Ann Arbor's crackdown on limos 'impersonating' taxicabs called into question
Update at 1:19 p.m.: The story now includes comments from Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Larcom, who said the city still stands behind the tickets written for limos "impersonating" taxis.
Ann Arbor's Taxicab Board heard a litany of complaints from local cab and limo drivers Thursday night in response to a recent city police crackdown on limousines "impersonating" taxis.
Meanwhile, a representative of the Great Lakes Limousine Association, who was invited by Board Chairman Stephen Kunselman to speak at the meeting, dropped what one observer characterized as a nuclear bomb by accusing the city of illegally ticketing state-licensed limo drivers.
Nicholas Kokas, GLLA's president, said his association — much like the city — frowns upon limos that act like city-licensed taxis and go trolling for fares without having pre-arranged rides. Still, he said, the city of Ann Arbor doesn't have any legal authority under state law to write tickets for that.
"The only way a city could possibly add their own restrictions against a limousine is if they had a population in excess of 750,000," he said.
Nicholas Kokas, the Great Lakes Limousine Association's president, said his association — much like the city — frowns upon limos that act like city-licensed taxis and go trolling for fares without having pre-arranged rides. Still, he said, the city of Ann Arbor doesn't have any legal authority under state law write tickets for that.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"Every community that has (restrictions) on their books, they have been unenforceable because the state law is pretty strong in terms of protecting the limousine company," he said.
While some question whether the city is allowed under state law to regulate state-licensed limousines locally, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Larcom, who attended Thursday's meeting, said the city still stands behind the tickets written for limos "impersonating" taxis.
"The city does not have local regulations for limousines," she said. "It only regulates taxicabs, and any vehicle being operated in the manner that taxicabs operate must be licensed under the city's taxicab ordinance. The city's ordinance also prohibits taxicabs from being held out as limousines."
Ann Arbor Police Officer Jamie Adkins gave a report on recent police enforcement efforts at Thursday's meeting. She said midnight officers started issuing warnings to limo drivers around Feb. 15 and handing out information cards explaining the city's taxicab ordinance.
This past weekend, she said, police began issuing citations under a section of the city ordinance that states no one without a taxicab license from the city can operate as a taxi and solicit or accept passengers who have not previously arranged to be transported.
"Officers issued five citations to limousine drivers operating as taxis, and then there were some additional violations," Adkins said, noting that as a secondary offense police are ticketing those same drivers if they have lights on the roofs of their vehicles advertising they're for hire.
Ken Pickett, a limo driver for Yellow Car who also holds a cab license, questioned the direction the city has gone with recent enforcement.
"It seems like a gross misuse of the police's time to spend their night looking for us when there are so many drunk people and assaults that we see going on," he said.
Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., Pickett said, there's an abundance of individuals on the street and they need reliable transportation to get home.
"The city mandating people take top lights off their cars," he said, "is almost more outrageous than going to Pizza House and telling them, 'No, you can't advertise Pizza House on the top of your car.' "
Members of the Taxicab Board said they were pleased to see police enforcing the city's taxicab ordinance, but Kokas and others still argued the city's actions conflict with state law. The enforcement was prompted by a series of alleged sexual assaults on women by cab drivers in Ann Arbor.
One of the limo drivers ticketed by the city for "impersonating" a taxi is Mark Neumann, owner and operator of Stadium Taxi, an Ypsilanti-based company with two taxis and two limos.
Mark Neumann, owner and operator of Stadium Taxi, appears before Ann Arbor's Taxicab Board on Thursday. He got a ticket in Ann Arbor last week for 'impersonating' a taxi and he's now fighting the ticket.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
On the night he was ticketed, Neumann said, he had just picked up some passengers outside Rick's American Cafe on Church Street. He said the passengers called him earlier in the night for a ride to the bar and they also arranged for a ride home around 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning.
"Actually mine was pre-arranged. They called me," he said. "I showed the cop that and everything, and he still wouldn't have it. He gave me the ticket."
Before leaving city hall Thursday night, Neumann was provided some assurances by city officials that his ticket might be tossed out, but that's not official until it's done through the courts.
"Certainly we're thoughtful about the actions that we're taking, and if there is something where we made a mistake, we absolutely want to fix it," said Tom Crawford, who doubles as the city's chief financial officer and taxicab administrator.
On the broader legality of the city's tickets in respect to the state's limousine act, Crawford said whether Neumann gets his ticket thrown out "doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're proceeding as we feel is appropriate. They're really not related."
As the Taxicab Board searches for solutions, at least two board members — Kunselman and Michael Benson — expressed interest in considering an idea suggested at Thursday's meeting by Rick Clark, owner of Amazing Blue Taxi, a city-licensed taxicab company.
Clark said there's a simple solution to what he called a "relatively minor problem" involving taxis and limos in Ann Arbor, and that's the deregulation of taxicab fares. He said the taxicab business is the only industry in Ann Arbor where the city sets the price.
The city's strict regulations regarding taxicab fare rates and seeming inflexibility in allowing licensed taxicabs to compensate for rising gas prices by raising fare rates is one reason cited why some companies, including Yellow Car, are choosing to operate as limos instead of taxis. Another reason cited by some drivers is that it's a lot cheaper to insure a limo than a taxi.
Michael Benson, a member of Ann Arbor's Taxicab Board, said he hopes the board can have a thoughtful discussion about taxicab fare rates set by the city, as well as gas prices and the cost of operating a taxi. No action was taken Thursday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Benson said he hopes the Taxicab Board can have a thoughtful discussion about fare rates, as well as gas prices and the cost of operating a taxi. No action was taken Thursday night.
The City Council voted in May 2011 to set a new maximum allowable rate of $2.50 per mile in the city limits — up 25 cents. The flag drop fee — the flat amount charged in addition to the mileage rate — remains $3, and the waiting time fee remains at $24 per hour.
Kunselman said deregulating taxicab fares was the most constructive comment he heard from any of the drivers who lined up to speak Thursday night. He sees it as a potential way to bring some limo companies "back into the fold" and operate as licensed taxis again.
"Safety is paramount," Kunselman said. "As we've heard, there is a difference between a limousine and a taxi, and it's our responsibility as a taxicab board to ensure the safety of our citizens. And we regulate taxis. We don't regulate limos. I have no interest in dual-licensing."
Kokas said having dual-licensing — an idea suggested by some to allow limo drivers to also obtain taxicab licenses from the city — could create conflicts between the city's ordinance and state law.
He said his association wants to see limos operate as limos and taxis operate as taxis, as there are clear distinctions between the two models.
"Since its inception nearly 20 years ago, the Great Lakes Limousine Association has had the same stance: A taxicab is not a limousine, and a limousine is not a taxicab," he said.
"Separate taxi laws are required because, when a person is standing on the side of the street, hailing a taxi, that person usually has no idea whom they are getting into the car with," he said.
Gordon Berry, a limo driver for Yellow Car, told the board Thursday he was having trouble following the logic of the city's crackdown on limousines in the aftermath of three alleged sexual assaults on women by cab drivers. In two of those instances, he said, the details remain hazy, and in the third case, it was a city-licensed taxicab driver who has been charged.
"Solve the problems, but don't take it out on us," he said. "You're just beating up a bunch of hard-working men and women who work long hours for not very much money."
Tim Tobias, president of Michigan Green Cabs, another limo company Kunselman has accused of flouting the city's taxicab ordinance, told the board the bottom line should be safety.
Mark LaSarge, a former taxicab driver and now state-registered limousine chauffeur, appeared before Ann Arbor's Taxicab Board on Thursday and questioned whether the vehicle-for-hire industry in Ann Arbor should be defined by the method a passenger uses to order a vehicle.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Tobias said each of his cabs can be monitored 24-7 by a satellite surveillance system — something he recommends all vehicles for hire adopt.
"We have a GPS in all of our vehicles, so we can look back at any moment," he said. "If you called us, we could tell you exactly where our cars are, how fast they were going, where they've been."
Paul Epstein, another Yellow Car driver, said there usually is no shortage of vehicles for hire in Ann Arbor, but there are times when demand spikes.
It's those times, like when the bars close, Epstein said, that it's essential and in the interest of public safety that companies like Yellow Car be allowed to pick up people trying to hail a ride.
"At 2 o'clock in the morning on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night, I typically can be flagged down by two dozen people at the same time at the same intersection. And very few of them, sadly, are going to get vehicles," he said. "It's just not a very good scene."
Neumann said the city's ramped-up enforcement is chasing many drivers out of town, leading to more fights outside of bars where people congregate while waiting for a ride.
"I'm just saying, it's going to be a big safety hazard down the road … if you guys don't stop nailing us for these limos," he said.
He speculated what might happen if the city doesn't allow limos to pick up people during football season later this fall, especially after any night games. He recalled the Notre Dame night game two seasons ago when people were still out trying to catch rides at 6 a.m. the next day.
"You guys are going to have to give some kind of leeway," he said.
Kokas said his association still feels strongly that a state law requiring limousines to officially operate in a pre-arranged manner, which he believes most already do, is needed. The GLLA helped introduce legislation to achieve that in the last legislative session but it didn't make it through the Legislature.
"This language would help differentiate limousine operators from taxi operators and allow the taxi industry to exclusively be able to accept hailed passengers off the street," he said.
