http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/2012/01/metro-livery-cited-for-refusal-to.html
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, 2012“They have sufficiently done so by alleging that the new rules stemming from the Ordinance serve no legitimate public health or safety purpose,” Sharp continued, “and by alleging that the Ordinance was enacted not to protect any such purpose, but rather to protect limousine companies and taxicab companies from competition.” Judge Sharp
Federal 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
Below is additional information about last night’s council meeting and the effort to repeal Metro’s limousine price-fixing ordinance. I don’t know how I forgot Councilman Bo Mitchell. Along with Councilman Tygert, he was the other leading proponent of maintaining Metro’s price-fixing ordinance. Actually, he was much worse than Tygert. Tygert argued we needed a comprehensive approach to the issue. Mitchell seemed to have contempt for those wanting to change the law and belittled the opposition as a few insignificant people who did not want to play by the rules. He was also dismissive and arrogant in is unconcern for the law suit facing the city over this issue.
Mr. Bokhahi is the owner of Metro Livery, one of the companies Metro is trying to drive out of business and one of the plaintiffs in the law suit against the city. Rod
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 
0digg
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.
0digg
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/
Nashville Car Service
January 17th, 2012How Big Car Services Use Legislation to Drive Over Competition
January 16th, 2012INSPECTOR MILTON BOWLIING – THE NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN, part 1
January 16th, 2012Please attend the Council Meeting! Put an end to Limo Price Fixing.
January 15th, 2012Saturday, January 14, 2012
Please attend the Council Meeting! Put an end to Limo Price Fixing.
Please join me at the Council Meeting Tuesday, January 17th, 2011 at 6:30PM.
BL 2011-49 will be on second reading again after being deferred last month. This is make it or break it for this bill!
This bill will undo the limo price fixing bill that was passed by the Council in June 2010. Unless BL2011-49 passes the competitors to the well-connected, established limo companies will have lost and have to cease operation. There is a lot information on this bill on this blog, just click here scroll down and read.
I believe there are enough good Council members who will do the right thing that SB 2011-49 can be passed. However, too many Council members have to be encouraged to do the right thing. Please call your councilman today and ask them to support this bill. You may also email them.
For your councilman’s email address and phone number, follow this link: http://www.nashville.gov/council.Then click on “Council Member Roster.” If you do not know who your council member is, then when on the page of the above link, look to the right and see “Quick Links”and under that, see “Where do I vote.” When you get to that page, enter your address and on the page listing your voting place it will list your Council district number. Then, go back to the council roster and find your councilman.
Council members also are more inclined to do the right thing if they have an audience who cares about the issue. That is why we need butts in the seats. You will be given a distinctive badge to identify that you are there for this particular issue.
If you attend, please follow proper decorum. No applauding or verbal outburst and no signs in the Council Chamber. Please help by spreading the word. Please use your facebook and other social media to spread the word
On Council meeting night, there is free parking. Arrive early as you must go through security to enter the chamber.
This is one of those relatively rare issues that pit advocates of free markets and limited government against those who advocate more government control and see government’s roll as protecting the special interest against competition. Please help get this bill passed!
0digg
More on How Metro Stifles Competition
This is too good to get lost in the comments section of the previous post. This is futher explanation of how Metro has tried to stack the deck against competitors to the well-connected established limousine companies.
Syed A Bokhari has left a new comment on your post “Repeal of Limo Price Fixing on Metro Council Agend…“:
Also, the ordinance requires a dispatch office for even the one car owner. It is a limo business for last decades lot of people were this business part time. They have a full time jobs. And also, have sedan or limo to supplement their income. They drive the car only on weekend to support their families. It is hard to make a living with one job because of the slow economy or other contributing factors.
What realistic numbers a small business owner afford an office and a payroll of a full time dispatcher when he is making only a couple hundred a week on weekends? The ordinance was written by the high end limo companies that have fleets and full time office with dispatchers so one car owners or a small guy cannot even survive. I have a question for Brian McQuistion, tell me the numbers how a small operator can afford all the expenses and pay the city licensing fees, dispatch office, etc.????
I could see how you hate the small guys in your open public meeting. You called security to a small guy when he asked you about public safety and tried to put him out of a public meeting, since you were a public servant you, Brian, violated his first amendment right. Are you a public servant? I strongly believe an the ordinance was an organized crime against small guys. I personally have the largest discount car service in Nashville with the largest dispatch office as well. But I started everything with one car. So they made sure there will never be another Metro Livery born again.
0digg
Repeal of Limo Price Fixing on Metro Council Agenda.
 |
| Davette Blalock |
On Tuesday, January 17th the Metro Council will consider on second reading ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-49 sponsored by Council Member Davette Blalock. This bill would remove the price fixing regulation of limousine service that is currently in the Metro Code.
Background:
In June 2010, the council enacted Ordinance No. BL2010-685, a limousine price-fixing bill that protected the big limo companies from competition. That ordinance imposed a minimum $45 fee for limo services, it prohibited the use of leased vehicles, and imposed age and mileage restrictions. All of these provision were designed to protect the luxury established limo companies from competition. Economy limo companies were providing limo service for a little as $25 and were cutting into the business of the established limo companies.
