Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 4, 2011 7:30pm-8:00pm PDT

7:30 pm
at the proper hearing, we intend to present evidence that san francisco needs far more than 35 additional cabs. we will r present evidence and evidence from our tax a partner. -- taxi partner. i would urge you to postpone the vote u. i observed from looking at the staff report that the evidence being presented to you is from 2000 and 2001. anything else is not specific to san francisco. we have much more recent and better evidence to present regarding the correct number of cabs. service to the public is a
7:31 pm
serious matter and with all due respect, we do not appreciate the piecemeal approach to this matter which is critical to our ability to provide service to the public. regarding the part time permits, we have no objection to part time permits. we have presented a proposal in december of last year. why is that not in front of you along with this other proposal? we would like to see that case made in a formal pcnn. i hope you give weight to the comments. you are in the middle of a pilot program. why come up with a new pilot program that seems to be going in quite a different direction? thank you. >> good afternoon.
7:32 pm
i am with a group called medallion holders association. during the last six years, there were biennial hearings to see of the drivers deserved a meter rate increase and on all three occasions, the controllers said yes. the consumer price index indicated that. the supervisors have the prerogative to ignore that recommendation and they did. i appreciate his body biting the bullet and having a substantial increase to the public even the members will not like it. i would like to thank chris who made an articulate and compassionate in -- speech on how they deserve this increase. on item 12 on would urge you to put out 35 medallions. i am sure that the city will have more fleet expansion as
7:33 pm
time goes on. there can be further hearings. on the part time medallion system, i think it is interesting. service needs are greater on friday and saturday nights than sunday morning. it will be interesting to have an experiment to see if there can be a part-time single operator system. the way it is designed in the criteria, it is lacking. the medallion association would be opposed to any leasing scheme where mta takes operational profit out of the industry. the lenders, we did design better criteria for such a program. this could be sold in the future to some of the drivers and have extra tabs at the busier time. i would urge you to continue that aspect of this item and have a select committee designs and different criteria. thank you. >> thank you. >> jim gillespie, dan hines,
7:34 pm
[inaudible] >> thank you. i am with yellow cab. regarding item 11, i would support the increase in the meter for the drivers. i want to address item 12. i'm looking here at the summary that was handed out for item 12. you mentioned 1500 cabs in san francisco. the next bullet point said that taxi service is considered unreliable. i would agree. the issue we have been discussing for years has been capacity. we need more medallions. they decided to do -- put off an -- put up an rfp and that is supposed to be fast track and they will do awa pcn hearing and
7:35 pm
they come up with these 50 medallions that i do not understand. i have attended town hall meetings and tac meetings and that none of those was a single operating permit discussed. there were ideas about why it would not work and how it could. if your for your approval is an idea that one has been tried in other cities and has not been discussed by us. at the very least i would hope you would continue this item so it can be discussed and can be vetted. there is an rfp going out for the study. i would think that is what we want to wait for. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? >> dan hines, ed healy, and
7:36 pm
mari. >> i am president of national veterans cab company. i would like to speak specifically on the item listed under 12. the single user permit issue. i support exploring a single user permit approach. for the drivers, the user permit offers the enormous advantage of allowing them to choose * at peak demand to service the public. for the public, the advantage is the period of peak demand is when the public is underserved. i buy-sell approach can be developed. such a program could to buy additional ownership opportunities to working drivers and generate revenues but without the downside of having cabs during the slow periods. single use permits deserves
7:37 pm
testing but also the purchase of leasing permits. the city should not released -- inject itself into relationships between cabs and medallion holders as a leasing agent. they should be appreciative of the possibility of generating revenues through limited and carefully monitored sales and reluctant to become brokers. thank you. >> thank you. >> ed healy. >> i am a cab driver and member of the sfcda. it is interesting these owners came in and are worried about these legal niceties. what day want is to put 500 cabs on the street without a hearing as some of you know. it is kind of a joke that
7:38 pm
they're calling for a hearing to have this compromise program. also, i do not know what happened to gillespie. at this town hall meetings, this was adequately discussed. he walked out after the second one and said he did not like the idea of peak time permits and never showed up again. the idea of a single operator permits or talked up extensively and they were talked up at the taxi advisory council which you should have been met. i do not know what kind of smokescreen they are throwing out. they do not want any kind of compromise. this is a very good plan. i have heard the concern expressed of the mta running -- this being a foot in the door for the mta running the taxi business and leasing. you have to be out of your mind to want to take over the taxicab business as far as i'm concerned. we need a major increase.