"While the GLLA is considering its options for the new legislative year, we hope the city of Ann Arbor can work with the association and support its endeavors to clear the gray areas in the law," he added, suggesting the city also should work with local taxicab companies on local regulations.
"This time in Ann Arbor history could serve as a great opportunity for city officials and taxicab company owners to work together to produce a system that benefits the traveling public with strengthened safety standards," he said, "while making less restrictive requirements to taxi companies so that it makes good financial business sense to become licensed as an Ann Arbor taxicab."
Watch Rick Clark makes his case for deregulating taxicab fare rates in Ann Arbor:
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Elliott Snow
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.
Often a misspelling is the cause of an online search failure. Try "Edward Zelenak Southgate MI" and see what you find.....
Joslyn at the U
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 10:31 p.m.
If you continue to let them run over your rights then in the end you have no rights. Someone has to fight they're tyranical socialist garbage. If its gotta be me........then SO BE IT
Joslyn at the U
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 9:43 p.m.
Let me also add that I am confident enough in my attorneys to come out personally acquire a misdemeanor citation
Joslyn at the U
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.
Well Elliot I appreciate the info but the truth is I know for a fact he's dealt with this issue before shall we say to the detriment of certain cities feelings. Also I should note he is not the attoerney in this matter but just one example I gave in regards to the issue at hand. He is very knowledgable in this matter but bear in mind not the only attorney so versed. But I truly do appreciate you're well wishes in this matter.
Elliott Snow
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.
This particular Zelenak is apparently also buddies with Steve Postema, Ann Arbor's Attorney. who nominated him for an award just a couple of years ago. As a City Attorney, it seems unlikely he would be against a City's ability to regulate limos, doesn't it? I guess we will know something when we know something, until then we are just speculating. Either way, Joslyn I wish you the best of luck in this crazy situation!
Joslyn at the U
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:29 a.m.
Wow what a hater. Oh well Elliot thanks again man. We will get through all of this eventually and the little tyrants will lose and we will still be here.
moodyone
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
@Elliot, I did find him, and his case history through the state of michigan court system. He hasn't handled any such cases, at least not on his official record, and in fact doesn't seem to be much of a litigator at all (not surprising since most of his career seems to have been as city attorney), with only like 5 cases since the early 1990s. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on below, or else there are multiple people here who have the same misapprehension about how many dots in an ellipse.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:17 p.m.
Wow Elliot I am impressed sir, you are most assuredly educated in these matters good show man. Thanks and CHEERS !
Class B Limo Driver
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:15 p.m.
Very Cool...........talk about a heavy hitting attorney lol to funny Moodyone so now your going to get all quiet? What happened to all that garbage you were talking to Joslyn? haha
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:11 a.m.
If you doubt me why doesn't someone look up Edward Zulanac who is a former prosecutor located in southgate. He's beat this garbage up all over the courtroom hahahaha
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 11:06 a.m.
My bad.........correction below *you can beat your gums all you like*
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:27 a.m.
You can't beat you're gums all you like. It doesn't change any of this. I suggest that you as a spectator sit back and enjoy the dog and "pony" show. You seem of the type of mind that should be easily entertained by this. Who knows......maybe we will all learn a thing or two here ;) It will be educational for many to be sure. It might even make a few non experts more proficient in their analysis of this situation. Chow
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:18 a.m.
You're right. The law means what it means, whatever that is, however much you don't want to support your claims of what that is. Your refusal to share any information that would support your argument doesn't change the law, and neither does my complete willingness to share any information I find. It just makes you look like you know you don't have a leg to stand on. Now you're retreating behind some kind of belabored poker metaphor, but unlike in poker, keeping your cards hidden doesn't make your legal case stronger. It makes your rhetorical case much weaker and accomplishes nothing else. If you want to save it for court, then why not save all of it for court? Why even bother trolling the comment board for emoticon-less spaces into which you can void the disorganized contents of your mind, when you could save that for a judge too?
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:10 a.m.
Nooooooo ........lol my attorneys. (Note that it is said in the plural form). And my 25 years of experience make me way more of an expert than any chucklehead that just rolled out of bed yesterday thinking they are gods gift to the transportation industry. Like I said ........pony or poker call it what you wish. It still doesn't change the law. No matter how much you choose to dislike it or wish it into nonexistence. Retort?
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9 a.m.
You're right, operating a limo for 25 years makes you an expert on the law and magically puts a pony in your room. This guy is your lawyer like Clarence Darrow is mine.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:52 a.m.
Lame like I said. I've been I n this business for 25 years. I could care less if you doubt and find you're discontent with my opinion as well as experience very amusing lol
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:44 a.m.
No pony. Just like I thought.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:29 a.m.
Well if you want to look at it like that it's my pony and I don't have to let you play with it if I don't want to. Lol its just like poker I don't have to show you my cards til the end of the hand. And I like my emoticons :) So its like poker let's go to court and call my bluff.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:52 a.m.
So, there is case law that supports your claim, but you refuse to provide it, expecting everyone to take your word for it instead, even though you can't spell your own lawyers name (or, I might add, practically any other word) correctly? Unconvincing to those of us who don't rely on emoticons to support our arguments. How is this different from a child's claim of "I have a pony in my room, but you can't see it"? I've done my homework, but unlike you I've done it correctly, am showing my work, and have exposed it to public scrutiny here in case I am wrong. If you can't do the same, you aren't contributing anything to this conversation, just derailing it. Come back when you have something to offer. By the way, Webster's has "to blow smoke" as "to speak idly, misleadingly, or boastfully." How is that not what you are doing? It isn't idle talk to make claims you can't support? It isn't boasting to, um, boast about how you're going to sue everyone you don't like? Show us your pony, or stop claiming you have one.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:06 a.m.
I've done my homework. Go do yours now :)
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:02 a.m.
I will be happy to when we get to court :p
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:35 a.m.
No Google results for that name. Since he's beat this garbage up all over the courtroom, you'll no doubt be able to provide some case law on the matter.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:12 a.m.
People on. Here want to believe the GLLA is blowing smoke but we are NOT hahaha
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:05 a.m.
They beat this garbage in lincoln park , melvindale, livonia, royal oak, etc etc. And it will be beat here as well...........period
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 11:17 a.m.
You keep commenting on everthing I say ........I'm starting to think you like me :)
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:36 a.m.
Case law? Links to newspaper stories? Any evidence at all for your claim?
Elliott Snow
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:51 a.m.
I do think one issue will be, if this goes to court is, What defines "pre-arranged"? Does potential passengers talking with a driver sitting in his vehicle qualify? How about talking with him standing outside the vehicle? Etc. This needs to be defined.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:58 a.m.
I agree, the City may need to define pre-arranged in such a way as to prevent circumvention. The distinction made in other cities, including NYC, is that limos can basically take call-in business only. Clearly, all rides are pre-arranged in the limited sense that the driver and passengers must agree that a ride is being hired before the ride takes place; what the city is going for is clearly not "arranged in front of Scorekeeper's ten seconds in advance of the ride."
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:36 a.m.
YooHoo................I'm comming for my tickets so get ready
Class B Limo Driver
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:56 p.m.
Kindly read what has been posted below as well as above in all threads . You will find what you seek
Rick Stevens
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:19 p.m.
So Joslyn - how about some 'full disclosure' ? We're guessing you're a taxi driver, company owner, etc. from your opinions. Are you?
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:21 a.m.
Hmm, anyway you can logically support your case without accusing others of felonies when they disagree with you?
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9 a.m.
Just like you impersonate a attorney lol
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:51 a.m.
You've been impersonating a taxi in your limo for 25 years?
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:46 a.m.
Good cause I've been in this business for 25 years. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm doing by now. Chess is a great game isn't it?
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:37 a.m.
They've been getting ready. Hence the article you're reading right now.
Elliott Snow
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:21 a.m.
moodyone, Thanks for bringing some fresh thinking to the issues. You may be entirely right about all this, since I am not a lawyer nor even a student of the LMTA, but then why did the GLLA rep say that when it has been challenged in court, the municipality has, in the past, lost? One of them did say this, I'm pretty sure, and that he thought it would "cost the City a lot of money" if they pursued this course of ticketing limos for accepting walk-ups. Are they just blowing smoke because they advocate for the GLLA? The LMTA calls any vehicle for hire a "limo", with a "taxicab" being a specialized type of "limo" which uses a meter to determine the price of a trip. How does this figure in, do you suppose? Other parts of the Act apparently say that "only the State may regulate limos", that's where Detroit had the exemption which allowed it to regulate limos, when its population was over 750,000, isn't it? What defines "regulation" anyway? Yet the GLLA has an emergency 'call to arms' on it's new homepage, because Detroit is apparently trying to enact various fees and requirements on limo operators. So Detroit evidently still thinks it can impose some kind of regulation on the industry, in accordance with what you have posted.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:37 a.m.
Okay, I reread the ordinance some more, and it is more precise to say that the MLTA envisions taxis as a type of limo which is excluded from the provisions of the Act. I don't really think this factors in, though, as it merely shows that taxis, like busses and employer-run shuttle services, aren't regulated by the MLTA, which wasn't in serious dispute to begin with. It is assumed that taxis will be metered because cities generally regulate taxis and, as part of those requirements, mandate the use of meters with specified rates. What the City is basically saying is "hey, you in the taxi! You need a meter (and a few other things) to be a legal taxi, so right now you're a taxi, but not a legal one." The MLTA defines limos (and excludes taxis from its provisions), but does not define taxi (why would it, since it doesn't apply to them?); so how would any of this prevent the City from defining what taxis are and what they do? Kokas is basically suggesting that the City can regulate taxis but can't require them to get meters.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:06 a.m.
