On Friday, May 18 in New York State Supreme Court, Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade (MTBOT) strengthened its April 18, 2012 complaint against Mayor Bloomberg’s livery street hail and taxi medallion bill, which MTBOT and other plaintiffs have slammed as being “unconstitutional, irresponsible and unconscionable” as well as irreparably harmful for tens of thousands of yellow taxi medallion drivers, owners and their families. MTBOT is asking the Court for a preliminary injunction preventing the City from issuing livery hail permits and the amended complaint adds as a key plaintiff, New York City Council Member Lewis A. Fidler (46th District, Brooklyn) — a staunch opponent of the Mayor’s livery street hail plan from day one.
The amended complaint, which was filed by the law firm of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, includes causes of action based on these egregious violations of the New York State Constitution:
- The bypassing of the “home rule message” that has been provided by the New York City Council for every other taxi medallion bill but was ignored for reasons of political expediency.
- Further relinquishment of traditional and constitutionally protected City Council powers to the Mayor with regard to the issuance and regulation of medallions.
- The violation of the “exclusive privileges and immunities” clause which is meant to, among other things, prevent one exclusive group of people from unfairly benefiting financially from a City issued asset – in this case livery hail permits.
New York City Council Member Lewis A. Fidler has spoken out loudly and frequently over the past year, strongly criticizing the plan itself as well as the flawed legislative process that led to the bill’s passage in Albany. In his affidavit, he states: “I have been against the plan to provide outer borough taxi service from the start, as it is a ‘solution in search of a problem.’” In his affidavit, he then quotes from an Op-Ed he wrote in August 2011, stating, “in my 10 years as a City Council member, I have never gotten a call asking me why a citizen can’t hail a cab on the streets of Marine Park.”
The affidavit goes on to state: “I am a Plaintiff in this action, however, not merely because the HAIL Law is a bad policy, but because the HAIL Law is unconstitutional. The HAIL Law violates New York City’s right to Home Rule. Most fundamentally, it interferes with the City of New York’s right to regulate taxicabs and liveries and the City Council’s right to decide when to issue new medallions. Instead, the State Legislature has set regulations for livery cabs and has transferred the right to issue new taxicab medallions to the Mayor.”
MTBOT is preparing to file an additional action in federal court, alleging that the HAIL Law constitutes an unlawful “taking’ of the property of medallion owners without just compensation and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Ron Sherman, President of the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade stated: “We are bringing this suit on behalf of all the individuals, all the small businesses, all the men and women who are overwhelmed with anxiety, grief and worry over their future as a result of this devastating law, which will completely undermine their livelihood and lifetime investment. We are confident that the Court will affirm our position so that we can put this deeply flawed plan behind us and work quickly to achieve a better plan that provides the City with real revenue, stabilizes the medallion taxi industry and creates real initiatives that improve street hail service in the boroughs.”
There are more than 5,000 individual owner-drivers, 2,000 “mini-fleet” owners comprised of hard-working New Yorkers as well as dozens of taxi medallion businesses that bring millions of dollars to the City economy and provide economic opportunities to tens of thousands of drivers.
The Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade is a 59-year old non-profit trade association that represents 33 fleets in 4 boroughs that are comprised of nearly 4,000 yellow medallion taxicabs – the largest taxi fleet association in New York City. MTBOT member fleets lease taxis to more than 16,000 drivers and directly employ hundreds of dispatchers, managers and other personnel.
What the hell! I was dreaming to pick up and drop off customers in the middle of times square with new cheap green outer borough cabs just like i was bringing customers to city from NJ!!
Does anyone know when the court will hand down a decision ?
Even if these slime Green taxis actually become a reality, I don’t see that the livery low lifes will go for this in meaningful numbers. The reality is there is not anywhere enough business in the boroughs to make it worth while. Besides, they have it too good being underground. Why would they change?
Hopefully Bloomberg will be put in his place with a favorable ruling for the medallion owners and drivers. Otherwise, life will change for us yellow hacks. No more Travis Bickle romances. Instead, life will be dangerous just to walk across the street let alone drive a cab. Don’t even sneeze if Bloombergs plan goes through cause you will have empty cabs zeroing in on you.
Don’t be too sure that MTBOT is going to save the NYC taxi industry. Keeping in touch and conversation with as many taxi industry players across the US, but mostly northeast, there is a little trick (actually enormous trick) played out in taxi operations. Let’s just say the card-swipe advertising GPS trick. In one taxi community, suddenly card-swipes were on the move. Drivers and private owners alike were told by the rental garages and radio association personnel: it was mandatory it was coming, deadline by, etc. Cabbie leasers complained to their garages, and said look what happened in NYC, as they had relatives driving in NYC. Well the garage dispatchers would say: the owner, let’s call him Rich Pants, is fighting it in court. Everyone was relieved that Rich Pants was fighting it, along with the other Rich Pantses renters, so cabbies could just drive their 6 days a week and not have to fight it, someone doing it for them. These were the private owners too, not just the renters. Then when they were all locked into it, it was found out there was ‘ no such court action ‘ by Rich Pants, and the rest of the little Rich Pantses, and that the card-swipe mandate was actually ‘ voluntary ‘ by the Rich Pants and little Rich Pantses, who implemented it. As the cabbies had gone up to the dispatch windows to get their cabs for the day, and complained about the card-swipes coming, each was told Rich Pants is fighting it in court, how terrible it was, and the regulators were requiring it. Come to find out after all was said and done, the Rich Pantses all got a cut and still getting a cut from the card-swipes, which were voluntary to the Rich Pantses.
So, MTBOT fighting something? Boro medallions? If there are 18,000 of them and Rich Pants Sherman who leads the MTBOT and also supplies CMT card-swipes are all going in at least 9,000 of them, Verifone the other 9,000), and the permits will only cost $1500 each, how many will Sherman (MTBOT Sherman and a bunch of garages) buy, because they can afford it. And how much money will Sherman CMT make off the card-swipe machines. Let’s just say, how strong is the lawsuit going to be, and will the whole shebang be over and done, a fait accompli by the time the MTBOT court case is over?
Instead of all these tiny technical details (which do add something to the claim, why doesn’t the MTBOT lawsuit claim what is apparent to everyone: it is double-selling of medallion rights? Everybody and their brother has already paid through the nose for these rights, how can they be re-sold? The rental garages do not care whether their renters make enough money, as long as they get the daily rental and 2% of the card-swipe fees. The garages must think, hey bubbs, you don’t spend enough time in the boros, so it is okay to add 18,000 cabs, to their own benefit. If there were 200,000 cabs in NYC, the garages would not care, as long as they were rented every day. What is paramount to cabbies is that the meters ‘ are planned to be the same as the Manhattan medallions. ‘ That is a hint there. Usually meters for less busy areas are higher. Thus you would expect the meters for the boro taxis to be higher, less business. And when a Manhattan rider got into a boro taxi, right away they would know the fare is higher and some would shy away from it. Why shy away from it, when it is the same exact meter, or a meter they cannot distinguish from the Manhattan and Boro taxis?