STORYLINE Local Government

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Council passes two-year taxi permit moratorium

by Brandon Darnell, published on August 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Storyline: Local Government RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

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.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

August 6, 2011 | 10:26 AM
If it's a liberty-destroying idea, you know Cohn and Sheedy are involved....
4 0
REPLY
August 6, 2011 | 4:27 PM
if there is in fact a surplus of taxi's as the supposed "general concensus" has identified, then where are the attendant price reductions? A fare from downtown to the airport has risen from upper $20 range 10 years ago to the mid $40s today, far higher than inflation.

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?
5 0
REPLY
August 6, 2011 | 6:23 PM
insane
4 0
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 9:51 AM
Ben
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.
4 0
REPLY
August 9, 2011 | 6:19 PM
I kinda like this idea. Of course most of the interns are working for editorial and it isn't directly my call - but I will propose and support the idea.

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.
3 0
REPLY
August 7, 2011 | 4:41 PM
Somebody needs to explain why, if there is an excess of licensed taxis and drivers wait hours for a fare, are taxi rates higher here than they are in San Francisco. Shouldn't the opposite be the case?
7 0
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 11:43 AM
I wrote that same comment just last week!
7 0
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 5:00 PM
Seriously...why DO we pay some of the highest rates in California? I'd be interested to know the cab companies explain/justify this.
4 0
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 5:29 PM
It costs a lot of money for the cab drivers to be constantly cleaning & maintaining their cabs, practicing safe drving techniques, and fastidiously grooming themselves all the time!

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?
3 0
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 5:08 PM
The cynic in me suspects the rates are probably because so many rides are connected to the legislature with people who aren't very price sensitive - and one way or another, we're probably paying for them.
4 0
REPLY
August 17, 2011 | 7:47 PM
government regulation=corporate favoritism=less competition=higher prices
It's like that every time government starts "protecting" us from the free market.
1 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background