A.G. Gancarski
The Jacksonville Vehicles for Hire subcommittee met Tuesday for the latest skirmish between the Uber/Lyft rideshare side and traditional taxicab companies.
The agenda included “a discussion of the state legislation, a look at ordinances in other cities, a discussion on enforcement of city ordinances, and an open discussion on the issue.”
The big takeaway was potentially increased penalties for rogue operators, including immobilizing vehicles, and immobilizing drivers.
OED Head Kirk Wendland noted the legislation in Tallahassee in the current Session. The Senate bill has passed one of three committees, he said. Wendland noted two levels of insurance under consideration, and an attempt to address the “gap in coverage” when a driver is logged into the network, yet lacks passengers.
The House bill is notable in the prohibition of local legislation on the matter of vehicles for hire, Wendland said. He noted Senate may lack the enthusiasm for that condition.
Committee Chairman Matt Schellenberg, representative to the League of Cities and the League of Counties, said it wouldn’t fly with them because of home rule considerations.
A discussion was held also about Broward County’s ordinance that stipulates any TNC driver on duty must have an identifiable logo in the window. A law-enforcement officer apparently can ask the driver and passenger about the “transaction,” requiring “proof” that the transaction was “pre-arranged.”
The threshold, apparently, is the passenger with cell phone in hand getting into the back seat.
The ordinance precludes fake Uber and Lyft drivers.
Councilman John Crescimbeni said, “Maybe we should get drug dealers to put logos in their windows to help our enforcement efforts.”
Wendland wondered whether the practice satisfied the threshold of “probable cause,” which seems an old-school approach to law enforcement.
He then said that “stricter laws on the books,” including “authorization to immobilize,” might serve as a deterrent to these ride share scofflaws.
A representative from a cab company suggested an elegant solution: a medallion.
Which is what cabs have.
Councilman Bill Gulliford noted the increased prevalence of drivers “moonlighting” and going rogue, driving independently of Lyft: another pressure for the nascent industry.
Robert Connor of the Sheriff’s Office noted “support” for enforcement even as he brought up potential issues with the “practicality” of enforcement.
Strengthening the ordinance by adding measures more meaningful than fines “may have a larger impact on the driver” and a “more chilling effect on anyone who’s out of compliance,” Connor said.
Immobilizing vehicles is one potential solution. Immobilizing drivers is another.
Schellenberg said that “Uber is losing money,” with a billion-dollar loss already, but that its market saturation is for real, having hit its billionth customer.
This “new way for moving people from one place to another” should, said Schellenberg, be balanced with cab companies “that have been there forever.”
Gulliford, meanwhile, stressed being “fair,” with an “overwhelming consideration” to citizens, regarding safety, in the form of background checks for drivers and insurance.
“Beyond that, free market dictates and we get the heck out of the way,” Gulliford said.
The business, added Schellenberg, is expanding, with other companies coming into the market space. Schellenberg also added that the companies want background checks for their drivers, and other markers of established businesses.
Cab advocates said that a burden was created by background checks, and that Uber was trying to “thumb its nose” at background check requirements in places such as California.
“I wonder what the public would think of taxi companies,” one said, if they attempted to game the system to hire convicted felons withexpunged records.
Regarding a recent incident when a Lyft driver locally got into the back seat with a passenger, Lyft advocate Steve Diebenow said that there had been a pre-employment background check on that driver, and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office is investigating.
“Every employer can’t control every moment of what an employee does,” Diebenow said.
About 97 percent of applicants for Lyft are rejected on background check or vehicle requirement grounds, Diebenow said.