Cont'd Both the City ordinance and the MLTA appear to be in agreement that cabs and limos are distinct.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:05 a.m.
Elliot, "why did the GLLA rep say that when it has been challenged in court, the municipality has, in the past, lost? [...] and that he thought it would "cost the City a lot of money" if they pursued this course of ticketing limos for accepting walk-ups. Are they just blowing smoke because they advocate for the GLLA?" That's my guess (that's he was blowing smoke)--he actually said "they were unenforceable" but didn't specify who decided or adjudicated their unenforceability. I couldn't find any cases on the taxi/limo issue at all. Without having access to expensive legal databases, it is hard to be certain, but the State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases are searchable by anyone for free, and there were no such cases. Lower level court cases may exist (though I haven't found any), but would not be likely to serve as precedent in a new case arising from the current happenings. If anyone knows of any similar challenges having been made in court, I'd love to see some case law. In addition, for all the threats from self-described limo drivers that they and their "legal teams" are going to eviscerate the City over this issue, I haven't seen a single claim made that suggests to me that an attorney has been consulted. "The LMTA calls any vehicle for hire a "limo", with a "taxicab" being a specialized type of "limo" which uses a meter to determine the price of a trip. How does this figure in, do you suppose?" I don't think this is an accurate reading of the MLTA. The only mention of taxis in that act is as follows: " This act shall not apply to a limo carrier of passengers who is only providing transportation using metered vehicles identified as a taxi or taxicab with a maximum seating capacity of 3 to 9 passengers or less, including the driver." So, it isn't that taxis are a subclass of limos, but that they aren't limos at all, so the act "shall not apply" to them. Both t
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 4:43 a.m.
I'm blown away by the poor legal reasoning at play here. "Kokas said Michigan's Limousine Transportation Act requires limo carriers to comply with local ordinances only in cities with a population of 750,000 or more. Since Ann Arbor's population is less than that, he said, any tickets issued to limos under city ordinance are being illegally written." The first half of that is true—the MLTA itself doesn't require compliance with local limo ordinances except under Sec. 7 (1) (see below). However, it doesn't follow from this that cities cannot pass and enforce their own limo ordinances. 257.1907, Sec. 7. (1) A limo carrier of passengers shall not operate a limousine for the transportation of persons for hire on a public highway in this state except in accordance with this act. A limo carrier of passengers that operates class B limousines for the purpose of picking up passengers within a city with a population of 750,000 or more shall also comply with the vehicle for hire ordinance of that city with respect to those limousines. This means that a limo driver who violates the vehicle for hire ordinance of a city of 750,000 or more is, in so doing, violating the MLTA. It doesn't mean that no city with a smaller population can regulate limos, just that a violation of a smaller city's ordinance is not, in itself, a violation of the MLTA. (Cont'd)
Joslyn at the U
Wed, Mar 6, 2013 : 2:06 a.m.
Limotax So greatly presented and explained so well that any one with half an education could understand it. Very on point. Thank you for such great participation in this conversation
Limotax
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:41 p.m.
Lastly, The GLLA rep never said AA can not enforce limos. They may under the State Law. The illegal part was if the tickets were written outside of the the scope of State limo regulation. His point is proved with tickets getting thrown out and Cease and Desist orders. Also some background on the law. If you were at the meeting you would have heard the 10 minune presentation which was eye opening. One of the reasons the state law was formed was because municipailites put an unfair financial burden on limos. They would need 5 to 8 licenses to compete one trip. A taxi operates mainly in the city they are bonded in. He gave the example of bus's. Bus's have USDOT regulations because they cross through States. Taxis are cities, Limos are States and Bus's are good old Uncle Sam.
Limotax
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
First, I personally appreciate the comments thus far regarding this article. Except for some of the personal attacks on people which achieves nothing but animosity. The article and comments provide two perspectives. I have decided to reply to Moodyone because those comments in my opinion seem to be mostly written based on an emotion rather than fact. I was at the meeting and Mr. Kokas's comments were probably the most accurate assessment of the current situation. It is important to note your comment about Detroit and Mr. Kokas being wrong is inaccurate. The City of Detroit has officially stopped enforcing their limo ordinances since the last U.S census lowering their population threshold. Note that even in Detroit when they could enforce the ordinance they still had to be PRE-ARRANGED. What you see on the GLLA website I learned is what the City of Detroit PROPOSED last year in Lansing to pass in order to once again be able to enforce limos and add additional revenue regulations. The proposal apparently could not get any legs. It was a simple attempt by Detroit to generate revenue and offered zero public benefit. I also learned from a source that in the last 10 years or so all local ordinances outside of the scope of the State Act where a ticket has been issued have been thrown out of court which were represented by an attorney. I also have been told by an attorney that the City of Troy received a "Cease and Desist" order from MDOT because it was found they were ticketing limos for not following the City's ordinances. Remember EVERY CITY can a write a ticket under the limousine act. Even the City Attorney of Ann Arbor clarified that the ticket issued was for lack if possession of a driver record which is in the State law. That is enforceable by Ann Arbor. So yes the answer to your question is yes there is a precedent. Lastly, Mr. Kokas said it best. There is a difference between a taxi and a limo in how they operate.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 4:45 a.m.
Having said all of this, it shouldn't really matter in the present situation whether Ann Arbor has the power to regulate limousines, because what the City is actually doing is regulating taxicabs. Even if Kokas were right that the City can't regulate limousines, the MLTA explicitly doesn't apply to taxis, so there is no reason to suppose the City cannot regulate taxis. Part of regulating taxis must necessarily involve defining what taxicabs are and are not and how they behave, as well as ensuring that only legally licensed taxicabs operate as taxicabs. It would be absurd on its face to argue that the City only has the right to regulate the behavior of legally licensed taxis but not illegal ones—if so, what is to stop me from putting a toplight and some taxi signage on an unmetered, uninsured, uninspected civilian vehicle and taking flags? In so doing, I must be impersonating some sort of commercial vehicle—is it a taxi or a limo, or do I get to choose? True, the MLTA doesn't explicitly prohibit limousines from having "taxi" or "cab" in the name, from being painted to look like cabs, from having toplights, or even from soliciting fares on the street. The MLTA also doesn't explicitly prohibit limousines from being painted and outfitted to look exactly like AAPD patrol cars; does this mean that it implicitly gives them this right and that the City can't take it away?
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 4:44 a.m.
257.1914, Sec. 14 (1) A county, city, village, or township that has adopted a local ordinance to regulate limousines or a limo carrier of passengers within its corporate limits may perform the safety inspection required by section 19 upon request of a limo carrier of passengers. The MLTA imagines counties, cities, villages and townships adopting their own ordinances to regulate limousines, including performing their own safety inspections. Currently, the largest township has a population of less than 97,000, while the largest village has just over 10,000. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that their populations reached the magic 750,000, they would still be villages and townships, not cities, and thus not covered by Sec. 7 (1). Nonetheless, it's clear that they can all pass limo ordinances. So, limo drivers who violate the limo ordinance of a city of 750,000+ have also violated the MLTA; limo drivers who violate the limo ordinances of smaller cities or of counties, villages and townships have only violated those ordinances, not the MLTA. However, while the MLTA envisions municipalities passing their own limo ordinances, and thus that this is allowed, it doesn't follow that municipalities derive the power to do so from the MLTA. The MLTA does not grant rights or protections to municipalities or limo drivers; it simply sets out limousine licensing and minimum safety standards and the like for the protection of the public. The State may or may not have the power to prohibit municipalities from passing their own limo ordinances, but it hasn't done so with the MLTA. Kokas states that "the state law is pretty strong in terms of protecting the limousine company," but this is not borne out by the content of the MLTA, which makes no mention of any such protections—or, in fact, any protections at all. Some have taken the definitions in the Act as having some sort of protective element, but… they just don't, sorry.
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 10:50 p.m.
Voter Score: 1,000,000 x infinity Great POST! Elliott Snow 3:23 PM on 3/2/2013And the State law clearly states, about how limo-licensed vehicles may solicit for business, that "(k) "Through any device or arrangement" means any and all methods, means, agreements, circumstances,operations, or subterfuges under which a person undertakes for hire to conduct, direct, control, or otherwiseperform the transportation of passengers by limousine upon the public highways of this state."This seems to say that it is even OK for a limo driver to put a Toplight on his vehicle if that's the "device" he chooses to use to get customers.It clearly says nothing at all about State limo-licensed vehicles being required to do only pre-arranged trips.For that matter, what is "pre-arrangement"? If I am parked, and a person walks up to me and asks, "Are you open?", and I say "yes",and they tell me where they want to go, and I tell them it will cost $XX.00 and they then decide to get in and have me take them to their destination, is that not a "pre-arranged" trip?
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 10:41 p.m.
Meemee get off your high horse. Honestly I'm tired of people like you flapping your trap. We can and will take it to court if neccesary to stop this BS. We have the will and the means to do so and don't mind spending our money to defend our rights against little tyrants like you.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 11:13 a.m.
Blah blah etc etc
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:23 a.m.
This contributes nothing but vitriol.
memepolice
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.
