From yesterday’s post, two items. Taxicabs and RTA. Misguided and short on facts as usual.
They don’t always pay these guys
“Ald. Thuy Pham Remmele’s taxicab driver protection measure comes up for a vote tonight at Common Council. It’s the one that lets cabbies require payment up front only in a highly specific set of circumstances — none of them due to skin tone. Let’s see how many alderoids take the Equal Opportunities Commission line that the drivers are presumed racists.”
1. Alder Palm seemed to do all the work on this item, not Ms. Pham-Remmele, she may have been a co-sponsor, but its kind of goofy to call it here measure, it wouldn’t have passed without Palm doing the heavy lifting.
2. Actually, the language wasn’t that “highly specific” as the council discussion clearly pointed out. Palm noted that there was work for the Transit and Parking Commission to do to follow up on the specifics.
3. Not one mentioned the race word. Seems as Blaska is the one that likes to throw that word around the most. He seems rather proud of it if a creepy kind of way.
4. It passed unanimously.
RTA democracy update
“Democracy keeps breaking out despite the best efforts of the downtown Madison elites to tamp it down. The RTA commuter rail referendum is now on the ballot in 20 Dane County communities. This very evening, Tuesday, September 7, seven more municipalities will consider doing the same. They are: Middleton, DeForest, Marshall and Oregon and the Towns of Cottage Grove, Vienna, and Pleasant Springs. Mt. Horeb is Wednesday. McFarland is September 13 and Monona is September 20.
In all, 15 communities are considering joining the 20 that have already committed to a November 2, general election ballot referendum. The holes in the donut? Madison and Fitchburg.
Let freedom ring!”
1. “Downtown Madison elites”. It thought it was just a bunch of no good partying students who lived downtown. Oh, them, and Capital Neighborhoods. What’s Fred Mohs got to do with the RTA? Who are these “Downtown Madison elites”? Do you mean the near east and near westsiders? That doesn’t roll of the tongue as sweetly now, does it?
2. “RTA commuter rail”. That phrase is two different things. The RTA better be first and foremost about buses. Commuter rail may come, some day. These attempts to make the two synonymous is disingenuous. Commuter rail may very well be part of the RTA, we will know that when they finish their plan. To hold a referendum before that point is meaningless. If I were asked the question I’d vote no, and I support the RTA. If they used the whole sales tax increase just for commuter rail I’d be pissed, the RTA should be an multi-modal system. So, I’m not sure that the referenda are going to be a meaningful indication of what people think of the RTA, because they are asking the wrong question. The question is must more fear mongering from Blaska and his cronies.
3. Who’s wasting the taxpayers money now?
Then why did the EOC come out unanimously against the taxicab measure if it did not think race was involved?
Middleton, Stoughton, Sun Prairie, Verona, Cambridge, Cottage Grove, Cross Plains, Deerfield, Deforest, Marshall, Waunakee, and 15 town boards have approved an RTA commuter rail ballot for November 2. With a few more to be heard from.
The people will be heard despite the downtown Madison elites.
What does Fred Mohs have to do with the RTA? Nothing that I know of. Why do you ask?
If commuter rail is not part of the RTA Board’s plan, then no harm will have been done by asking the question. On the other hand, if the referendum returns an overwhelming Yes vote, that will be a signal to the planners that people want commuter rail. Why are you so afraid of the people?
It’s spelled buffoonery.
1. Discrimination laws in Madison cover more than just race. In fact, there are state and federal public accomodations laws that cover more than just race. No need to play the race card all the time, it could be about religion or sex or national origin or mental or physical disabilities or family status or sexual orientation or age or lawful source of income. etc. etc. Expand your thinking just a bit, not everything is about race.
Who are these downtown Madison elites of whom you speak? Name names.
There is no harm in the question, except one. I don’t care if you ask it, its just disingenuous. And it won’t tell us anything – but it sure makes you feel good. It just confuses the issues for when the real RTA referendum is had on the real plan. The one problem is, I thought you cared about the taxpayers.
Thanks for being one of my citizens blog! 🙂
Who are the downtown elites preventing a countywide referendum? They are: The Kathleen, Scott McDonell, Richard Wagner, John Hendrick, Jim E. Doyle, Dave Cieslewicz.
Now, it’s your turn. If the EOC did not vote unanimously against the cab driver protection act due to race, please to tell why? Religion? Gender? Family status? Explicate.
Because that runs counter to the record. The official record of the EOC indicates:
“The rationale was that they felt that the language, as presented, had a high potential for discrimination. In addition, they felt that some of the language was so ambiguous that it would be difficult to apply consistently,” reports Ariel Hicklin Ford, Equal Opportunities Division Manager in the Department of Civil Rights. In response to a direct question from yours truly, Hicklin Ford clarified that the discrimination worrying EOC was indeed that of race. I have the e-mail.
