skichese asked: I'm confused about group riding rules (Title 31 DCMR 801.7). 801.7 states that "whenever a passenger gets out, the *fare* shall be paid," but does the "fare" include the per-passenger fee? It seems like it should not because this would allow cabbies to charge the per-passenger fee multiple times for the same rider.
Consider the following example: Andy and Betty get into a cab. When the meter reads $5, Andy gets out and pays the $5 fare plus *two* per-passenger fees (one for him and another for Betty). The meter is reset. When the meter reads $5 again, Betty gets out, pays the $5 and the per-passenger fee for herself (AGAIN!). The taxi therefore collected Betty's per-passenger fee twice! This can't be what the law was intending because it makes no sense that the taxi should collect multiple per-passenger fees for the same rider. This law would only make sense if "fare" in 801.7 actually refer only to the metered fare, and not to the per-passenger fee? Does it?
when folks get into a cab and anytime the meter gets restarted there is a base rate of $3.00 plus a $1.00. With extra passengers, this would not be $1.00 each, but $1.00 for each passenger above the first. So if there are 3 passengers, $2.00 may be added to the fare for the extra 2 passengers. It’s really up to the 3 passengers to decide which is the original passenger and which are the extra 2. Presumably the first to get out would pay it since it’s on the meter. But that person could also turn to his or her fellow passengers and ask them to pay it. So there is not a per-passenger fee, but rather an extra passenger fee. In the case of Andy and Betty, the taxi had a right to add $1 for gas when the meter was restarted, but not an extra passenger fee again. that would be double charging
Larry Frankel spoke on the Kojo Nnamdi show today about the organizing that has taken shape in D.C. up under the banner of the Small Business Association of DC Taxicab Drivers. His call in starts around 25 minutes into the show.
Did the Levin Petition pay off? Drivers, as many of you know, we collected over 1,000 petitions to submit to Senator Carl Levin. The former administration had been using what Mayor Fenty called “the Levin Act.” There was never such a thing, but only a few lines in an omnibus budget act that mandated a meter system, so long as the Mayor did not opt out. We call it “the Levin Provision.” We have just discovered that Senator Levin wrote to Fenty to inquire as to whether or not Fenty was taking a broad interpretation of the provision and claiming authority to set the fares. Mayors do not tend to ignore U.S. Senators.
The petition to Levin was a success on a number of counts: 1) it showed that drivers were organizing and starting to fight back, 2) it garnered major local press coverage, particularly in the Examiner, 3) it generated an exchange with the Washington Post that gave us an opportunity to open up a conversation about the true reasons why drivers opposed Fenty, and 4) it generated a letter from the Senator that, along with the outstanding legal work of Akin and Gump, may have compelled the former Mayor to step back from continuing to assume broad claims of authority.
Attached is Senator Levin’s letter to former Mayor Adrian Fenty. Congratulations and thanks to all of those who collected the petitions.
About the forthcoming Small Business Association of DC Taxicab Drivers, an initiative of Justice for D.C. Taxis:
Our seven objectives:
- Achieve driver unity
- Secure fair compensation and other benefits
- End abuses by the hack inspectors
- Protect individual ownership
- Gain fair representation on the taxicab commission
- Influence the decisions of elected officials
- Improve the image of drivers
LAUNCH DATE: JANUARY 9, 2011!
Drivers may join the association by clicking here.
THE OFFICE OF THE DC AUDITOR FINDS NUMEROUS TROUBLING IRREGULARITIES IN PROCUREMENT, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING AT THE DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Here is a link to the auditor’s report. Now that the cat’s out of the brown paper bag, we would like to know what was in it beforehand…..
GENERAL MEETING FOR ALL DC TAXICAB DRIVERS!
DATE/TIME: Sunday, January 9th, 2011 (2:00 pm - 4:00 pm)
MEETING LOCATION: Martin Luther King, Jr. Library,901 G Street, NW, Room A-5
PARKING INFORMATION: Park on the street or you can park elsewhere and take the metro to Metro Center or Gallery Place
AGENDA: The state of the DC taxicab industry. Formation and objectives of a new driver led business league. Opportunities and resources for drivers and their families.
GUEST SPEAKER: Stephen Gould, Director of Community Affairs, Incoming Gray Administration.
SPONSORED BY: The Small Business Association of DC Taxicab Drivers, an initiative of Justice for DC Taxis. Refreshments will be served!
You may have heard that there is a write in campaign for Mayor Fenty. While we do not wish to comment on the effort, we do want to note that in the attached photo, which is being circulated by the write in campaign, you will see Mayor Fenty placing his campaign sticker on a Barwood Cab which is surprising to us. Barwood is a MARYLAND cab company rather than a DC cab company…..
