INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Is that possible?

A Sacramento Sikh taxicab driver is reported to have been robbed and beaten by two Hispanic males. Now, I'm sure I left out an alleged or two so feel free to insert them wherever your moral outrage insists. Anyway, the two desperados were arrested "on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon and commission of a hate crime."

The first question I have is, how do you know it's a hate crime? I mean, what constitutes a hate crime? If you hate people that won't give you their money when you demand it and beat them up is that a hate crime? Why would anybody hate Sikhs anyway? If a Greek beats up a Chinaman is that a hate crime? I'm not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I think they're going to have a hard time convincing a jury that these two clowns even know what a Sikh is.

Why, that's an outrage!

It has been reported that there is "widespread" racism in the Galway, Ireland taxicab industry. The report has twelve recommendations to alleviate this problem including mandating that taxicab drivers attend training sessions on racism.

The Irish Centre for Human Rights generated the report after it was discovered that no Galway taxicab companies employed black taxicab drivers. The entire report takes a bit of weird twist when it is also reported that customers will often pass up the first cab because they're looking for an "Irish" driver which begs the question, who is driving Galway taxicabs if they're not "Irish?"

Since the black population of Ireland is 1.1% of the total population, I immediately wondered how you might talk some of the black population into driving a cab. Taxicab driving is one of the more dangerous occupations for mostly low pay and long hours. Why would anyone want to do it? The report didn't mention if someone complained that they'd been discriminated against or if the discovery of thisracism was investigated and handled by the centre. Perhaps, we should loan them Al Sharpton. He's good at finding racism wherever it may or may not be.

Turn out the lights..

Well, it appears that the Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association (STITA) has been shown the exit at the Seattle airport. After twenty years as the sole provider of taxicab service at the Sea-Tac airport STITA lost the contract to Yellow Cab. It appears that the majority of Yellow's vehicles being licensed in Seattle was an important consideration.

STITA cabs had to deadhead (return without a passenger) back to the airport to get back in line while Yellow's vehicles can pick up in town. Imagine all of the pollution being spewed into the air from those miles of useless travel. STITA didn't go quietly though, they protested and sued. The interesting part of the story is that this is the first competitive bid for exclusive service to the airport and the incumbent lost.

It has been a bit of a bad year for incumbents you know. The airport helped STITA start up to provide good service to the airport and now, twenty years later, STITA couldn't beat the competition to keep their exclusivity. It's hard to make the transition from an exclusive government contract to the real world of competitive business. It will be interesting to see if STITA will survive after they're done whining of course.

Are you ready?

Watching the riots in Greece and London go on I have to wonder, are taxicab drivers here ready for an event like that in the US? We've had our share of riots over the years, but they weren't quite as predictable as what's coming to the US. Think about it. If a city can erupt into chaos after a basketball game what's going to happen when the new Congress refuses to bail out California? Having a plan of action would be a good start. Stay away from "peaceful" protests and find a place to keep your vehicle inside in case of an emergency. It may never happen, but if it does you can be out of business in a heartbeat if you're careless or not prepared.

Say it isn't so.

A recent commentary by Donald Marron, director of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center, made the following quote regarding the origin of the "profit" from medallion systems:

"Of course that profit comes at the expense of taxi riders who face a double whammy: they pay more for the cab rides they can get, and they end up taking fewer cab rides. The latter effect is known as a deadweight loss - society loses the benefit of the cab rides that would have happened without the medallion system."

The comments from the Christian Science Monitor blog were discussing the merits of Washington DC moving to a medallion system. No doubt the industry in DC expects those who currently are licensed to get a free medallion which would end up being a windfall for them. The problem is that the public, as stated by Professor Marron, ends up footing the bill for less. Sadly, taxicab riders across the land have no idea how much government regulation adds to the fare.

In New York City alone the drivers pay in the neighbor hood of $1,000 a week just to lease the medallion. The taxi riders are paying $1000 a week per taxi for the short sightedness of their politicians. I wonder if DC's new mayor has enough snap to figure this out for himself? Probably not. DC's taxicab industry is one of the last bastions of free enterprise in the taxicab industry nationwide and that can't be good.

Who is watching the watcher?

Recent reports out of San Francisco make the claim that the police officer in charge of the taxicab division was taking bribes from the local taxi school owner to give his students a passing grade. Of course, this isn't the first such accusation regarding regulators being bribed for licenses, the Philadelphia Parking Authority jumps to mind, so the question becomes where are the checks and balances?

Any regulatory scheme in any industry understands that there probably will be attempts to corrupt the regulations and not just in the taxicab industry. The more the city, state or federal government regulates anything the more the opportunity for mischief.

In a widely unreported seemingly obvious example is the Barney Frank's boyfriend running Fannie Mae while Representative Frank was on the committee regulating Fannie Mae. Interestingly, the two "broke up" shortly after his "lover" left Fannie Mae. At least Spitzer used his own money. Regardless, the more the opportunities present themselves the more self serving bureaucrats will avail themselves of the opportunity. Corruption requires opportunity, government regulation provides it.

Speaking of opportunity.

NYC is in search of the "iconic" taxicab. One can only imagine what the additional cost in parts and initial purchase will be. Amazingly, Bloomy, alleged to have been a businessman before becoming a politician, is behind the idea and sees no problem piling costs on an industry he obviously knows nothing about.

Without competition among vendors you can expect the price of everything associated with the industry to skyrocket. You have to wonder exactly how much New Yorkers are willing to pay for rampant stupidity? Taxicab owners vote for vehicles with their dollars by purchasing what works best for them. Ignoring their informed decisions which establishes what they determine is necessary for their success is another clear example of the government, in this case local NYC government, eliminating freedom of choice. Why is it that we keep electing idiots who think they're required to make every decision for us? Oh yeah, I don't live there.

I live in Texas because..

In what I found as a totally hilarious report from London a taxicab driver was suspended for six months for having an "imitation firearm" in his cab. What in the world is an "imitation firearm?"

According to the report the "imitation firearm" was "hidden away" in the vehicle and the driver had simply forgotten he had it in the car. The truly amazing part of the story was that the police said that he was no longer a "fit and proper person" to hold a taxi license and that "he has not only breached a position of trust, he also poses a significant threat to others, and in turn is a danger to the public."

Significant threat?" Now, I can understand if the "imitation firearm" was a functioning replica of say an Uzi or something dangerous but how in the world would a non functioning "imitation firearm" earn you the reputation of no longer being a "fit and proper person to hold a taxi license?" Did he pistol whip someone with his "imitation firearm?" This brings to mind one of the sayings from my old neighborhood: "Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby!"

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