Brenda, you are required to think when in the Squire’s presence. Take another Advil.
You act like that very short list are the only ones who want high speed rail. And you have an expanded definition of Downtown apparently – its like politicians throughout the state blaming “madison” for everything.
One of the reasons they voted against it is right there in your own words “some of the language was so ambiguous that it would be difficult to apply consistently.” That has nothing to do with race. Brian tried to fix some of the ambiguous language, which would have protected the cab drivers against claims of discrimination, but those amendments were shot down. And, Larry Palm, the guy who did the work on the ordinance admitted that TPC will have to follow up with details to deal with some of the issues raised. The discussion will be in my blog tomorrow.
Second of all, do you not think that a cab driver could form opinions of people that might cause them to determine they have to prepay based on the other protected classes besides race? Maybe they would do it based on physical appearance (some guy just got done with work and is in dirty clothes and he looks poor or are disabled so they assume the person is poor but really gets paid $60,000 per year at their job). Physical appearance is a protected class and it could have nothing to do with race. I could go on and list stereotypes for you, but I’m not inclined to, since you’ll just twist my words and I know you to be smarter than that – you can see beyond the race issue, I know you can.
p.s. if you have the email, then out with it. But I think its hard to know why various commissioners voted a certain way.
“If you have the e-mail, then out with it.”
Visitors to the Stately Manor already know about it because all this was reported in Blaska’s Blog, the thinking man’s blog. The EOC record keeper said race was the form of discrimination it feared, I took her at her word. I disagree that the ordinance is “ambiguous.” It lists 8 very specific circumstances:
1. Has on a prior occasion refused to pay a fare after receiving taxicab.
2. Indicates that they may be unable or unwilling to pay the full fare.
3. Requests service by hailing the taxicab rather than contacting a dispatcher.
4. Indicates their destination is outside the City of Madison.
5. Changes their destination while en route or is unable to provide the driverwith an exact destination.
6. Requests to make a stop before the final destination is reached.
7. Admits to being intoxicated or shows signs of intoxication.
8. Is placed in the taxicab by a law enforcement officer.
These are pretty bright letter, unambiguous, discrete circumstances. If the ordinance allows drivers to use some discretion, I think they can be trusted with it. Unless you think they are racists.
As for the “downtown” RTA commuter rail issue … all I can tell you is that elected local leaders in Dane County communities from Cross Plains to Cambridge are calling for a vote. They are forming a donut around Madison. Last I checked, The Kathleen, McDonell, and Dick Wagner are downtowners.
Facts, Madame B.
My advice: get the prescription strength Advil.
This is exactly why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with you.
1. The link I think you’re referring to is here http://www.isthmus.com/blaska/article.php?article=30248&sid=747f12cd1bd87ed51246c45ade426248 Or if it is not, let me know where to look. It’s usually best to provide links to make it clear to the reader.
2. The link provides no additional information about said email you claim to have. The link just repeats what you said here. Where does it say that it was based on race?
If the criteria is so clear then answer these questions:
a. How does the cabbie know someone refused to pay int he past. Do they ask for identification. What if it is someone who looks similar to someone who refused to pay? What if the dispatcher is telling them a white woman with blonde hair at a particular address didn’t pay but the person getting in the cab is a different person, how will they be identified and know they have the right person?
b. Will they only charge people going to the Town of Madison in advance, but not those going to Maple Bluff?
c. What if it is someone from out of town who isn’t familiar with the area and they don’t know their exact destination, will they be charged in advance just like someone going to Allied Drive?
d. Will the college student who gets a call saying that instead of going to the Club Tavern they are going to SCATZ be charged in advance the same way that someone changes their mind from going to Wiggies and wants to go to the Tip Top?
e. Will the young professional who forgot she doesn’t have cash be charged in advance because she asks to stop at the atm the same as someone who wants to stop at Walgreens to get some cough medicine for their sick kid?
f. What if someone has an illness that has symptoms of appearing to be intoxicated? (Solomon had a whole list)
g. What if the law enforcement officer placed someone in the cab and didn’t verify that the person could pay? Now the cop put them in the cab and the person can’t pay and won’t get out.
The answers aren’t so clear, there are ambiguities and are not discrete circumstances. I thought you claimed to be a thinking man . . .
Your list on the RTA Downtown elite is half the size it started out at . . . so I it seems maybe you only feel confident in half your facts?
A vote on what? Something that isn’t going to happen? Half cent tax for commuter rail only? It’s wasting taxpayer money – why do you want to raise taxes to pay for something that is a waste of time?
Your nits are getting ever more pickier.
All of your “what-ifs” only prove my point. You would tie every small business person in knots with ordinances that make Obamcare look like Cliff’s Notes.
