The cabbie who is driving for liberty
March 28th, 2012George Will on Nashville’s Limo Price Fixing
March 28th, 2012Nashville Conducts Sting Operation to Punish Car Service for Charging Too Little
February 7th, 2012 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 30, 2012CONTACT: Shira Rawlinson, (703) 682-9320 ext. 229
Nashville Conducts Sting Operation to Punish Car Service for Charging Too Little
Arlington, Va.—On Friday night, in a blatant attempt to protect high-end limousine companies from honest competition, inspectors from Nashville’s Metropolitan Transportation Licensing Commission (MTLC) conducted a sting operation against Metro Livery, an affordable limousine and town car service that is currently suing Nashville in federal court.
Metro Livery’s crime? Charging its customers less than the government-mandated $45 minimum fare.
Friday’s sting operation is the first of its kind. No other business has been cited for violating the minimum fare.
An MTLC inspector, posing as a customer, called Metro Livery for a ride from Nashville’s Preston Hotel to Broadway Friday night. When the inspector was charged $25 for the trip, another inspector arrived and fined the driver $104 for violating Nashville’s minimum fare regulation, informing him that Metro Livery would receive its own citation in the mail. The man posing as a customer then left without paying for the trip.
“Government officials should be fighting crime, not punishing my company for suing the city,” said Ali Bokhari, the owner of Metro Livery and a plaintiff in the company’s lawsuit against Nashville.
The sting operation comes just a week after a federal judge denied Nashville’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Metro Livery and two other affordable car services. Their lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Nashville’s new limousine and town car regulations, including the $45 minimum fare.
“This is a sad example of the government bullying one business just to protect another business from competition,” said Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the Institute for Justice and the lead lawyer in the case against Nashville. “The $45 minimum fare does nothing to make your trip in a limo or town car any safer. It was passed into law only because Nashville’s expensive limousine companies wanted to put their affordable competition out of business and the Metro Council agreed to help them. That isn’t just wrong. It’s unconstitutional.”
WATCH A SHORT VIDEO ABOUT THE CASE
The regulations, passed by Nashville’s Metropolitan County Council in June 2010, were largely designed (and in some cases written) by the Tennessee Livery Association—a trade group formed to represent the interests of high-end limousine companies. The $45 minimum fare was the Association’s idea. In addition, limousine and town car companies are now required to dispatch only from their places of business, they are prohibited from leasing new vehicles and they have to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine. These regulations threaten to put Nashville’s affordable car services out of business, and they are driving up the cost of car service by 80 percent or more.
“We are not going to give into this kind of intimidation,” continued Bokhari. “It is my right to charge my customers as little as I wish; the government’s right to regulate my business begins and ends with the safety of my vehicles and my drivers.”
# # #
Institute for Justice | www.IJ.org | 901 N. Glebe Road | Suite 900 | Arlington, VA 22203 | Tel (703) 682-9320
Metro business owner sues over limo, taxi fees
February 7th, 2012http://www.wsmv.com/story/16674072/metro-business-owner-sues-over-limo-taxi-fees
Nashville Preaches Public Safety! Was Safety a real issue? No Joking!
February 7th, 2012Nashville’s claim to regulate limo industry is for “public safety” is a fake claim.
Nashville requires Metro Livery:
1. A comprehensive General (Public) Liability and Property Damage Insurance, inclusive of Contractual Liability, in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit written on an occurrence basis.
2. Comprehensive Automobile Liability in an amount of not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) combined single limit written on an occurrence basis.
Nashville requires Taxis:
A Liability Insurance Coverage Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50000) .For a single occurrence.
Metro Livery carries Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) combined coverage from the day first. My question is, was public safety real issue for regulators?
Why Taxis are allowed to carry only $50k coverage when they a have more risk for passengers. You can get Police accidents reports of taxi accidents every month. Taxi drivers have worse driving records. They are involved same kind of business taking people point A to point B.
Nashville used Public Safety like a big concern for them, but in reality they wanted to protect their Taxi monopoly
Metro Livery cited for refusal to engage in price-fixing!!!
January 29th, 2012Livery Cabs To Pick Up Street Hails Beginning 2012!
January 28th, 2012Bokhari Vs Nashville
January 25th, 2012Federal Court Denies Nashville’s Motion to Dismiss Transportation Case
January 21st, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 19, 2012
CONTACT: Shira Rawlinson, (703) 682-9320 ext. 229
Freedom to Drive: Federal Court Denies Nashville’s Motion to Dismiss Transportation Case
Rejects Economic Protectionism as a Legitimate Governmental Interest
Arlington, VA.—Today, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the city of Nashville’s motion to dismiss a major federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of its limousine and sedan regulations.
The ruling by Judge Kevin Sharp is part of a civil rights lawsuit filed in April 2011 by the Institute for Justice on behalf of a group of independent limousine and sedan operators. The lawsuit argues that Nashville’s new limousine and sedan regulations, including a $45 fare minimum for car service, were passed into law to protect the city’s expensive limousine companies from more affordable competitors.
