Tag Cloud
No new taxis will be allowed in Sacramento for the next two years, after the City Council passed a moratorium on new cab permits in a 7-2 vote Thursday.
The moratorium was the first, and less-contentious, of two proposed ordinances related to the 450-500 taxis operating in the city.
The other ordinance, which has yet to come to council, would require taxi companies to have a central dispatching station, which has come under fire from some taxi drivers. To read more, click here.
Dafna Gauthier, business permit manager for the city, told the council that staff recommended the two-year moratorium to give them time to study the taxi market, and that there is a “general consensus” that there are too many taxis downtown.
Another aspect of the industry that will be studied during the moratorium, she said, is the feasibility of bringing in tougher emission standards.
Councilman Jay Schenirer was the major voice of opposition to the ordinance on the council, saying he doesn’t want to over-regulate the market.
“I’m not sure what it means when staff says ‘there’s a general consensus’ that we have too many cabs and how we quantify that,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think a moratorium is the right way to go.
Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy proposed the ordinance last October and said she stands by it.
“We need a moratorium, because as soon as we say the word moratorium, everybody runs out and applies for a permit,” she said, adding that the number of taxis has increased by about 50 percent since 2004.
“We need to slow it down,” she said.
Councilmen Steve Cohn and Kevin McCarty also spoke in favor of the ordinance, saying more regulation on the taxi industry within Sacramento is needed to provide a higher quality of service.
Mayor Kevin Johnson joined Schenirer in voting against the ordinance, though he didn’t comment on it.
About a dozen taxi drivers and company owners spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, both supporting and opposing the ordinance.
Those who supported the ordinance said it is needed to preserve the economic viability of the industry, adding that there are too many cabs, and drivers sometimes wait for hours for a fare.
Drivers opposed to the ordinance said the City Council should not limit the number of taxis, and one man said he and his family would be on welfare if it wasn’t for his job driving a taxi, arguing that the moratorium will keep some people from working.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.
Sounds like another Yellow Cab ploy to squeeze out competitors and also to force higher rents from the cab drivers.
I did the lookup and found Darrell Fong is taking campaign cash from Yellow Cab. Who else has taken it?
Do you have an intern that can look through the campaign donation reports and see who has taken donations from Yellow Cab and the like?. The one for Darrell Fong was back in Oct/Nov if I recall, so the others would probably be in that timeframe as well
Would be interesting to see if there is correlation between those voting for a moratorium and those taking campaign cash from Yellow Cab.
Hell, I might even do it myself!
I am really not sure why the staff made this request. I live and work in the central city and I'm really happy that "the number of taxis has increased by about 50 percent since 2004." I was here in 2004 and there weren't as many and it was inconvenient.
Seriously, as Mr. Cohn says... the Sac cab market is regulated by the city. Probably the biggest cab revenue source is airport pickup, which is ridiculously regulated and seemingly controlled by a small group with the right connections. The rest of the cabs fight for scraps, all competition has been sucked out of the system, leaving the cab companies free to ignore customer service while at the same time holding rates at the maximum the city allows. The moratorium is a solution looking for a problem, but raising costs even higher along the way.
We have city council election coming. Next fall just remember who continually votes yes on crap like this and ask yourself if they are representing you, or themselves?
It's like that every time government starts "protecting" us from the free market.