In all good faith, after reading that ordinance left to right, up to down, bottom to top and even right to left it looked to me like the ordinance was primed to die in 60 days. HOWEVER, I have been wrong before - many times. Ask my wife.
Should that be the case after further reading, a motion to amend the petition would seem to be appropriate. I would expect Judge Epstein to grant it. In the event an amendment to the petition is granted, it is as though the original petition had never been filed. That petition was not verified. It was filed consistent with Supreme Court Rule 137, but it is subject to modification as the circumstances dictate.
The amended petition - assuming one should be needed - would seek to stay those portions of the ordinance that are Draconian independent of any question of the issue of the gas surcharge: decreases in fares for trips between Midway and Burbank and O'Hare and Skokie of 33.3%; the right of the Commissioner of D.C.S. to suspend or revoke drivers' chauffeur licenses on just the CHARGE of a felony without a finding of guilt; and worst of all, provision for the trebling of fines for the most petty of charges in what is clearly a kangaroo court before Administrative Law Officers who receive rank hearsay evidence without a twitch.
And as to the gas surchage issue, if you think for one instant, George, that gas is EVER going to go back below $3.20 a gallon, let me know what you're smoking. My tank took 18 gallons at $3.99 last night. I know it's only going to get progressively worse over the summer. The surcharge is taken away from most increases in fares anyway in lower tips or fewer short trips in all likelihood - you ought to be doing some sort of study on the subject.
We all know what's really needed, and it isn't a token surcharge that's really meaningless or that's only going to end up alienating the public. And that's a general meter increase: something that covers a flagpull raise, a mileage raise, a waiting time raise and maybe an extras raise or a charge to stow luggage or charge to respond to a radio call or something else that's fair.
"The Magnificent Seven" who initiated the Petition to enjoin the unfair ordinance don't have all of the answers to be sure. But the solutions to the problems cab drivers are now facing in a $4.00 a gallon world are not being addressed by Mayor Daley's good intentions either. You go ask any dozen cabdrivers out in the cab pool at O'Hare if they think the gas surcharge is going to help them get past the "current crisis", sir. Listen to what you get for answers.
You go ask any dozen drivers who had a hearing at 400 West Superior in the last two weeks if they felt like they got a fair day in court - or ask any dozen drivers who HAVEN'T been cited in the last year if they think ANY drivers get a fair shake at those administrative hearings at 400.
Perhaps I could go on and on, but there is no point. I had determined not to post any more at the beginning of the year, but the need seems to cry out for this one. Whale away in response, but likely I am not going to reply and dignify any further thoughts in the matter. You are an expert at attacking and criticizing efforts to make life better for cabdrivers. Instead of going on the attack, I challenge you to come up with posiitve proposals. Be proactive rather than reactive, sir.
Also, remember, young man, that I am well over the age of 60. There is a section of the battery law just above the one for cabdrivers that provides that an attack on someone known to be over 60 is a felony.
Donald Nathan
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The surcharge is not for a specified number of days - it is based on fuel prices.
If gas stays above $3.20, the $1.00 surcharge will remain in effect until there is a fare increase.
If it drops below $3.20 for seven consecutive days but not below $2.70 for those days, the surcharge will be $.50. If it falls below $2.70 for seven consecutive days, the surcharge is off. For any of these cases, there will be a taxi advisory notice issued by DCS.
Don't forget about our hotline you can call to know if the surcharge is on or off and for how much. The number is (312) 437-8294.
George Lutfallah
"In all good faith, after reading that ordinance left to right, up to down, bottom to top and even right to left it looked to me like the ordinance was primed to die in 60 days. HOWEVER, I have been wrong before - many times. Ask my wife."
That's very big of you.
"You are an expert at attacking and criticizing efforts to make life better for cabdrivers."
That's very small of you.
Your first three paragraphs were good.
"until there is a fare increase"
When might that be? A year? Two years? As long as the City can stall, delay, confound and confuse taxi drivers!
Perhaps, when enough people see what the surcharge and the new rules and regulations mean and cost, the City wins, the drivers lose.
OK. You make a good point. So spend your time working on a fare increase and less time working on taking away money the city has already given us in the form of a surcharge.
If you'd like to spend some positive energy lobbying for a fare increase, let me know and if you'd like, I'll be happy to work on that with you.
If you want to sulk about the surcharge, that won't do anybody any good because the surcharge, like it or not, is having a positive effect on drivers. Ask them. I did. Not only that, but the beauty of this surcharge language is that when there is a fare increase, this language will remain. This is great for us. I mean, I don't think a lot of people are appreciating how important that language is. You don't want to beg the city for surcharges, do you? The old system required us to do just that - we had to go to the city council and ask them for a surcharge and they would deliberate, debate and deliberate some more and then tell us no.
This new language means that we don't have to beg for a surcharge now or in the future. As unpopular as this would be received by the radical faction of drivers, I say that commissioner Reyes should be thanked for pushing this through.
The city could have simply given a nominal surcharge that actually did expire in 60 days, per the old ordinance language. Instead they put in language granting a permanent mechanism for a surcharge, thanks to commissioner Reyes.
And I bet not one single taxi driver has bothered to thank her for pushing that through for us. She didn't have to do that at all. And the way people whine about every little single thing the city does when it comes to this industry, it's a wonder they do anything at all for us.
This is not to say that I am totally satisfied with all of the provisions of the ordinance. I am not, as I have stated many times and have written about in the Chicago Dispatcher.
