A.G. Gancarski
The Jacksonville City Council’s Vehicles for Hire Committee discussed legislation Tuesday related to such transportation, including Uber and Lyft. No new ground was covered; no resolution to the ongoing battle between the taxicab industry and transportation network companies was to be had.
Casting a shadow over this committee’s process was the legislative process in Tallahassee.
With a Senate committee Tuesday afternoon dealing with insurance requirements, Jacksonville Office of Economic Development director Kirk Wendland noted that there is still divergence between Senate and House legislation.
The issue, Wendland said, is coverage of “the gap time” when a driver is picking up a passenger.
Fees were also discussed, with Wendland noting that annual inspection fees for cabs are above $58, while transportation network companies vehicles incur just $7 in such fees.
The FY 15 budget impact for inspection fees and driver permits was just under $165,000.
Discussion heated up when Bill Gulliford noted that the original legislation addressed Uber BLACK luxury car drivers. Chairman Matt Schellenberg noted that Uber X drivers “find it easier to compete.”
Part of what makes it easier to compete is there’s no commercial insurance requirement for Uber X drivers.
Regarding Lyft, lobbyist Steve Diebenow said Lyft disagrees with the General Counsel opinion, and they are working to find a mutually agreeable solution.
“The original legislation … had a lot of penalties,” Diebenow said.
Gulliford noted that equity is a goal across the board. Ideally, “everybody has to register period,” and lowering the medallion fee would help with that.
Inspection, likewise, could be handled by a private vendor, as long as the city has a record.
“So, how do we get here? I don’t know,” Gulliford said.
Garrett Dennis wondered whether “we have a mechanism to enforce” these laws “adequately apply[ing] to all evenly.”
John Crescimbeni, referring to the extant legislation requiring a medallion, insurance, inspection, and a background check, said “right now that’s not being done” in light of “reportedly all kinds of [enforcement] challenges.”
Crescimbeni, regarding the “ride share industry,” said “there is no honor code,” and called for the city to place a firmer hand on getting proof of necessary preconditions.
“The bottom line is if we don’t enforce it, we’re just spinning our wheels.”
Without enforcement, Crescimbeni broached the possibility of eliminating such legislation.
A barrier to enforcement: “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” issues, said a representative from the Sheriff’s Office.
Tensions emerged between Diebenow and panel members on the enforcement piece. Gulliford broached the possibility, again, of a lower medallion fee to accommodate these part time contractors.
Issues, such as a Lyft driver who assaulted the passenger, were not going away, with Crescimbeni asking Diebenow about the derelict driver.
“It’s not about the money. It’s about the time it takes,” Diebenow said.
There apparently was a background check done on that driver; however, Lyft is taking its time sharing that with the city, a fact that didn’t sit well with Crescimbeni, even as it stopped short of triggering his oft-mentioned “heartburn.”
Diebenow noted that insurance has improved for Lyft drivers since legislation was first enacted, with more comprehensive options.
An independent TNC contractor, addressing the committee, pointed out the simple economics: “Medallions are $100; you can make ten grand.”
Another speaker, a cab driver named Marcus Blount, noted his perception that the committee is “beating a dead horse” with the current discussion, contending that TNC companies are making the decision not to abide by legislation, demonstrating a “bully mentality” backed up by “billions of dollars in capital” for lawsuits.
Jason Teal, of the General Counsel’s office, noted that enforcement time for the current ordinance is prohibitive given the mild penalties.
“One $250 citation isn’t going to serve as a deterrent,” Teal said of these “billion-dollar corporations.”
“More teeth” in the ordinance to “hurt the drivers themselves,” including potential vehicle immobilization by Parking Enforcement, could be a solution, Teal said.
Parking enforcement would have to work in tandem with the Sheriff’s Office, said Teal, which would be an interesting resource allocation in light of the 2016 murder wave in Jacksonville.