How does the cabbie know someone refused to pay in the past? I dunno, I’m not a cabbie. But it seemed to make an impression on the cabbies who testified in committee. If he doesn’t remember being stiffed, then he probably won’t demand payment up front. O.K.?
The ordinance gives the cab driver some discretion based on those well defined circumstances. The driver is not required to demand payment up front if a fare enters the cab drunk. He is allowed to. Perhaps the fare is well known to the driver — and well heeled to boot. Always drunk but always pays.
Your problem is that you presume racial and other illegal discrimination unless proven innocent. How about if the fare feels s/he has been discriminated against, file the complaint.
You Prog Danes make it nearly impossible to do business in Madison.
And yes, Jim Doyle (Regent Street before the governor’s mansion, I believe), John Hendrick (Spaight Street), and Cieslewicz are certainly downtown as opposed to far east, far west, southwest or north side.
Do you really think the few thousand dollars expended for the RTA commuter rail referenda compares to the $42 million in annual sales taxes?
1. Details matter dude. Especially with the law. That is why lawyers get paid the big bucks.
2. You still haven’t given me the proof you claim to have that this is about race, you’re the only one throwing around the race card.
3. I think there was an attempt to do just the opposite of what you claim – not tie the hands of small business people but make sure they can follow the law without fear of claims of discrimination. To make it crystal clear so that there were not claims that they only ask a certain group of people and not another group of people. The discretion is what will cause complaints. A bright line would solve that, and the lines aren’t as bright as you claim they were – are they? In fact, you’re supporting a law that you don’t know how it will work, doesn’t that bother you? Sounds like you’re being an ideologue instead of pragmatist. Konkel = 1, Blaska = 0
4. Where did I presume racial discrimination (or any other?) in any of my examples?
5. You know what your problem is, you don’t have facts to back you up – just baseless accusations and when details are thrown out there to back up my points, you get all indignant. (Now I see why I scare you.)
6. Do you really think you want people filing complaints instead of bright lines? That’s, shall I say, precious. That would make it harder on businesses as they hire lawyers to defend themselves. Why not create a good, bright line law in the first place?
7. Funny, the City of Madison Downtown Plan doesn’t include the homes of anyone you mention except McDonell. I guess its all in your definition of downtown.
8. There will be no sales tax as a result of these referenda. Straw. man. So you are wasting “a few thousand dollars”. I thought every tax payer penny mattered?
The Fauerbach condos are not downtown?
Here is the interesting thing. The Madison Common Council voted unanimously against Brenda Konkel and the EOC and in favor of the cabbies. Check out Madison.Com: all the comments in favor of the cabbies, including this one (SNARK Alert):
“Here, let me get this out of the way before someone else does and actually means it……
I can’t believe that the city leaders passed such a racist ordinance….. this will hurt the poor and those without vehicles who need to get somewhere and can’t rely on the bus. Boy I can’t wait for the trains, because then we can ride the train while avoiding all these racist laws…..
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8417532e-bb73-11df-883a-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments
The Doyle’s lived on St. Clair Ave., a few blocks east of Midvale Blvd., before moving into temporary public housing in Maple Bluff.
I didn’t say I was against the ordinance. There are some serious flaws in it and I think it did the cabbies no favors and I’ll feel bad if there are complaints based on the sloppy language. However, the issues that the cabbies have are real and I agree something should be done. I’m not sure this is it. But if I were on the council I would have voted for it with everyone else and tried to watch how it all turns out and consider changes in the future. If I was really against it, you would have known. I haven’t even barely blogged about this topic.
Being elected does not make someone a leader, it makes them a representative. There is a reason the word “leader” isn’t anywhere in the Constitution.
One is certainly NOT a leader if they tell people that the RTA can impose a sales tax without a referendum passing.
But the RTA CAN impose a sales tax without a referendum passing, Proud Progressive. (Kucinich for president!) That’s what we are afraid of.
I can see that the Madame is laying the groundwork for ignoring the voice of the people but at least the people will have their chance. (Odd that Prog Dane would oppose a grass roots effort like this.)
Brenda, I’m going to check out here. I’m expecting heavy traffic over at the Stately Manor. However, it is obvious that you DO read Blaska’s Blog. The Advil must be working.
It is also apparent what your modus operandi is: allege that I have no facts, then disagree with the facts that I present — even to the point of quibbling that Spaight Street is not downtown. I said the EOC must think Madison’s cabbies are racist. I need to make a small correction. On reviewing the e-mail sent to me from the EOC the entire panoply of discriminatory practices was cited. I suppose it is possible that the EOC thinks cabbies won’t pick up an elderly man or a woman or a service veteran, or a Catholic priest but let’s not get stupid here.