The city’s rules also prohibit limo and sedan companies from using leased vehicles, require them to dispatch only from their place of business and to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine.
WATCH A SHORT VIDEO ON THE CASE
Today’s ruling emphasized that “Courts have repeatedly recognized that protecting a discrete interest group from economic competition is not a legitimate governmental purpose,” quoting Craigmiles v. Giles, a 2002 case that the Institute for Justice won on behalf of casket retailers in Tennessee. The casket retailers in that case, like the affordable car services in this case, were being locked out of the marketplace by a cartel of well-connected individuals. The casket retailers won their case. And the Court today recognized that precedent in holding that legislating for no other purpose than protecting industry insiders is illegitimate.
“This case is about protecting our clients’ right to engage in business free from unreasonable government interference,” said Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who is representing the plaintiffs. “That is a basic right of citizenship under the U.S. Constitution and the government must respect it in good economic times and in bad. Today’s ruling correctly recognizes the principle that the government can’t deny your right to be in business, just so your competitors can get richer.”
“If my customers prefer to take a sedan over a taxi and to pay for that choice, that is their business, not the city’s,” said Ali Bokhari, owner of Metro Livery and a plaintiff in the case. “Limos and sedans have served the people of this city for decades without Nashville’s help. All we want is to be left alone to continue doing that.”
Today’s ruling puts the case on track for a trial in January 2013, in which the plaintiffs will demonstrate that there is no health or safety justification for Nashville’s limo and sedan rules.
# # #
Institute for Justice | www.IJ.org | 901 N. Glebe Road | Suite 900 | Arlington, VA 22203 | Tel (703) 682-9320
Please Visit: A Disgruntled Republican in Nashville By Rod Williams
January 18th, 2012More on the Attempt to Repeal Metro’s Price-fixing Limo Law
From Syed A Bokhari
Rod,
Thank you for writing a good article with the true picture of how metro council handled things last night. Councilman Bo Mitchell spoke in opposition of BL2011-049, stating that all parties had been invited with the formation of the original bill in 2010. Simply, I am here to say, that was not the case. My company, Metro Livery, was never invited.
1. In 2009, we gave opposition to the Transporation Licensing Commission. See link:
2. Additionally, I called and even mailed letters to Mr. McQuistion to ask him to come and see my operation, so that I may explain my business model, and show him my 24 hour dispatch facilities. Mr. McQuistion did not return my calls or accept my invitation.
3. During the formation of the bill, I personally called Bo Mitchell and never received a return phone call.
4. Matter fact, even in 2011, there was a meeting called, at the behest of Council Lady Edith, where again, I was not invited. A representative of my company was invited to attend in my place. It was during that meeting late last year, that Bill Faeth stated the parties that formed the original bill did so to put my company out of business.
Bo Mitchell stated only two companies are behind the bill because they do not want to follow the rules. Councilman Mitchell also stated out of 57 operators, only two operators disagree. In reality, there were over 15 operators that attended last night’s meetings in support of BL2011-049. Mr. Mitchell stated Metro gets sued every day. He does not mind that Metro has to spend thousands of taxpayer’s money in lawsuits for the City.
My company, Metro Livery, has been a licensed operator with the Metro Nashville Airport for the last six years. Our business entity was same like any Tennessee Livery Association member. We are a licensed operator with the Transportation Licensing Commission from the FIRST DAY of the new ordinance in December of 2010. We are safety complaint and have spent a lot of resources to ensure we are complaint with the rules. Metro Livery stands firm in its commitment to safety regulations. Some of the rules are to support the luxury limousine business model. My business does not have room to survive with several of the rules in the ordinance.
It saddens me to see that we have to defer the bill, while there are many companies and families waiting for these changes. Mr. McQuistion wants a consultant to and what is called a comprehensive analysis of his office. Meanwhile, he and his inspectors continue to work tirelessly to put existing companies out of business that try to follow the rules. And Mr. McQuistion himself stated there were about 40 operators in the city that have not even applied to his office.
Again, my company applied the first day for the operator certificate. My assistant met with Mr. McQuistion to set a plan of action (since the ordinance did not have a defined timeline of when all existing companies should get complaint by) to get all vehicles and drivers in my company complaint and to find out from the Director when the enforcement would begin. My assistant was told by Mr. McQuistion that he would notify us before enforcement began. Sadly, that was not the case. He began enforcement targeted to my company almost immediately. We asked Mr. McQuistion for a “comprehensive fix” for our company, he denied, and brought my company in for disciplinary action. And yet, now Mr. McQuisiton needs a “comprehensive analysis” of his department?