If you want to get ahead with anything in this world, you have to show appreciation for the good things that happen and work intelligently for things you'd like to change.
George Lutfallah
George,
I will send you an e-mail in reply to this message.
TED BUDZYNSKI
OK, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER REYES!
Love and kisses, if appropriate. Nice try. E for effort.
Now, PULL-PLEASE Madam Commissioner, push this through for us:
$3.00 start-up.
$2.00 per mile.
$30.00 per hour waiting time.
$1.00 for each additional person.
$1.00 trunk charge.
I am ashamed of the surcharge, not moping over it. I am ashamed because my City leaders, who are supposed to "serve and protect" us (cab drivers a people, too, well most of us are) but they came up with this sham to slam us with the the increased fines instead.
Remember, the ordinance provides for a “just and reasonable" fare increase.
I have yet to see one stitch of "evidence" or information that could be deemed to support or that tends to show that the $1 surcharge is the right way to go.
Anecdotal hype about how well it is helping this driver or that driver or how customers are eager to pay an extra buck does not suffice as factual data that supports a $1 surcharge over a standard meter increase.
wjw
"Anecdotal hype about how well it is helping this driver or that driver or how customers are eager to pay an extra buck does not suffice as factual data that supports a $1 surcharge over a standard meter increase."
This exemplifies my point. To me it's not an either or issue. I don't know a single driver, including myself, who said he or she preferred the surcharge over a meter increase. That is not the point. The point is that the surcharge is actually a good thing. It's more money for taxi drivers.
We shouldn't be saying we want a fare increase *instead* of a surcharge. We should be saying thank you for the surcharge and then we should make a case for a fare increase.
Instead of thinking of reasons to put down the surcharge, I think it would be useful to think of reasons for a fare increase and actually work to get one rather than to complain about what has been already done.
George
Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June
John Partipilo, The Tennessean via The Associated Press
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: May 7, 2008
Source: New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/business/07oil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Oil jumped to another record on Tuesday, and the government said it expected gasoline prices to peak at a national average of $3.73 a gallon in June, just as the summer driving season kicks off.
The new forecast from the Energy Department came on a day oil futures rose above $122 a barrel in New York trading after rebels in Nigeria renewed their attacks against oil installations. By day’s end, crude oil for June delivery closed at a record $121.84 a barrel, up 1.6 percent from Monday’s close.
Oil prices have nearly doubled in a year. Gasoline is selling for a national average of about $3.61 a gallon, according to AAA, the automobile club, a penny less than the record set on May 1 but 58 cents higher than a year ago.
Some private analysts have gone beyond the Energy Department’s forecasts, predicting that gasoline will surpass $4 a gallon this summer.
Domestic gasoline consumption is likely to fall more steeply than expected this year, the Energy Department said, an indication that higher prices are cutting into the driving habits of many Americans. But gasoline prices are expected to rise nonetheless and should average $3.52 a gallon for the full year, or 71 cents above their average price in 2007, according to the government’s latest estimates.
“In the past, high prices could be offset by borrowing or making more money,” said Adam Robinson, an analyst at Lehman Brothers. “It’s really when you have the triple bite — a weaker economy, less access to credit, and higher prices — that you see the consumer recoil.”
The high cost of fuel has become a major issue in the presidential race, with the Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, clashing over a summer waiver of the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax.
The gas tax holiday is supported by Senator Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, who have both said it would provide some relief in the summer driving season. Senator Obama calls the idea “pandering” and said that cutting the tax would spur more consumption, pushing prices back up.
In its monthly report, the Energy Department projected that domestic petroleum consumption would decline by about 190,000 barrels a day this year, a result of the economic slowdown and high prices. That is a sharper drop than the 90,000-barrel-a-day decline projected by the department last month.
After accounting for increased ethanol use, domestic consumption will fall by 330,000 barrels a day, or less than 1 percent of total gasoline demand. While limited, it would be the first annual decline in gasoline demand since 1991.
The Energy Department expects oil prices to average $110 a barrel this year, about $9 more than its previous outlook.
Despite these higher costs, global oil demand is still projected to rise by 1.2 million barrels a day this year, mostly because of growing consumption in China, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil and India.
China alone will account for a third of the jump in consumption. In March, Chinese imports rose by 800,000 barrels a day, compared with levels a year earlier, a big increase that could mean China is filling its oil reserve needs before the start of the Olympic Games this summer.
Oil supplies, meanwhile, continue to lag behind. After a drop in Nigerian output last month, production by OPEC nations fell 1 percent in April, according to a survey by Bloomberg News.
Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.1 million barrels a day last month, down 320,000 barrels from March, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts.
Nigerian production dropped by 160,000 barrels, to an average of 1.88 million barrels a day, the country’s lowest level since August 1999. The country’s output suffered from a strike by Exxon Mobil workers. Adding to these troubles, rebel militants have apparently resumed their attacks on oil companies in the Niger Delta, forcing Royal Dutch Shell to reduce production.
As demand continues to outpace the growth in oil supplies, analysts expect little relief in prices. A shortfall in supplies over the next two years will probably send oil to $150 to $200 a barrel, Goldman Sachs said in a new report.
Analysts’ forecasts for the price of gasoline over the next few years run as high as $7 a gallon.
I wrote, "a $1 surcharge over a standard meter increase."
That should be "a $1 surcharge over AND ABOVE a standard meter increase."