Mr. Kokas' and the GLLA's argument is absurd. This is not a legal argument at all. His position is either his personal view or the view of the GLLA, but in either case it's founded on a deregulatory, anti-government philosophy rather than a legal one. Here is his argument in a nutshell: class B limos should not take non-prearranged fares, but they can in every city in Michigan except Detroit where they may or may not be fined for this depending on whether the City wants to regulate this activity. Ann Arbor does not meet the population requirements to regulate class B limos, thus, they cannot fine class B limos for impersonating taxis. Look, folks, what he is saying, basically, is that according to the State Limo Act, only the City of Detroit can effectively regulate its own taxi market because only the City of Detroit can fine class B limos who impersonate taxis. In other words, the way that the GLLA and its representative interpret the statute only gives Detroit the power to define exactly what a taxi is and enforce that definition by issuing citations to class B limos that look like taxis and take flags but do not have meters. This is a silly argument because it implies that every other city in Michigan including Ann Arbor cannot regulate taxis because they cannot regulate class B limos. If cities under 750,000 cannot fine anyone but non-limos for impersonating taxis, then they cannot effectively regulate their taxi markets because, as a practical matter, if every vehicle owner can simply opt out of the local taxi market by merely getting a limo sticker, then, in reality, all but Detroit's taxi market is viable and legitimate with respect to regulation. No fair and reasonable judge in any superior court in the State of Michigan is going to buy this and the GLLA's interpretation of the Limo Act because it's totally ridiculous, transparently political, and not based on any strong legal theory or interpretation of the State Limo Act.
Limotax
Thu, Mar 7, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
I would also like to pose a question to MEMEPolice and Moodyone. What is your experience in the chauffeured ground transportation industry for you to be such an expert on these matters? I only ask because you have posed several false accusations. Without clarification I suggest all readers of their comments to disregard them as pure opinion and speculation as I have shown in previous comments several of the accusations especially against others have been proven inaccurate assessments. I myself have 20 years and have worked on the both the State and Federal side of legislative issues concerning chauffeured ground transportation. Is it safe to assume based on your name you are an advocate of the Ann Arbor Police Dept or receive some type of financial compensation directly or indirectly from the City of Ann Arbor Police? If so this would explain your bias comments. A moot response I assume will justify my guess....
Joslyn at the U
Thu, Mar 7, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
!1!Oh my lordy!!! Can you say snap??? Hahahahaha if that wasn't all net with a three pointer I don't know what is. Holy smokes!
Limotax
Thu, Mar 7, 2013 : 12:40 a.m.
Just to reiterate your comment again about the GLLA President. your comment on "His interpretation of the law" being inaccurate..... He helped write it.. He doesn't need to interpret it.
Limotax
Thu, Mar 7, 2013 : 12:33 a.m.
MEMEpolice did you know Mr. Kokas was one of the authors of the current limo law and last bill that passed the Senate? I would think he would know what the intent of the law is since he helped write it. Also I have the reviewed the video from 12 years ago during the State Transportation hearings in Lansing and everything Mr. Kokas stated seems 100% accurate. With that being said I'll listen to the lawyers and MDOT Cease and Desist orders as well as one of the people who authored the law than listen to your assumptions. You are speculating not the others. This is the problem with the comment sections. Too many uninformed comments are made. As for me I'm very happy keeping to myself the tickets that were thrown out. The lawyers prefer it. FYI our company had 4 tickets thrown out the last 4 years or so. I suspect you weren't at the meeting because if you were you would understand. Lastly if you listened Mr. Kokas DOES NOT want limos as taxis and wants to change the State law to remov the gray area in the law. It's amazing what you learn when educating one self.
memepolice
Wed, Mar 6, 2013 : 12:45 a.m.
Let me make this clear. I am not here to provide rumor and innuendo. If you would like to provide some proof of your factual claims, that would be great. Otherwise, let's stick to what's been reported here, please. I agree with you: government and private industry should work together here to fix this problem but would add to this by saying that this arrangement is fine as long as the good of the larger community is served. With respect to Mr. Kokas reported remarks, I have no reason to trust that a lobbyist, essentially, from the limo industry cares about what's best for local government, taxi companies, or the public. Moreover, his interpretation of the MLTA is totally incorrect. Indeed, SB 561 which was thankfully provided, but not interpreted correctly, by the story's reporter, proves that Mr. Kokas and all of the class B limo defenders are totally wrong in their conception of the MLTA. Below is a link to the Bill, not law, in which the Senate Transportation Committee (STC) argues in February of 2012 that the MLTA needs to be changed because it currently allows for both localities and the City of Detroit to have limo ordinances. SB 561 argues for passing a law which would make the State (MDOT) the sole authority for limo licensing and regulation. Why would the STC be arguing for these specific changes to the existing law which prohibit localities from regulating limos if what Mr. Kokas and other limo-impersonator defenders argue are prohibitions that already exist? Answer: these prohibitions don't exist in the current law, and Mr. Kokas is being totally disingenuous with respect to the strength of the law as it protects limos. Either Mr. Kokas is blowing smoke, so to speak, or he is uninformed. Either way, I would not take much of what he says seriously. Thanks for your reply. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/senate/htm/2011-SFA-0561-B.htm
Class B Limo Driver
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 6:02 p.m.
That is right on the money LIMOTAX, I personally have gone to the AAPD and offered whatever assistance myself as well as my associates might be able to provide. We are as concerned for the community as any sensible person might be. Moreso than the taxicab board and Stephen Kunselman in my opinion. I personally have four daughters and find what has been happening with young women being accosted very disconcerting and disturbing to the utmost. BUT that does not give the powers that be here in the city of Ann Arbor the right to single out law abiding citizens in a veritable WITCH HUNT.
Limotax
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.
I personally know of several cases getting thrown out. I also learned last week that some time ago the City of Troy received a Cease and Desist order from MDOT to stop enforcing their local limo ordinance outside of the scope of State law. If you actually listened to Mr. Kokas live he was the only one that suggested additional regulations to differentiate limos from taxis giving taxis exclusive rights to pick up fares and not allow limos to do so. so your comment about anti-government is untrue. He also proposed the City talk with company's to discuss options. Is that so bad? I don't know about you but I believe in a free market society where government and private business work together. Not against each other.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:20 a.m.
Sorry... "Thus, no preemption."
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 7:18 a.m.
Very good. Kokas engages in many of the same logical and legal fallacies as some of those on the comment section here are doing. First, Kokas misconstrues the MLTA as prohibiting local limousine ordinances. This appears to be on the basis of this 750,000 bit, which seems to be confusing to those who 1) know absolutely nothing about the law as a discipline and how it works AND 2) have both a personal belief that they are entitled to conduct their business as they see fit, free of regulations, AND such a strong confirmation bias that they insist on seeing their philosophy reflected in the MLTA. But a judge isn't going to be fooled, even if they find a lawyer willing to risk professional sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit based on an intractable interpretation of the law. But no one seems to be able to tell me how this interpretation of the "750,000" (Section 7) is compatible with section 14, which not only is compatible with cities and even villages and townships passing their own ordinances, but makes no sense if they can't. Preemption doesn't happen the way these people seem to think. If there were a contradiction between, say, the Detroit limo ordinance and the MLTA, then yes, the state law would preempt the local one. But a contradiction would mean that it would be impossible to follow both laws. Since the MLTA has certain insurance minimums ("For limousines with a seating capacity of 1 to 9 passengers including the driver, bodily injury and property damage liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit of $1,000,000.00 for all persons injured or for property damage"), a provision of a local ordinance specifying that limos can only be insured up to $999,999 would be preempted since it would obviously be impossible to have both over and under $1,000,000 in coverage. With respect to the Ann Arbor law, is it possible for a limo driver to follow the MLTA while also not having a toplight and taking flag business? Clearly it is--thus,
Elliott Snow
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:42 a.m.
But one of the GLLA reps definitely said their opinion was based on legal precedent, not wishful thinking. I heard him say that. I do agree that the GLLA would like to have their status distinction between cabs and limos enshrined in State law, which right now it doesn't do. As for making sense, what about this whole area of cabs vs.limos and State law vs.local law makes any sense? The City's guiding principle ought to be what makes sense in terms of meeting the City's actual transportation needs and maximizing available resources. They are not doing this. No-one on the Cab Board knows beans about that aspect ofit; the Chief of Police, John Seto, knows a lot, because he was Commander of the Downtown Night Patrol for some years. Really that's my issue with the City's conduct; I am well aware the City's hands are tied in many ways, as far as developing sane solutions to Ann Arbor's transportation needs go. The best they can do is, decide what kind of things they are going to look the other way on. Part of that should be consulting with those AAPD who work nights and are familiar with the actual scene.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 10:09 p.m.
BINGO!!!(p.s. detroits population is less than 750k)
Cendra Lynn
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 3:09 a.m.
If a limousine cannot be used as a taxi cab, there will be more fights outside of bars??? So if we only had limousines and no taxicabs there would be no more fights out of bars, right? So were the folks waiting at 6 am after the Notre Dame game at the UM Stadium? I also like Rick Clark's statement that while the sexual assaults by taxi drivers were unfortunate [VOWA just passed, Rick...] that he has a simple solution for a relatively simple problem. Sexual assault is not exactly a problem I'd describe as simple...
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.
