htm

These numbers are consistent with the amounts that various companies pay their medallion holders.

To the charge that the interest rates will probably rise when the balloon payments become due, it could be said that there will probably be a meter increase before then, meaning that medallion holders will be paid more money.

Satisfaction

Ms. Lytle said that these taxi medallion loans have given her more satisfaction than almost any other loan that she's ever underwritten. They've allowed her to "help these people realize their dreams." The medallion holders or their relatives are "overjoyed" to be able to sell the medallions after thinking that they never would be able to do so. And the new buyers are "so excited" to finally get their medallions.

Ms. Lytle said that she would be more than happy to answer any questions about the loan programs. She can be reached at:

Tel. 415.359.2926   Fax. 415.447.2240
Rebecca_Lytle@SanFranciscoFCU.com

Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Transportaion Code

The ordinance that Director Christiane Hayashi intended to present to the MTA board today (it will be heard on 11/4/2010) does several things:

1. It puts the enforcement of specific laws concerning the taxicab business under the San Francisco Transportation Code.
2. It creates a class of misdemeanors.
3. It clarifies and describes various violations of the law.

For instance, it prohibits "Solicitation and Paid Passenger Referrals" and then spells out in detail exactly what this means.

I intended to do a summary of the ordinance but the Director has already done it far better than a humble cab driver like myself could hope to do, so I'll simply copy her prose for you.

SUMMARY:

 The proposed ordinance would grant express authority to Taxi Services’ field enforcement staff the ability to enforce specified parking regulations. Such authority would also support their ability to tow illegally parked vehicles in violation of those sections in accordance with state laws.

 The proposed ordinance would move several existing misdemeanors from the Police Code to the
Transportation Code: § 7.3.8 (to knowingly make false statement or conceal information in connection
with a motor vehicle for hire permit); § 7.3.9 (to refuse to pay the legal taxi fare), § 7.3.10(a) (for a Driver to overcharge a passenger); § 7.3.5(a) (to drive or operate a taxi on City streets without a permit).

 The proposed ordinance would newly create the following misdemeanors in the Transportation Code:
o § 7.3.5(b): To operate an unpermitted dispatch service or color scheme.
o § 7.3.5(c): To drive a taxi without a permit or to allow a person without a permit to drive a taxi vehicle.
o § 7.3.6(b): For any person, and for any person or business acting in concert with that person, to take
payments for the purpose of referring passengers.
o § 7.3.7: For any permit holder to solicit or accept payments or gifts from drivers in exchange for
dispatch calls, shifts, vehicles or assignments.
o § 7.3.10(b): For any permit holder to charge drivers except such charges to drivers that are authorized
in Division II of the regulations.
o § 7.3.10(a): For a taxi driver to charge more than the legal rate of fare.

The complete text, as well Hayashi's summary of the ordinance, can be found here.

Mas Dinero Por Citations

The ordinance allows police to issue misdemeanor citations to illegal limos and taxis for $2,500 for a a first offense and $5,000 for a second. This is up from the current charge of $165.

 Taxi investigators for the SFMTA already have the ability to issue "administrative" citations to limos and taxis for $5,000.

Administrative Enforcement vs Criminal Enforcement

This is an important distinction because administrative laws allow SFMTA investigators to issue fines without having to go to court. This is similar to the fines that investigators can level against restaurants for sanitary violations or bars for allowing underage drinking.

To tell the truth, I'd never heard of this field of law until I talked with Director Hayashi. Yesterday I tuned on Law and Order as a break from writing and there stood Lt. Anita Van Buren threatening to bust a bunch of militia types for carrying rifles in NYC under "Administrative Code No ...." It seemed effective. They dispersed.

Administrative fines should greatly enhance the ability of the SFMTA to go after and penalize illegal taxis and limos, doormen soliciting tips and the hotels where they work as well as others violators of the misdemeanors listed above.

If this ordinance is okayed by the SFMTA it will go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

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.