Cabbies want their fares. They don’t make any money when the back seat is empty. But those folks are majorly exposed out there. They need to take care of themselves and to use some discretion. That is only fair.
The ordinance, as written (I must assume, under direction of the city’s legal counsel), makes the presumptive case that the driver has the right to demand payment up front if any of the 8 conditions are met. If a complainant wishes to engage Konkel & Konkel At Law to challenge it, that would be on their dime. In other words, it reverses the burden of proof.
No law is perfect; attorneys can challenge anything. But it’s probably a damn sight better than I.Z.
Brenda, see you over at the Stately Manor.
If they each break their own pledge and also break the by laws of their committee.
You also know that the RTA isn’t just about commuter rail like the question is phrased. Without the RTA coming to conclusion, we do not know what to be voting for. Having this referendum we might as well ask the question “are you upset with the Badgers seeding in the 2011 NCAA tournament?”
As Doug wood states, here are some better questions:
If you wanted to know whether voters want commuter rail, you could just ask them that exact question:
Do you want commuter rail?
Or you could ask, Should the RTA spend any money on commuter rail?
Or, Should the RTA spend part of the sales tax on trains and part on buses?
Or, Should the RTA spend part of the sales tax on trains and part on buses and part on park and ride lots and part on bike paths?
http://mononadoug.blogspot.com/
Finally, having a few hack supervisors put a poorly worded referendum together to make a political point is the farthest thing there is from “grass roots” Where is the door to door petition by citizens asking for this referendum? Where are the rallies? I understand people are probably to busy stuck in traffic to circulate one.
Let’s review.
1. Comment # 5 – Blaska “The EOC record keeper said race was the form of discrimination it feared, I took her at her word.”
Now has been changed to: “I said the EOC must think Madison’s cabbies are racist. I need to make a small correction. On reviewing the e-mail sent to me from the EOC the entire panoply of discriminatory practices was cited.”
Small correction? That was your entire premise. So much for the race issue.
2. Comment #5 you said “These are pretty bright letter, unambiguous, discrete circumstances. If the ordinance allows drivers to use some discretion, I think they can be trusted with it. Unless you think they are racists. ”
It has now turned into comment #7: “How does the cabbie know someone refused to pay in the past? I dunno, I’m not a cabbie.” And the last comment “No law is perfect.”
So much for the bright letter, unambiguous ordinance.
3. Fear vs. Facts. I said you base things on fear not facts. You FEAR the RTA might raise taxes without a referndum. If they were going to do that, why haven’t they already, then they would have staff to support their work. The FACT is they’re not going to, that is why. Instead, you’re urging referenda to ask people if they want to be taxed a half cent for commuter rail (without the rest of the plan for buses and other elements) and if it passes, the taxes wouldn’t get raised. It is a waste of time. It is a false question, it is going to waste taxpayer dollars and mislead the public. It is not about ignoring the voice of the people. This is a set up for the voices of the people to be meaningless. This explains why – from Monona: http://mononadoug.blogspot.com/2010/09/monona-transit-committee-rejects.html
No one is going to know what the results of these referenda mean and in the end, nothing is going to change. I would vote no. Maybe that should scare you. The RTA, when it has a plan, will have a referendum, and based on that, will raise the sales tax or not. All these machinations now are meaningless.
So, run away now. You can be afraid, be very afraid and make your decisions based on that instead of facts.
I testified at the EOC hearing. In fact, I was the only citizen to attend this hearing. I believe that that the EOC acted with due diligence that I would expect from a commission being asked to review a wholesale change to a City Ordinance. Especially one that gives the individual driver a power almost unheard of in the very regulated world of public transportation.
I was treated with the highest respect. The members of the committee were eager to learn about the plight of cab drivers and anxious to strike the right balance. They asked tough questions and made some great points. Ald. Solomon even went so far as to offer to work with our drivers to create a solution should this one fail.
At no point did anyone on the commission express a belief that cab drivers are racist or choose to act in a racist manner. They were concerned about creating barriers to opportunities through perception. How does a driver “know” that someone is intoxicated and not suffering from a chronic medical condition (for which the federal statutes, ADA and HIPPA, offer protections)?
They understood that the City of Madison ordinances don’t apply in the Waunakee (or the Town of Madison) and how this presented a quandary (drivers aren’t required to serve the Waunakee, but can’t require pre-payment until they reach the City of Madison limit).
The issue of race (or visible minorities as the Canadians like to say)really never came up. They really did their job to examine the ordinance change and make a determination if it would provide an equal opportunity.
I disagreed with their decision, but not their process. I think that they could have offered some amendments, but they chose to go the route that they did.
People really can disagree on policy without it being about some ideological touchstone as the unanimous vote at the Council suggests.
This was a fabulous electronic debate ! Thanks to all who participated. My favorite line was from Konkel, “Details matter dude”