There have been many good questions raised. I heard Mr. Kokas' presentation, and the distinction he drew between cabs and limos sounded to me as essentially a matter of "positioning" for marketing purposes. It's a status or 'class' distinction. Some people see themselves as riding in a Lincoln or Cadillac with a well dressed 'chauffeur', others are content to pay less, ride in a more ordinary car like a common Ford driven by a regular guy (or girl - there are women drivers also.) The GLLA would no doubt love to see their 'upscale' image enshrined in State law, but that is not necessarily best for the consumer. In fact it has little or nothing to do with the intent and spirit of the State's Limo Act, which was written with the intent of making as sure as possible that all citizens of Michigan have access to transportation for hire.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 9:25 a.m.
Sorry, think I was going to say that the city's prohibition on limos taking non-prearranged fares would be in line with the common language (not legal) understanding of what limos are/do.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:23 a.m.
Elliot, you claim that the MLTA "was written with the intent of making as sure as possible that all citizens of Michigan have access to transportation for hire." Where are you finding this intent? The more likely explanation is that the State wanted to ensure that the transportation for hire that is available meets certain minimum standards, mainly concerning safety, since that's what the MLTA mainly regulates, not that it wanted to maximize people's transportation options. Also, it may be in the interest of limousine owners to market themselves as "classier" than cabs, but that is borne out by common-language understandings of what taxis and limousines are. Webster's has "limousine" as either: "a large luxurious often chauffeur-driven sedan that usually has a glass partition separating the driver's seat from the passenger compartment" or "a large vehicle for transporting passengers to and from an airport." Compare with "taxi-cab": "an automobile that carries passengers for a fare usually determined by the distance traveled." Other online dictionaries had almost identical definitions for both. Now, these obviously aren't legal definitions of either, but they do suggest that limos are usually thought of as being either luxury vehicles or vehicles that take people to the airport, while taxis lack qualifiers such as "large," or "luxurious." The general perception of limos as luxury vehicles suggests that they don't need to be regulated the way taxis do--both have to be safe, but luxury transportation services don't need to be accessible to everyone or transparent in their rates. In addition, the pre-arrangement issue fades when you think of how actual limousines (as opposed to people who want to save a few bucks on insurance) are arranged. Formal events are things people plan for in advance--you don't hail a limo to get to your wedding at the last minute--so the City's prohibition
Murf
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
Go get 'em, Mark (a.k.a. Marky Mark) Neumann! If it doesn't work out, come back to Wendy's. Your fan club misses you.
grye
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:52 p.m.
You would think Ann Arbor City Police and the City Council would have more important issues.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.
Right on actually I feel bad for the police department being caught in the middle of this garbage. I'm sure they didn't spend they're carreers in the hopes of playing taxi cop
Skyjockey43
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 5:49 p.m.
Of course. Because an issue that affects the livelihoods of hundreds of people trying to provide for themselves and their families is of no importance whatsoever. Sarcasm alert
Youwhine
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
'Tim Tobias, president of Michigan Green Cabs, another limo company..."We're being accused of impersonating a taxicab, and really the last thing we want to be impersonating is a taxicab," he said. "We feel the service we're offering is actually a step above and actually safer than a taxicab in a lot of respects." ' REALLY? You don't what to be comnfused with a taxi? That's why you have CABS in your name, you have the little "for-hire" lights on all of your cars and you park in front of the bars all night waiting for somebody to jump in? Yeah I cannot see why anybody would confuse you with a taxi.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
I asked the city attorney's office if the city still stands behind the tickets for limos 'impersonating' taxis. The response: Yes.
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
Great post dennis. As far as kunselman he's making himself out to look like a real clown to many people but is to stubborn to see his foolish folly and continues to allow. Himself to be manipulated by the likes of people like Tom Crawford. Its a very sad state of affairs and does the local community as well as businesses no real favors or justice whatsoever.
DennisP
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.
I think Elliot Snow is correct. The state law broadly defines vehicles for hire as limos. Then it lists some fairly narrow and specific exceptions including metered vehicles that identify themselves as taxis. Under the state law, all taxis are limos but all limos are not taxis. Taxis are subject to the law but for the very specific exceptions drawn by the statute. If you are charging flat rate and not metering, then the only other exception applicable would be if you are operating wholly within a local government's jurisdiction. That means that you do not operate outside of the city. That's got some wiggle room (does that mean on any given night, any given fare, or in terms of your general service area) but it's a weak argument. I think it's clear that the law intended to avoid situations where every community can create a taxi ordinance and subject vehicles for hire to a myriad of laws and registation requirements. Imagine if a limo had to register with Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, AA Twp, Scio Twp, York Twp, Saline, and on and on. Even worse if you operated in the Metro Detroit area. The fact that the law carves out a special exception for extremely large cities (which Detroit isn't any longer) indicates that it wanted to limit regulatory imposition by all the cities, towns, etc that can make up a reasonable service area. While these can and will be argued in a court given Ann Arbor's stance, it's not a great argument. A city should defend its laws when it has reason to do so. But, it should also recognize when it's sitting on thinner ice. Instead of bad mouthing the limo companies, the city can simply say that it is willing to test the boundaries of its ordinance in a court of law. If the law falls, be gracious about it. Seems like Kunsleman doesn't have a problem "suspending" the zoning ordinance, but when it comes to ordinances involving parking or taxis, he's ready to fight all the "criminals"...
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.
"Impeding traffic" is a good one! It is always a judgement call and selectively enforced, not just in Ann Arbor. This has always been an issue, even before the limo brouhaha started. The City licenses taxicabs, then punishes the taxicabs theylicense by ticketing them when they stop to pick up or drop off customers Downtown. This has not been a problem in recent years, but it took some extensive discussions with the City to accomplish this 'detente'. At the same time, the City fails to create Passenger Loading Zones in some pretty high-traffic areas, like in front of popular restaurants and bars, or the new high-rises like Landmark and Zaragon whose residents are big taxi users.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.
Ryan.........kristen Larcom is of a New York state of mind and under the impression that taxis/limos are a public utility when they are not. We do not have 20,000 taxis plus limos, plus gypsy cabs running around ann arbor. And I heard her say right out of her own mouth that she was going to shut the class blimos down one way or another sooner or later. So when she speaks her politically correct gobbledeeGoop take it with a grain of salt. The lady is definetley biased and not concerned with the well being of those in the industry but simply attempting to maintain control of the transportation industry in the city of ann arbor for the powers that be (Tom Crawford) and in turn maintain the status quo
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 9:59 p.m.
The flaw in the reasoning here is that I believe State law defines what is a 'taxicab' solely by it's use of a taximeter to determine its prices, rather than any other method, such as 'zone pricing", which is used in many cities, including Madison Wisconsin. That is what "manner of operation" to - the use of a meter - nothing else. Does the vehicle use a meter to determine the cost of a trip? If YES, then it is a taxi. It has nothing to do with toplights, so-called 'trolling', sitting outside of a bar or restaurant etc etc. Those are definitions or parameters the City has invented in order to accomplish whatever it is they think they are accomplishing, which principally seems to be, reducing the amount of much needed transportation for hire available in Ann Arbor. The City's overall concern ought to be, making as sure as it can, that there is sufficient transportation available to all. That would increase and protect the safety of the public.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 6:58 p.m.
Larcom also tells me some of the tickets have been issued for drivers not carrying their driving records with them, as required by state law and city ordinance. Tickets for impeding traffic, which applies to all vehicles, also have been issued.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.
FYI - I just added a comment from Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Larcom to the story. She was at Thursday's meeting. "The city does not have local regulations for limousines," she said. "It only regulates taxicabs, and any vehicle being operated in the manner that taxicabs operate must be licensed under the city's taxicab ordinance. The city's ordinance also prohibits taxicabs from being held out as limousines."
noyfb
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.
Yet another example of Stephen Kunselman's ineptitude. This guy gets NOTHING right!
Bryan Ellinger
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
What's with all the bar-goers hailing cars? It is way more convenient to prearrange a ride, and then wait inside the nice, warm bar for the driver to call you when they arrive.
Bryan Ellinger
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
You make some interesting asides, Mr. Snow. It was a rhetorical question, followed by a statement of fact:. Calling well ahead is better than waiting in the cold. Especially given the current uproar. The only trouble at closing time is when "hailers" try to snag your ride. But, you literally "called it first", so it's your ride.
Elliott Snow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.
Bryan, the reason they end up outside is the bars close and make them leave. At that point they have no choice but to go outside. They may have called a cab, but the demand spikes so high at "bar rush" that there are not enough cabs to service everyone and wait times can grow long. That's why those "gypsy limos" who depended on the bar rush walk-up business were successful, and inspite of the occasional fare abuses, were overall a good thing for Ann Arbor's Downtown businesses. If the abuse of pricing could be controlled, they would be an asset to the City - except from the licensed cab driver's point of view, because they cut into their profits. The fact is, even the licensed cab companies give priority to their call-in customers, and the walk-up market is always underserved as a result. Yellow was perhaps the only company large enough to allow some of their drivers to do a lot of walk-ups, and even designated some cars for walk-up business on so designated weekends. Of course with this 'crack-down on limos' it can no longer do that.... Another reason the City's direction is counter-productive to it's own best interests....