To this day there are still drivers working for Tennessee Livery Association companies that are unlicensed. There has been no enforcement upon those companies. My company has even reported to the Inspectors specific locations of drivers for these companies so that everyone could be fairly enforced. Sadly, we were told “that is out of my jurisdiction” by the Inspector.
I am not a taxi. I am not a luxury limousine. I am a car service. I do not exist in the ordinance. All we are asking for is the opportunity to survive.
As Wesley Hottot stated in his article for the Tennessean: “‘The Supreme Court has long recognized that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living, stating in Truax v. Raich, for example, that this right is “the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the 14th Amendment to secure.””
This is a sad example of abuse of power and authority by the legislators who took the oath to protect the constitution.
Thank you again for all your support and for covering this story on your blog.
Syed A. Bokhari 
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Chicken Bill passes; Some District out.
The Council tonight passed Council Member Karen Bennett’s backyard chicken bill after Council Member Robert Duvall successfully exempted from the bill council districts 12, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
Council Indefinitely Defers Limo Price-fixing Repeal Bill.
 |
| Davette Blalock |
Tonight, ordinance BL2011-49 sponsored by Council member Davette Blalock which would have repealed the limousine price fixing provision of the Metro code, was deferred indefinitely. This followed a mandatory deferral in December. In December a committee had recommended deferral. When a committee recommends deferral a bill must be deferred one meeting. The next time a bill is before a committee, even if the committee again recommends deferral, deferral is not mandatory.
The bill had a mixed reception from the various committee’s considering it. The powerful Budget and Finance Committee voted 4 in favor, 10 opposed and one abstention. The Convention and Tourism committee failed to return a recommendation, voting 2 in favor and 2 opposed. The Public Safety Committee voted one in favor, one abstention and 4 opposed. The Transportation and Aviation Committee voted four in favor and none opposed.
 |
| Charlie Tygert |
The Council’s leading opponent of the bill was Councilman Charlie Tygert. He argued that all of the parties needed to come together and draw up a comprehensive bill rather than taking a piecemeal approach to amending the current code. He explained that the reason we have the current code provisions was because limo’s were acting like taxis and the $45 fee was to distinguish them from taxis. Other opponents of BL2011-49 argued that the current price fixing portion of the code had not been in place long enough to evaluate whether or not it was working and argued that most of the industry supported the current law. They also made a general argument that the current regulations were necessary for public health and safety but never did explain what a $45 minimum fee had to do with health and safety.
 |
| Jacobia Dowell |
A council member with whom I was not previously acquainted but who greatly impressed me, who spoke forcibly in favor to the bill, was District 32 Council Member Jacobia Dowell. She argued that there was a an immediate problem that needed to be addressed and a delay was not fair to those being adversely effected by the current price-fixing provision.
Mr. Brian McQuiston, Director of the Transportation Licensing Commission, argued that Metro needed to hire an outside consultant to evaluate and advise metro on transportation regulation policy.
 |
| Bill Pridemore |
Councilman Pridemore questioned why we should spend the money on outside consultant when we should be able to figure this out on our own. Pridemore, a former policeman, brought a moment of levity to the deliberations when he said something to the effect, “As a policeman, if I had an encounter with a bad guy, I didn’t have the luxury of calling a consultant to ask if I should shoot or not. Don’t we have anyone smart enough in Nashville to study this issue?” In committee he ended up voting in favor of the bill.
Councilman Tygert said the administration wished to have the issue studied by an outside consultant. It was explained that to hire an outside consultant to help study the issue and draft legislation, that Request for Proposals would have to be issued and proposals evaluated. It would be a time consuming process.
When it came to the floor of the council for consideration, Council member Blalock moved to defer the bill indefinitely. On second reading a bill must have the votes of a majority of those present in order for it to pass. Two council members were absent and one member had said he would have to abstain due to a conflict of interest so passage was in doubt. One of those who was absent was thought to have been a favorable vote had he been present. Also, one of the members who we had thought would be in favor of the bill was Jerry Maynard, but he voted against it in committee. The sponsor was not sure she had 19 votes which would have been required for passage. The vote was going to be so close that the sponsor did the prudent thing and deferred the bill.
An indefinite deferral does not mean the bill is dead. According to the rules of the Council, a council member who has indefinitely deferred a bill may at any time request that the bill be placed on the next agenda of the council and the clerk shall place it on the agenda for the next meeting. Hopefully, at least some of those members of the Council who said they wanted a more comprehensive look at limousine and taxi regulation were sincere and will now get to work drafting an improved bill. Hopefully they were not all simply trying to kill the bill by continuous delay.
It is my hope that the sponsor will not allow this bill to die a slow death. If there is a not a speedy drafting of a more comprehensive bill, then the sponsor should bring the bill back and force the council members to take a stand. Even if it does not pass, I want to know who believes in free markets and who supports crony capitalism. Those who believe it is the proper role of government to protect the well-connected from competition should be on record voting for the price-fixing status quo. http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/