When learning that Metro had passed such a bill in June 2010, I was appalled that not a single member of the Metro Council opposed it, even the conservative members of the Council who I would assume claim to be champions of limited government and free enterprise. To their credit a couple members, Councilman Eric Crafton and Councilman Sean McGuire attempted to repeal the price fixing bill but were unsuccessful. Several Council Members told me that when the bill was presented to them, they really did not know what it did and were led to believe that it had the support of the industry. That is not a good excuse; they should have read the bill. Now, the Council has the chance to do the right thing and correct a grave error.
What the Proposed Bill would do:
This proposed ordinance would remove the current $45 minimum fee that livery vehicles are required to charge. It would amend the permit process so that the applicant for the permit is not required to hold the title to the vehicle in order to obtain a permit. In other words, it would allow for the use of leased vehicles and would allow the driver of a vehicle to own his vehicle and work for a company that has the permits. A third provision of this ordinance adjusts the minimum mileage requirements and maximum age requirements for vehicles used as a passenger vehicle for hire. Effective January 1, 2012, under the current code, a vehicle could not begin service if it is more than five years old and vehicles could not remain in service if they are more than seven or ten years old, depending on the category of the vehicle. This ordinance would remove the age limitation and rely solely upon the mileage limitation currently in the code. Under this limitation, vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their odometer. Also, the ordinance adds a specific minimum time requirement of fifteen minutes for pre-arrangement of services.
Metro is being sued over this issue.
Metro Government is currently being sued by the economy limo companies, being represented by the Institute for Justice, a nationally acclaimed libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm, You may know IJ from their fight against the city a few years ago when they representing Joy Ford . MDHA was going to take her property near Music Row by eminent domain and sell it to a big company for what MDHA considered a better use. Joy Ford did not want to sell. Finally she won, but had it not been for IJ, the city would have taken her property by force.
Now, IJ is suing the city on behalf of the econo limo companies alleging that the various restrictions in BL2010-865 are unconstitutionally arbitrary and are irrational regulations designed to eliminate competition. The challenged regulations are the minimum fee, the requirement that businesses must hold title to the vehicles, the requirement that they dispatch solely from their place of business, and the minimum age requirement, which the proposed bill would fix. If Metro does not pass the pending bill before it, I suspect the IJ will prevail in court. However, by the time it gets to court the econo limo providers will have had to stop providing limo service and most likely will have gone broke. Often justice delayed is justice denied.
Is this a perfect bill?
No, it is not. Other than a liability insurance requirements and some safety regulations and licensing, I would like to see all economic regulation of transportation removed including restrictions on entry into the market. I do not think Metro should be in the business of restricting competition in limos, buses, or taxis. However, a general deregulation is not going to occur immediately and the immediate issue of limousine price fixing should not be deferred because we can’t get total economic deregulation. It would be foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There are three provisions of the existing limousine pricing fixing Metro code or proposals in the bill under consideration that do not adequately addressed the issue of over regulation.
- The 350,000 mile limit: Under this proposed bill the limitation that vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their odometer should be removed. This will not likely effect many, if any vehicles, so why even have it in the code. Anyway, by the time a vehicle has 350,000 miles on the odometer it may have a new transmission, a new engine, and all new components. A well maintained and repaired vehicle could be a mostly new by the time the odometer reaches 350,000 miles. Let the vehicle owner decide when it is time to replace the vehicle as long as the vehicle meets safety requirements. The following two restrictions are more serious are unnecessary and add inconvenience and cost to limousine operations.
- The 15 minute wait: Under this proposed bill, once a customer calls for a limo, at least fifteen minutes must lapse between the request for the limo and getting in the limo. Why? If someone is already late for the airport, maybe because a cab has stood them up or whatever, why make them wait another 15 minutes if the limo is already at the same hotel dropping off another guest?
- Only one customer per hour. There is a provision is the code that says a limo must be engaged for a minimum of one hour. What is the logic of that? If someone takes a limo from the airport to a downtown hotel, on a good day, that may only be a 20 minute ride. Why make the limo set idle for another 40 minutes?
While this bill is not perfect, it addresses the most odious provisions of the current limo price fixing code provision. I would hope that the three issue above could be addressed but even if they are not, what is proposed in a hundred times better than the current code. I hope no one will vote against the current bill because it is less than perfect but I hope they will try to amend it to improve it.
Please Contact your Council Member:
I know their has been a lot of maneuvering to influence the council on this issue. The established limo companies wanting to keep their market share have lobbied the council hard to maintain the status quo. The have hired former Councilman Jami Hollin to lobby the Council. Some important metro figures have family connections to the luxury limo business. I hope the Council will do the moral think and vote against crony capitalism and vote for free markets.
Please call or write your councilman and all of the council members at Large and urge them to support BL2011-49. To get contact information for your councilman, follow this link.
Nashville’s Fastest Car Service
January 15th, 2012Faster Than a Taxi!
Cheaper Than a Taxi!
Better Than a Taxi!