MGC Ann Arbor
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
Deregulating taxicabs is NOT a practical solution to these issues. Taxicab charges are calculated by a mechanical meter in the car that keeps track of miles and time, then spits out the combined charges at the destination. The mileage rate is determined by the taxicab board, and is currently set at $2.50 per mile. The regulated meter is the POINT and definition of a taxicab and main reason the taxicab board exists. Drivers do pay for gas and need to have their incomes buffered from rising fuel costs. A uniform rate adjustment authorized by the board based on the average cost of fuel makes a lot more sense.
TomH
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
State law pre-empts local law, just as Federal law pre-empts State law. If the State lawfully regulates limousines, under the Limousine Act, the city of Ann Arbor cannot ticket a limousine which is operating in accordance with the State law. The city may ticket a vehicle that is operating outside of the Limousine Act, but not a limousine that is operating in accordance with the Limousine Act. However, the Limousine Act and Ann Arbor Taxicab Board are both relics of another era. They envision a day when people did not have cellphones, and had to go to the curb to hail a cab. Many people now use cellphones to call taxi companies or limo companies. The people are choosing based off of service and price, and they are using technology to shape the market. A lot of what is going on here is the last of the dinosaurs getting mad that the meteor hit and changed their world. In the next five years, applications like Uber, will enable users to select a vehicle for hire based off of the wait time, service level, and price. There is nothing that the Ann Arbor Taxicab board, GLLA, or the Ann Arbor Police Department can do to stop the future.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
There are no contradictory portions, only portions that impose additional regulations. Additional does not mean contradictory.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 11:11 a.m.
Ann arbors additions to local ordinance cotradict and are In conflict with the state act
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:17 a.m.
To clarify, the state law would preempt local ordinances that contradict the state law--for instance, if the city required limousines to be pink while the state required them to be black; however, it does not preempt local ordinances that clarify or add additional, non-contradictory provisions.
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:08 a.m.
"State law pre-empts local law, just as Federal law pre-empts State law." No. If the state law were to preempt local laws, you'd know it, because there'd be a preemption clause. Take a look at this: "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state." (Chapter 123, Act 319 of 1990, Section 123.1102) This is the state's preemption clause regarding firearms. It clearly prohibits cities from regulating them. Where do you see such a preemption with limousines? Also, take a look at section 14 (1) of the MLTA: " A county, city, village, or township that has adopted a local ordinance to regulate limousines or a limo carrier of passengers within its corporate limits may perform the safety inspection required by section 19 upon request of a limo carrier of passengers." So, the state meant to preempt local limo ordinances, but allows limousine operators to have their inspections done under those same ordinances? Also notice the bit about "county, city, village, or township"--three out of four of these will never be cities with over 750,000, no matter what.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 10:02 p.m.
Well spoken TomH
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:26 p.m.
There already is a lot of technology being used out there. The limousine association president told me this: "The limousine industry has changed tremendously in the last year or year and a half. Technology has now enabled passengers to find available chauffeurs of limousines in five minutes or less by utilizing apps. There's fantastic technology, and once you decide you want to have this chauffeur pick you up, it instantaneously sends to your phone a picture of the chauffeur's face, the car that's going to pick you up, as well as the chauffeur's contact number."
themommer
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
Hmmm... what if all limo drivers carry a card with their phone number on it and hand it to any one who flags them down. Tells the person that the city requires them to call first and assure them they will wait for them to make the call. Might even be able to skirt regulations by letting them make that phone call in the warmth of the limo but not drive or do anything that a hired limo would have to do to be considered engaged until that phone call has been made and official notification has been received. Of course the waiting drunk might not understand the situation and could become belligerent about waiting. And the limo driver could be cited for "standing". Just a thought.
rutrow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 2:21 a.m.
Will not and should not happen. The public will dictate how they wish to acquire transportation----we can't tell them they MUST call. And many don't, which is the problem. The problem itself being we're playing all these silly games and meanwhile people in the town just want rides and we are finding every silly excuse to deny them those rides.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.
cant driver claim (he,she,it)was sitting down.
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
Revisiting the Kokas State law interpretation. It would be a little too generous to say that Limo companies and drivers do not have to obey any other laws. They do. Can they get away with rape or murder? No. Why not? What does the act say about that? Nada. Certainly Kokas would like people to believe his limos are protected by State law and immune to any local oridnance. Simply not true. It says limos must obey the act. Duh! It says limos must obey local "limo" oridinances in 750k+ sized cities. So? Where does the State limo law say that limos are absolved from obeying any other local, state, or federal law? No place. So what does that mean legally? When one law does not specify the rules about something but another law does then it is still law. The limo act would have to say outright "limos do not have to obey any local "limo" ordinance in cities smaller than 750k". or something similar to that effect for Kokas "protection" to be correct. Because Ann Arbor has the State legal right to make local taxi and street ordinance not explicitely prevented by superior law, then it can and does and limos must abide by all of those laws. If it is not written it does not exist (unless the judge says so).
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:33 a.m.
You are correct. The MLTA says that violating a certain type of local limo ordinance (that passed by a city of 750,000 or more) is a violation of the MLTA. It doesn't say or imply that a limo driver is incapable of violating any other local ordinance or that other ordinances can't be legally passed. For those of you for whom legal principles simply don't compute, and there are several here, consider the following exercise. You are an eight-year-old child. Your parents have a rule against your using swear words. The school you attend has a similar rule. Your parents tell you that, if you are found by the school to have broken its no-swearing rule, you will automatically be punished at home for your misbehavior on top of whatever punishment the school dishes out. However, your parents don't care if you run with scissors at school (or maybe they do, but think the school's punishment is sufficient), so they don't have an automatic punishment for breaking that school rule. Now, for the purposes of this hypothetical, parental authority always trumps school authority in the case of a conflict between the two, and your parents cannot punish you unless you break an explicit, pre-set parental rule (since that's how law works). Does it logically follow that you aren't responsible for breaking any school rules other than the swearing one, or that the school can't punish you for running with scissors? No. It logically follows that your parents can't punish you for running with scissors, since they haven't prohibited it themselves; not that no one else can. Similarly, since parental authority preempts school authority in the event of a conflict, your parents could make a rule that the school can't regulate scissor-running, and it would preempt the scissor rule. But since they haven't--just like the MLTA doesn't prohibit cities from regulating limos, let alone taxis--the scissor policy stands. Here, the MLTA is saying that breaking
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.
LXIX, you are thinking too much"out-of-the-box"! LOL. But you hit the nail on the head - the reason the 'gypsy limos' were successful in Ann Arbor on weekends and special event occasions is it is a chronically underserved 'walk-up' segment of the riding public. A moratorium on the pick-up rules from 1 AM to 3AM at least on weekends makes too much sense - almost guarantees the City won't even consider it. Some commenters have said,"Why don't these people call for a ride and wait inside?" It's because they don't have that choice - most bars hustle them outside at 2 AM -"Closing time!" The City is looking for blanket solutions whether or not they benefit the public, because they really don't have the Police manpower to enforce much, except sporadically.
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
Thanks. Lol. Okay, you win. I should also know how to spell "ordinance", too. Make that "vehicle for hire" instead of "limo" regulations of the non-existent MI city of 750k+. people (Detroit pop. 706,585). One solution for adequate bar patron coverage is a well-advertised "closing time hour" and sporting event hour city flat rate for any authorized limo/taxi trolling for those in-town to in-town pickups. Make iit $8 or something. Maybe $18 to Ypsi. To help ensure security of passengers a city-issued magnetic "URIDE NO ##" numbered plate on the door/hood could be issued (for a small fee of course). Stidents would be made aware of the service over and over and encouraged to remember the large magnetic plate number ## (between 01-99). The other times local taxi hailing only. If limos can't afford that then they are trolling A2 more of the time than just late night and thus encroaching on city-run territory..
Some Guy in A2
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.
No, State law (as quoted by another commenter) clearly states the 750k+ application covers "vehicle for hire" regulations.
Billy
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
At least ONE person understands the way the law works...
Watcher
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Why does the City regulate the taxi rates? At one point, the taxi ordinance allowed any rate as long as it was posted on the taxi.
Billy
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
Ok just read the act.....there is NOTHING that says they DON'T have to follow local ordinances. OMISSION DOES NOT MEAN PERMISSION!!!! The state law doesn't say that Class B limos DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY CITY LAWS...it just says the must follow local ordinances in cities of 750,000 or more. A local ordinance can't trump a state law....that is not what our local ordinance does. The state law does NOT say cities can't apply additional regulations. ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO......... "(3) This act shall not apply to a limo carrier of passengers who is only providing transportation using metered vehicles identified as a taxi or taxicab with a maximum seating capacity of 3 to 9 passengers or less, including the driver." What about this part? Sounds like that kinda nullifies the entire act since that description covers nearly ALL taxi cabs.....
Elliott Snow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.
What the State Limo Law does say is, (k) "Through any device or arrangement" means any and all methods, means, agreements, circumstances, operations, or subterfuges under which a person undertakes for hire to conduct, direct, control, or otherwise perform the transportation of passengers by limousine upon the public highways of this state." This seems to say pretty clearly that the driver of a State limo-licensed vehicle may solicit business anyway he wishes to do - including 'trolling" the streets, parking in front of public venues, stopping for people who hail him, or even parking and standing on the corner with a sign saying "Car(or Limo)For HIre". It even seems to imply that he can have a toplight or other signage on his car......
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.