7:39 pm
the amount would be 22%. what we are including -- that is including the drop at a cost of living increase. we want to see some regular pcn hearings and also a regular hearings on the cost of living -- also the regular hearings on the cost of living. thank you. >> next speaker. >> mari and dave schneider and tara houseman. >> i am a very grateful cabdriver in the city of san francisco. i probably like driving a cab in the city more than anyone else you know. if anyone wants to fine me for that title, they can. i am concerned about the drivers and their income. i support 11. and anything else that can help
7:40 pm
them, including reducing the exorbitant five% on the credit cards. o-- 5% on the credit cards. i feel strongly about the -- that the medallions should go out as soon as possible. some have been waiting 14 years and in and credible anxiety the last two or three years because there are so few going to the list. it is a slower process. i do not see any point in that not being a good idea. we all know we need more cabs on the street at peak time. no matter how people word it, we need more cabs and i like the idea of the single user permit it is based on seniority. i know people who have been driving 30 or 40 years. there is no excuse they did not put their name down because i have known them 23 years and
7:41 pm
told them to put their name down and they said it is too late. in spite of that they should not be punished. there are still out there driving. i know several that have been driving 20 or 30 years that are able and who would be so happy to have this opportunity. the one place where i might not -- i do not totally understand is, i would think it would be better if they could buy it for a reasonable amount rather than leasing it through the city. i do not have a strong opinion on how that should be done. i do have a strong opinion to let 10 -- go to people who have driven 30 years would be wonderful. [bell] >> thank you. our next speakers. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. a special good afternoon to
7:42 pm
director ramos. i was not able to see you. i had an intervening heart problem. perhaps not enough compassion and skillful wisdom. i rise today for discussion of item 11. i will rise in public comment about another item. on 11, it is welcome. we appreciate the general good will in recognizing the need for driver income increase. it has been a while. i also want to support mr. wilkinson's proposal that these things be done more regularly. perhaps on an annual basis or a semiannual basis connected with pcnn where there is -- there is a review of the consumer price index and how drivers are doing. and to take a look at the city's
7:43 pm
livable wage ordinance, the spirit of it. there is some question whether employees are independent contractors, i do not think there is any doubt that the idea behind the city's livable wage is that working class people should be able to survive. thank you. >> our next speaker is. >> i urge you to sever in their minds the idea of 11 and 12. please pass item 11, no matter what you do with 12. we have had six weeks of income forgone that cannot be gone back. as far as item 12, on the matter of you selling new
7:44 pm
medallions out right, not only must you appear to come to your decisions -- not only must you come to your decisions with clean hands, you must appear to. this does muddy the waters a bit since you would be raising money off of these medallions. i do like with a peak time medallions, i do like the idea that -- i am not not about the drivers having to pay a monthly fee but i like that it can be mitigated by showing they are taking radio calls. i urge you to pass this experiment although there remember in the future the numbers got tweaked somewhere between where the people in the cab industry were dealing with that versus by the time i got to
7:45 pm
you. when that sort of thing is altered after the fact, what the message you're sending to the cab drivers is, do not bother coming to the town hall meetings, do not bother going to the tac meeteings, just come here and bend your ear. do you want to make effective preceding steps that could take care of issues before they come to you? do you keep that in mind in the future? i do not know what mr. gillespie is talking about, the peak time single operator cap was discussed at length that several meetings at the town hall meetings and it was discussed at the tac. i stuck around until the end of the meetings. >> our next speakers.
7:46 pm
>> good afternoon. yesterday i picked up a pro at market street. she told me it is hard to get a cab. i said yes, this is 5:30 p.m. but no one said anything in the morning. this is human nature. everybody wants to get a cab and a lot of people in a hotel, they want to go out to eat. the lot of people missed their appointments because the could not get a cab. -- they could not get a cab. people are begging the cab at the rush hour because traffic is bad. a lot of people want a cab but we do not want to see any more cabs. we want to make more money. at peak time, a single operator is very good. this should be the direction for
7:47 pm
our future because the type of medallion -- this medallion cannot make extra profit unless you are driving. this cab in the future is something business slow down, we do not need that many cabs. if you have the regular medallion, you do not get that back. you are still driving a cab. this thing is [unintelligible] it is that become a -- bad economy. better than nothing, just like obama, he gets another big check
7:48 pm
again for another year. this is america. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> that afternoon. -- the afternoon. -- good afternoon. i want to express, i understand sfmta is taking a crash course on the cab industry and it is difficult to understand the intricacies. i found everyone to be open to discussion and willing to learn and take on this difficult task. as far as item 11 is concerned, i am neutral on it as a consumer, i would not want to pay more money but as a driver, the drivers have their needs and i do not feel it is my place to
7:49 pm
decide what the driver should be making. item 12, i definitely support additional medallions. what i am concerned about is the allocation of a single -- single operator permit. i am concerned there are not viable business plans. i have yet to see them work in other markets and i would like more research done about a single operator permit. i would like to see some regulatory costs included. i would like to see somewhere where they work. i do not believe they are viable. it is a noble idea and it comes from a good place. i do not think it pencils' of properly when you consider who will be behind the wheel and they will have to work in order to keep that business afloat and
7:50 pm