The City Council handed our industry a major victory today by tabling the nomination of Elliott Ferguson to the DC Taxicab Commission. There is no objection to Mr. Ferguson’s qualifications to serve as a public member, but rather a challenge to any notion (from wherever or whomever originating) that he would represent “industry” as originally proposed. We have also communicated insistence that the City abide by the law and install three representatives of the taxicab industry on the Commission before adding any new members regardless of category. It is illogical to say that Mr. Ferguson (who represents tourism and conventions) could represent the public while Bart Lasner and Paul Kohn (who represent the restaurant and hotel industries) are said to represent “industry.”
The Fenty administration’s interpretation of the word “industry” within the local statute has been overly broad and specious, as the law is clear that the term relates to SERVICE PROVIDERS rather than to ANY industry whatsoever. It is also critical to the well being of our industry that the Commission be duly composed with an appropriate cross-section of stakeholders - including cab drivers. Drivers mounted a massive grassroots call in campaign, with strong participation from the drivers who are DC residents. Thank you to the City Council for protecting basic democratic principles!
Fellow Drivers. The City seems to be begging for a fight on whether or not we will have a voice in our own industry. Here are a few lines from the DC Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 1985.
§ 50-305. District of Columbia Taxicab Commission — Membership; appointment; terms; chairperson
(a) The Commission shall consist of 9 members. Five of the members, who shall be public members, shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council, and shall be drawn from the public at large. Three of the members, who shall be industry members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council, and shall have EXPERIENCE in taxicab industry OPERATIONS in the District.
§ 50-319. License requirement [Formerly § 40-1719]
(a) No person, corporation, partnership, or association shall operate a taxicab, taxicab company, association, or fleet, or taxicab service within the District without first procuring all applicable licenses required by the Commission pursuant to the authority of this subchapter or in the event of licensure by another jurisdiction pursuant to reciprocal agreement. Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a civil fine not to exceed $ 500. For purposes of this subsection, the term OPERATE includes the PROVISION of taxicab service of any type which physically originates in the District.
The Washington Post, based on testimony of drivers and the hand written notes of the reporter, has issued a correction acknowledging that Mr. Ken Williams did not say that “Vincent Gray is the lesser of two evils.”
THANK YOU to the editors of the Washington Post, for publishing a letter to the editor from public member Mr. Ken Williams articulating the legitimate grievances of the taxicab drivers of DC!
Click here: Why Cab Drivers Opposed Mayor Fenty
From The Atlantic. Did Cab Drivers Oust Fenty?
Fenty: Which way is the door?
“But of all the enemies Fenty made during his tenure as mayor, maybe D.C.’s cab drivers were the most powerful.”
WASHINGTON POST GORES CAB DRIVER!
Angry over switch to meters, cabbies who had voted for Fenty worked to elect Gray
There are a number of errors in this story.
1) there are 6,000 cab drivers (actually there are more like 8300)
2) cab drivers are angry over the switch to meters (actually they are angry about how they are being treated RIGHT NOW by the administration)
3) passengers were “surprised” with offers mid-way to take them to the polls (how often did this happen. twice? three times?)
4) members of the current Taxicab Commission were on the Transportation team of the Gray administration (that would be illegal!!)
5) Mr. Ken Williams said that Gray is “the lesser of two evils.” There are 50 or so drivers who were at the event who would completely disagree that Mr. Ken said that.
Now, do you see any evidence of subtle bias against taxicab drivers?
1) “a group made up largely of African-born immigrants” (does it matter where they come from? should they be dismissed because they are not native born white Americans?)
2) “even those who don’t live in the District” (does this suggest that it’s ok for other business people to live outside the District, but not cab drivers?)
3) “include many Ethiopian immigrants who are politically saavy” (did someone want to suggest “crafty” - is there any stereotype here? - does it mean that cab drivers of other origins are not as politically astute?)
4) “taxi lobby” (is this like Big Tobacco or the NRA? how many cab drivers have you seen walking the halls of City Council in slick suits?)
Now keep in mind drivers that
you know you’ve finally arrived at the halls of influence when your opponent is defeated in an election and a prominent newspaper calls you “a lobby.”
What is the main difference between Vincent Gray and Adrian Fenty?
Vincent Gray has agreed to abide by the DC Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 1985. Paraphrase: ”I will obey the law.”
Adrian Fenty claims he does not have to abide by the Act, but has unlimited and (according to meetings between attorneys) unending control over the industry under the Levin Clause. Paraphrase: ”I AM the law.”
Note: This is not an official endorsement of either candidate.