Sorry but that's Completely Delusional
Skyjockey43
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Thank you for finally seeing this issue in rational common sense terms. There is no reason at all that the cab industry should be treated differently than any other business operating in the City of Ann Arbor having their prices dictated by the government. And I disagree that prices would necessarily increase. With so many different cab companies (24 at last count) competition should keep prices at current levels or below. Let supply and demand work the same way it does in all other areas of commerce. Also when is this city EVER going to learn to do a little research and put a little bit of thought into it before they come up with these Mickey Mouse ordinances that always end up doing more harm than good?
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
You censored me cuz i said metro airport does not have 750000 residents?
Cendra Lynn
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 3:15 a.m.
Sounds reasonable to me... I got censored for posting. When I complained, suddenly my post appeared. But, with a non-news non-paper online site for free, what the hell did you expect?
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:36 p.m.
In case anyone is curious, I got a list of the city-licensed cab companies operating in Ann Arbor (keep in mind, some of these operate both limos and cabs, which can be confusing). Yellow, for instance, operates mostly limos under the name Yellow Car but apparently still has a smaller number of city-licensed cabs. Anyway, here's the list: Across Town Cab AJ Taxi Amazing Blue Arbor Taxi Argus Blue Cab Eagle Taxi Metro Ann Arbor Metro Cab of Grand Rapids Metro Star Metro Taxi MTaxi Stadium Taxi Suburban U.S. Taxi Service Veteran's Westin Cab Wolverine Yellow
Billy
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
"Still, he said, the city of Ann Arbor doesn't have any legal authority under state law to write tickets for that." As long as the correct law is cited....YES THEY CAN. Do you think city police officers can't arrest or charge people under STATE laws because they are CITY officers or something? Wow.....just.....wow......
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:47 a.m.
Lol @Joslyn, the MLTA expressly gives local police the right to enforce the MLTA. Try reading more slowly.
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
No they CAN'T.
seldon
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
They aren't writing tickets under the state law, they're writing them under an Ann Arbor law.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.
"Do you think city police officers can't arrest or charge people under STATE laws because they are CITY officers or something? Wow.....just.....wow......" I think your asking the wrong question. The question should be to what level is a city allowed to pass local laws that seem to "trump" state laws?
mightywombat
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
I've heard (and experienced) instances of gouging by the limo companies. In the most egregious instance, one group of four friends was riding home from the bar one night, they stopped at the first house and the driver wanted $10 from everyone (apparently they charge a flat $10 / person / ride), and then implied that he was going to charge the remaining three another $10 / person for the next segment of the trip to the second friend's place. They paid up, got out of the car and called a taxi.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:39 p.m.
i wish some victims would would take pictures of driver plate etc.+follow thru.its the follow thru part no one will do.
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.
This was indeed a problem with *some* of the independent 'limos' who had been working in Ann Arbor for the past 2-3 years, and is one of the best reasons to see about some kind of dual licensing or requiring limos who want to work as 'taxis' to register with the City and buy a permit. Then the City could perhaps have some control over what they charge.
Mike
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:20 p.m.
They exercised their free choice and will probablynever use that limo service again. Businesses who go for short term gains lose in the long run under a free society.
suswhit
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
http://www.greencabofmadison.com/ Just used this service in Madison. People who think Ann Arbor and Madison are similar cities are sorely mistaken.
Elliott Snow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 4:47 a.m.
My daughter went to school in Madison some years ago. Their companies generally used a 'zone map' approach to pricing instead of running a meter, and 2 of the 3 big companies did a lot of shared rides. We took cabs a few times, and I compared rates to Ann Arbor's. Per mile, they seemed identical to Ann Arbor's. This was 10-15 years ago. Greencabofmadison did not exist then.
ChrisW
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:49 p.m.
As an aside, there are no cities in Michigan with population greater than 750,000.
seldon
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
Oh, that's even better.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
You're correct. Detroit used to be above 750,000, and it's not anymore, so it no longer meets that threshold under the limousine act.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Good point. It obviously applied to Detroit once upon a time but no more.
Martha Cojelona Gratis
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
Starting to sound like a lose-lose situation.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
What do you guys think of deregulation of the taxicab fare rates in Ann Arbor? The city sets them now at a level lower than the taxi companies would like. Letting the taxis decide what to charge likely would increase the cost of a cab ride across town, but as Kunselman suggested, it could bring these limos back into the fold under the city's taxicab ordinance and provide the local oversight some want. It also could put a few extra dollars in the pockets of cab drivers who argue they're underpaid. Are there enough positives here to do this? Any other solutions?
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 10:46 p.m.
That might have prvented this then but its to late for that now. Its probable going to end with a court fight
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 10:38 p.m.
i wish they would re enact the (any price you choose IF it is posted in BIG letters on both side doors)ordinance.when+why did they rescind that one?
Elliott Snow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 4:34 a.m.
Tom Crawford is an accountant who the City's Chief Financial Officer, a hired, salaried position, not an elected one. He is from North Carolina and has always thought the cab rates in Ann Arbor were "too high", and has always advocated for keeping them down. If anything, he would like to see them lowered.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:51 p.m.
who is this tom crawford?does he have a dog in the fight?
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 9:55 p.m.
Elliot Snow............thank you so much for that comment on crawford and you're view of it. He has been playing these games for years. I one time witnessed him threaten a driver with suspension because he called the police on another driver for trying to hit him with a vehicle. After it mad the news in the police blotter he lost his cool and didn't even care that the driver was assaulted by another driver using a vehicle as a weapon. The man cares about no one but his self and acts like a pompous little tyrant who thinks he is better than those around him. Is this a person who should have power? I think not. He is belittling to taxi drivers and has no respect for them nor has he for years
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 8:32 p.m.
I think letting cab companies set their own rates would be a big step in the right direction, but I doubt it would influence many State licensed companies to submit to the City's licensing again. Or even for the first time. Because there are other major factors that make the State licensing much more attractive. For instance, many customers and drivers prefer the 'flat rate', up front, pricing model. For other problems with the local cab licensing scenario, look at the Greater Detroit Metro area. Each little municipality wants its piece of the licensing pie, and the result is for example, situations like (hypothetical), a Southfield cab not being able to go into Berkeley to serve any potential customers there, because the cab is not licensed for Berkeley. But since Berkeley does not have its own cab company, or if it does it may have insufficient cars to be effective, people living there can't get a cab. But being licensed by the State makes it possible to go in and service those people. Reciporocal agreements between cities would solve this kind of problem, butt hey want the money. I might prefer a State-wide cab licensing system over the existing hodge-podge patchwork of local cab licensing.
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 8:12 p.m.
Joslyn is correct in laying much of the responsibility for current problems at the feet of Tom Crawford. He has been quietly instigating problems between the Cab Board and the local taxicab industry for years, sometimes unbeknownst even to the Mayor. A few years ago this required the Mayor's intervention over the issue of the Cab Board suppressing fare rate increases or surcharges in the face of spiking fuel rates. Many drivers came to a City Council meeting held over this issue. I was suprprised to see Tom Crawford is still involved in Cab Board affairs, as he is a known behind the scenes instigator of counterproductive actions by the Cab Board. While always remaining nameless and behind the scenes, he is, to my knowledge, the City's chief proponent of fare regulation. He is likely more responsible than anyone else for Yellow's withdrawal from the City's system. He simply has no regard for the actual transportation needs of the City' residents, students, and visitors, nor for the businesses who try to provide the needed transportation. Fare regulation is his hobby-horse.
DennisP
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 7:09 p.m.
The way I see it is that this is moving inexorably into the courts. If the limo law is held by a court to supercede AA's taxi law, whatever AA does to its ordinance to induce drivers and companies to register with it will become pointless. No one will retain a taxi license and everyone will become a limo service. I'm not weighing on whether that's good or bad, I'm just saying that will be the result. The fact that some tickets were issued and as long as the limo drivers intend to take it to court and the City won't revoke those tickets it means this will be heard and legally decided. The Great Lakes Limo assn will undoubtedly provide legal support to the drivers and this will be appealed up as high as the parties will take it. If the city ordinance is upheld, AA will have no incentive to change. However, I would say that the city shouldn't regulate fares. It should make the cabs provide fare information up front before a passenger boards and departs including any additional fees. After that, if someone is willing to pay and the driver is willing to take them, it's a business deal between two private parties.
Mike
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
We need to have a free market which includes competition. The market will set the price of cab ride and if someone is gouging a new tax company will pop up at a lesser cost if the cost of entry isn't rpohibitive due to government regulation.
MGC Ann Arbor
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
Deregulating taxicabs is NOT a practical solution to these issues. Taxicab charges are calculated by a mechanical meter in the car that keeps track of miles and time, then spits out the combined charges at the destination. The mileage rate is determined by the taxicab board, and is currently set at $2.50 per mile. The regulated meter is the POINT and definition of a taxicab and main reason the taxicab board exists. Drivers do pay for gas and need to have their incomes buffered from rising fuel costs. A uniform rate adjustment authorized by the board based on the average cost of fuel makes a lot more sense.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.
@Joslyn at the U — I'm glad to be able to tell each side of this story. Thanks for reading. @Billy — the cab company owner in the story suggesting deregulation is city-licensed. I think he represents the common viewpoint of a lot of city-licensed cab drivers/owners.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
If the city thinks it should control the price of my ride home from the bar why don't they control the price of my tab at the bar? For that matter I don't NEED to drink, I don't NEED to take a cab but I need to eat. So why don't they control the price of groceries at the supermarket?