if they are sick or anything happens drastic to them, they will not be able to operate any more and what are they supposed to do? that will be a big problem down the line. this is one of the many flaws with a single operator. >> thank you. >> peter witt smtt and frank fay and [inaudible] >> yellow cab, 23 years, native san franciscan. i would like to see this commission operating in good faith. 11 and 12 should not be combined. ceqa report was the excuse given for not raising the meter. i have seen the report and it is dated may 11. pcnm, you want to do that after you issue camps. i would also like to see a comptroller's report from 2006
7:51 pm
and 2007 who said we need a major increase. there are none. if you go to archives, you cannot find the comptroller's report and it cannot find a report that was made in 2007 that issued more cabs. there is reason why they should more cabs. where are the customer complaints? i would like to see the customer complaints. where is the data? are you falling asleep on the switch of dispatch? taxi peak times. we need morning rush-hour. summer tourist taxis. every city has the same problem. you think you are special, don't you? i am astonished that he did not know the meter could be adjusted
7:52 pm
by the time. rush-hour, the meter goes up and discourages or encourages cab pulling which is another idea that could be implemented and it could double or triple the fleet without adding one more taxing. efficiency is what i would like to see. that comes green and you do it efficiently and do not waste taxpayers' time and money. in a capitalistic society, that is the way you go. [bell] >> next speaker, please. [reading names] >> good afternoon, directors. i want to acknowledge my id manar -- admiration, there is a small time in china where the cab drivers went on strike. that takes a lot of courage in
7:53 pm
china with their society. as far as peak time medallions, this is an opportunity for the city. the city gets involved in businesses because it needs to regulate them. this is a golden opportunity to start employing cabdrivers in a test program where i worked at a company where we split the meter and we were given minimum wage. you can take all the personal information and data information because you are implying the cabdrivers and you can treat them that way. the way it works is you pay minimum wage and the harder they work, the more money they make because they split the meter 60- 40 or whatever way is fair. members of the teamsters, there will be collective bargaining and you will have 40 cabs that you will be able to work some of
7:54 pm
your experiments on. i feel like a lab rat in many cases. every day, there's something new coming in and we have to figure out what it is and how it will affect us. i have been driving a long time. there has never been enough cabs to satisfy everybody. thank you. >> next speaker, please. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am richard wiener, i have been in the business over 40 years and i sat in the room like this as a taxicab commissioner. i have a little bit of experience. i am here to speak strongly against the issue of prime time, peak time, a single operator medallions and speak strongly in favor of full time taxis. we need full-time taxis on the street. i do not know how many people have spoken from the public but if this meeting is like any other, it is medallion holders,
7:55 pm
drivers, not much from the public. the purpose of the taxicabs is to serve the public. just to give you a quick figures. non-prime time days at yellow cab, sunday and saturday between 6:00 a.m. and noon. we cannot fill 100 calls each day. on monday and tuesday night, the slowest knights of the week, we cannot -- slowest knights of the wenights of the week. over a week, we cannot fill 9000 calls. people who want us, we cannot get the maccallum. i humbly say we need at least 300 more cabs on the street, full-time, let the system operates the way it has been which is to have full-time cabs on the street. thank you. >> next speakers, the last who
7:56 pm
have turned in a speaker car. >> thank you. i am a driver with yellow cab. i am also the person who has since 2009 pushed for the single operator medallion. i want you to keep in mind today that company representatives who are trying to oppose this single operator medallion, this is a question of whether you have company controlled medallions against driver control and driver owned medallions. that is what is being debated here. the cab companies have to have full-time medallions because they are vehicle leasing firms and that is not necessarily the same thing as addressing the issue of transportation service. taxi drivers are considered to be self-employed business owners and because they are, they have to be given the
7:57 pm
opportunity to have some degree of ownership in the business. that is what the single operator taxicab is. i strongly recommend you please to go forward with a single operator taxi medallion. my recommendation is to go forward with a three-year lease plan and at the end, give drivers the option to own to purchase the medallion. that is one way to deal with this. as far as rote -- company representatives say they cannot meet service demands, that is what we need single operator taxicab medallions. as far as them not being viable, they are. the plan that is being proposed today is uniquely san franciscan. it is not the toronto embassador cab that people are talking about. this is offering taxi drivers the opportunity to share a single taxicab. my time is up.
7:58 pm
thank you. >> thank you. our last speaker. >> good afternoon. let me say that i strongly support the meter increase. i wish it was more modest as i think our rates are already high. an increase would have been there. regardless, i do believe the increased needs to be passed into something that is overdue and will increase revenue significantly. if our rates get too high, we will writ -- lose ridership and our rates are already high. i want to raise great concern about the plan that is being put forward. i like the idea of experimenting, trying single user medallions. this is something that is being overlooked. what has been great about san francisco's taxi system is we
7:59 pm
have issued the medallions whether it is for free on the list are being sold to taxi drivers. this plan is a fundamental change i have never seen before. which is the city becomes a landlord to the medallions and rents them directly to drivers. i think we have to be cautious about the new plan that has the city have all the benefits and all the liabilities are put on the private industry. i am open to single user medallions and other ideas but this plan is not ready for prime time and i will tell you from a business perspective, you are putting enormous financial burdens on drivers on this plan where they can only made by their driving. they have to buy the vehicle, by the services, all within the income they get from driving without a cushion for leasing. before you go forward, this has to be looked at seriously and has to be more developed before you go with a plan like this. i want to raise that concern. this needs to be


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on