By Don McCurdy

Taxicab dispatchers at La Guardia airport in New York were busted in a sting for allowing taxicab drivers to bypass the line for as little as five dollars. Based on recent accusations against the New York City council members, perhaps, the taxicab dispatchers should become elected positions. As such, dispatchers would be able to accept campaign contributions which would help alleviate prison overcrowding. Such elected status might be possible for all state, county and federal employees, in an effort to eliminate accusations of bribery or extortion. This could save us all a lot of nasty allegations.

Do we see this?

Recently, Chicago reportedly came out with some new fees for the transportation industry. The city is set to charge a 50 cent fee for each trip on Uber and Lyft while charging five dollars for any Uber or Lyft pick up or drop off at their airports, Navy Pier and McCormick Place. Not to be outdone, the taxicab industry is reported to be facing a 15% increase in fees and a 50 per ride surcharge.

Now, do we get anything new for these fees or what? The city of Chicago is facing the same issue as a lot of cities in the United States, their politicians have gotten in bed with the public employees unions and set up some sweetheart retirement programs that cities simply cannot afford. These "fee increases" are simply non tax taxes that don't show up as a tax increase.

Cities across the country are facing this same issue and the people who have fueled the fire are the same group trying to pick up the pieces. Good luck with that. Does anyone else in the world think that unions donating to politicians who are going oversee the negotiation of their contracts could be a conflict of interest? Do we see what is going on right in front of our faces?

These types of hidden taxes are equally distributed on the rich and on the poor, regardless of income or ability to pay. As a driver, I picked up numerous people on fixed incomes who simply had little or nothing to give, how are these new fees benefiting them? A politician's answer is always the same, we need more money to give to those who help us get elected.

Say good night Gracie.

A recent court ruling from New York City in the yellow cab industry lawsuit against the Taxicab and Limousine Commission has allowed for hire vehicles to compete with yellow cabs using electronic hailing apps. The TLC is reported to have argued that Uber's app is essentially prearrangement so it is not violating the rules to allow livery cars to pick up Uber trips. The curious part of the story is that the city has assisted in debasing the medallions they budget, selling to the point where the sale of new medallions is impossible.

Taxicabs are compelled to pick up dangerous flags only, livery cars can pick up the safer Uber trips. That wouldn't be necessarily problematic except that it costs around a million dollars for the "exclusive" right to pick up flags (taxi fares).

Based on the Judge's opinion and that of the TLC, any phone call would also be a prearranged trip. Cities across the country allow taxicabs to be called for immediate pickup which New York City does not allow, and requires prearrangement for executive car services deeming on demand calling as not prearranged.

The city could easily have placed a time limit on "prearrangement," which some cities do, in defense of the medallion but failed to so. Why? Why place medallion sales in jeopardy? Well, there's another lawsuit in which the city is claiming that it's not abandoning the medallion.

If you admit that e-hails are on demand trips then you lose this suit for allowing Uber to violate the rules. So, the city is stuck in a potential lose, lose proposition. As it is, the city can lose medallion sales but win both lawsuits by pretending e-hails are prearranged. So, as always with politicians, yes is no and no is yes. It's all so confusing.

Ya think?

Reports out of Massachusetts are that deregulation of the taxicab industry "wouldn't be simple." No kidding? They've been selling medallions there for generations with the idea that the medallion holders would have exclusive rights to on demand ground transportation requests. Now, regulators are trying to figure out what to do with Uber et al.

Boston lawmakers are pushing to require a million dollars of commercial insurance for Uber drivers, but are not requiring the same from taxicab companies. Gee, I wonder why that is? Truth is that Boston isn't really interested in deregulating or allowing Uber in to screw up their medallion system. We'll see how that pans out.

I wonder why I didn't know that?

Toronto is having a problem. It's an Uber problem. While it's reported that David Plouffe, Uber's chief advisor, believes that Uber is good for riders, cities and taxicab drivers the drivers think otherwise. Plouffe's theory being that Uber is expanding the pie. He also says that Uber gives taxicab drivers an option on who to drive for, providing they can afford a new enough car. The best part of the interview was the comment about Uber's "value proposition" that is beneficial to low income neighborhoods and suburban "transportation deserts."

Well, I guess we know who came up with the "food deserts"phraseology. While taxicab drivers in Toronto are freaking out about Uber operating there, Uber sees itself as a benign friend of the industry just trying to get along. The city has asked Uber to stop operating until it passes a new law next year. Uber didn't actually tell the city to go scratch, but they didn't stop operating. So, whatcha gonna do ‘bout it? Nothing.

Toronto ran stings earlier in the year on UberX, but there are no reports of any recent police activity toward Uber drivers. Apparently, Toronto doesn't have the means to enforce its own rules. I have long said that cities regulate the willing and Uber does not appear willing to be regulated even though they claim to "recognize the need" to be regulated. Huh? Maybe next time.

Is that news?

Reports from Minneapolis are that doormen at hotels are selling trips. Well now, there's a surprise. The drivers are near rioting in the streets over limousines buying trips from hotel doormen. I wouldn't want to disappoint the Minneapolis drivers, but this is a worldwide epidemic that cities simply don't care about.

When faced with these types of situations the city simply says "we can't catch them at it," or we "don't have the police resources." The situation has reached the status of organized crime in some cities despite laws banning such practices.

The Mayor of Minneapolis was reported to be meeting with the drivers to see if she can "alleviate their concerns." No mention of fixing the problem, just a little concern alleviation. After reading the comments from readers in Minneapolis it's a wonder that the Mayor will even meet with them.

High tech huh?

Reports are that Uber has accidently released information on over six hundred of their drivers. Oops. The data breach is reported to have been short and was connected to a new app called "Uber Partner" which is supposed to improve the relationship between Uber and its drivers. Just guessing I'd say it hasn't worked yet.

Say it ain't so!

Reports are that a former San Francisco police officer was sentenced to two years in prison for taking bribes from wannabe taxicab drivers to give them a passing grade. Paul Makaveckas was found guilty of two felony counts of bribery. The FBI investigated the case and estimated that he received $25,000 in bribes at $100 each.

Now, I'm not a mathematician, but it's reported that he was found guilty on two counts but took in 25k. Seems to me that there would be maybe one or two extra counts that could have been added on. Now in all fairness the guy is 70 so this might be a life sentence for him, but two counts out of 250 seems a bit low. I guess you get a break for providing good government services.

If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at don@mcacres.com.

—dmc