Billy
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.
So what about the LICENSED city cabs that actually play by the rules? What about them? How about getting THEIR opinion on the matter...since they actually pay the licensing fees and allow themselves to be regulated?
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
In my opinion the Government shouldn't be in the price control business short of some sort of major disaster, an example of which I can't think of at the moment.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
By the way.........the way you're reporting on this has surprised me and impressed me. I expected you to back the city. I'm very glad to see you are reporting on this so honestly. Thank you
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1 p.m.
Ryan I myself and many others will NEVER go back to being a taxi just to submit to the Draconian RULE of the taxicab board. The solution is disband the taxicab board and fire TOM CRAWFORD for starting this garbage. Many in the local industry know his personal issues with certain people are what started this whole pissing match between taxis and limos. Check into it Ryan and you will see what I'm talking about. Just sayin
DennisP
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.
We'll get to see how the local court rules on some of these tickets. That will clarify if the limo law and the taxi law are incompatible when applied to those operators registered under and operating as limo drivers. When laws are alleged to be in conflict, a judge will first try to see to what extent both laws are compatible before striking down all or portions of the lesser legislation. Certainly, the taxi ordinance would apply to any joe who slaps on "Taxi" on his car and tries to pick up passengers. The question is how does it apply to bona fide and state-registered limo drivers and can it apply when the limo drivers exceed their restricted limitations on operating by trolling for fares. That's a fairly narrow legal question really. Is a limo driver who trolls for fares legally a "limo driver" when engaged in that activity? If the answer is no, then the limo law doesn't apply and local ordinances can. If the answer is yes, then the limo driver can ignore AA's vehicle-for-hire laws. The Great Lakes Limo Assn. will have its opinion, but until it is decided in courts of law or the laws changed, that's all it is--opinion.
DennisP
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 7:54 p.m.
Definitions in an act are pertinent but you also need to refer to the Applicability section (Sec 5). There we find two provisions that are open to interpretation. First the exempts those: (g) Only operating wholly within the boundaries of a local unit of government if the local unit of government has its own safety inspection and insurance requirements. Second: (3) This act shall not apply to a limo carrier of passengers who is only providing transportation using metered vehicles identified as a taxi or taxicab with a maximum seating capacity of 3 to 9 passengers or less, including the driver. The act clearly contemplates that it is so broadly written that all taxis are "limos" with limo drivers. So, it expressly exempts them. The question then becomes what "identifies" a taxi. I think if you have a meter and a light on top of your car, you look like a taxi regardless of whether you call yourself Yellow Cab or Yellow Car. Also, a driver who basically operates only in the city would be exempted from the Act but subject to local rules. I can imagine a lot of the drivers will say, well I drive to Pittsfield Twp, but a judge could say that an operation that, when it is trolling does so principally in town, is acting as a taxi cab when in the City and falls under this exemption as well. I can see why the act was passed. To promote uniform regulation of vehicles for hire. It would be nuts in the Detroit area if a company needed to get licensed in Livonia, Canton, Plymouth, Detroit, Redford, etc, etc to do business. That's less of a concern here where almost all of the "pick-up" business is within the City. I'm not saying that a judge will find for the AA ordinance, but one can. It's no slam dunk, despite what the limo association says.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.
BiNGO craig
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:32 p.m.
again, I'm no lawyer. But the law also says.... "(f) "Limo carrier of passengers" means a person who, either directly or through any device or arrangement, holds himself or herself out to the public as willing to undertake for hire to transport by limousine from place to place over the public highways of this state persons who may choose to employ him or her for that purpose" and (k)"Through any device or arrangement" means any and all methods, means, agreements, circumstances, operations, or subterfuges under which a person undertakes for hire to conduct, direct, control, or otherwise perform the transportation of passengers by limousine upon the public highways of this state" So again it seems like the Ann Arbor " limitations on operating by trolling for fares." violates the state law.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
Oops wrong article lol
diagbum
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.
Go back and read the taxi board meeting minutes... Mark Nuemann was one of the biggest advocates for solving "the limo's are a big problem..." is this Sienfeld or something?
Real Life
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
Why do we need both state and city agencies regulating the same thing in different ways? We have money for this?
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:11 a.m.
They're only the same thing if you buy that cans and limos are the same. They aren't.
Mike
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:17 p.m.
That's a silly question. Everything is regulated and over-regulated. We cannot function as a society on our own anymore without some governmental agency sticking their nose into our business and assessing a fee to do so.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
I will add that if the Ann Arbor ordinance violates state law as it seems, then enforcement needs to stop immediately. Any tickets written need to be voided and fines reimbursed, if it violates state law.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
Why stop them? I want to sue them and make a bunchOmoney j/k But you are right craig
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.
The link to the PDF of the law says..... "A limo carrier of passengers shall not operate a limousine for the transportation of persons for hire on a public highway in this state except in accordance with this act. A limo carrier of passengers that operates class B limousines for the purpose of picking up passengers within a city with a population of 750,000 or more shall also comply with the vehicle for hire ordinance of that city with respect to those limousines. ' I'm no lawyer but it seems to suggest that a class B limo driver in a city less than 750,000 only has to comply with state law. We actually pay a city attorney what is his stance?
moodyone
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7:05 a.m.
@Ryan, to be clear, what you quoted is correct, but the fact that the MLTA doesn't require compliance with local ordinances does not mean that it exempts limo carriers from compliance, just that violating the local ordinance doesn't constitute a violation of the MLTA. In other words, it does not support the limo association's argument at all.
moodyone
Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 7 a.m.
@Ryan, what are you talking about? Did you read the document you linked? This is not the law, but a proposed amendment to the MLTA which would, if it had passed, which it didn't, have accomplished what the pro-limo camp wants. Look at their supporting argument: "The Limousine Transportation Act does not expressly authorize a city with a population of 750,000 or more to enact a vehicle-for-hire ordinance. Instead, the Act states, "A limo carrier of passengers that operates class B limousines in a city with a population of 750,000 or more shall also comply with the vehicle for hire ordinance of that city..." (emphasis added). Since Detroit no longer meets that population threshold, limo carriers are not required by State law to comply with the city's ordinance, but that does not necessarily make the ordinance unenforceable by the city." The proposed amendment would have actually prohibited cities from regulating limos, but part of the reasoning for doing so was that it isn't currently prohibited.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 11:07 a.m.
Like it or lump it
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:47 a.m.
How does "what I give" force your answers to be nonsensical and poorly reasoned?
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 8:41 a.m.
I guess you get what you give haha
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 6:11 a.m.
@Joslyn, balderdash is what I've come to expect from your comments.
Joslyn at the U
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 5:21 a.m.
Ok that was harsh how bout if I say balderdash
moodyone
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 4:18 a.m.
A lot of people are making this mistake--see my longer comment below, but here's a short answer. First of all, the law doesn't work by implications--such a law would be void for vagueness. Also, the MLTA further reads, " A county, city, village, or township that has adopted a local ordinance to regulate limousines or a limo carrier of passengers within its corporate limits may perform the safety inspection required by section 19 upon request of a limo carrier of passengers." Thus, it is clear that, when the Act was written, it was envisioned that small municipalities including villages and townships can pass their own limo laws.
Elliott Snow
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
And the State law clearly states, about how limo-licensed vehicles may solicit for business, that "(k) "Through any device or arrangement" means any and all methods, means, agreements, circumstances, operations, or subterfuges under which a person undertakes for hire to conduct, direct, control, or otherwise perform the transportation of passengers by limousine upon the public highways of this state." This seems to say that it is even OK for a limo driver to put a Toplight on his vehicle if that's the "device" he chooses to use to get customers. It clearly says nothing at all about State limo-licensed vehicles being required to do only pre-arranged trips. For that matter, what is "pre-arrangement"? If I am parked, and a person walks up to me and asks, "Are you open?", and I say "yes",and they tell me where they want to go, and I tell them it will cost $XX.00 and they then decide to get in and have me take them to their destination, is that not a "pre-arranged" trip?
Joslyn at the U
Sat, Mar 2, 2013 : 7:39 a.m.
That is right on the money Elliot!
Elliott Snow
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.
Whether they are 'acting as a taxi, or acting as a limo', is actually defined by whether they run a meter to determine how much the trip will cost. If they don't run a meter, they are not 'acting like a taxi.'
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 10:26 p.m.
Except here is the catch, they were NOT acting as a limo when they were operating as a TAXI. It would be like saying the limo does not have to follow a noise ordinance. The noise ordinance has NOTHING to do with their operation as a limo. Once they became a limo, they MUST stop being a taxi
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 9:35 p.m.
JBK a class action lawsuit is actually being discussed
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
The law was written when Detroit was larger than it is today.
TB
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
Umm.... there are no cities in Michigan with a population over 750,000. Detroit has 713,777 as of the last census.
JBK
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.
Does ANYBODY in this CITY do their due dillegence BEFORE running off and doing the politically correct thing to do? The City Attorney should be fired. And I hope that those drivers who were illegally ticketed form a class action suit and take A2 to court for damages that include loss of wages, harrassment, emotional distress, etc... Lets start at 5 million and go up. What a joke and an UTTER waste of time this whole thing has been. SHAME on A2 and especially on the City Attorney. YOU are a joke! Only in Utopia (sadly).
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Thanks. I'm awaiting a response from the city attorney's office on this. We'll see what they say.
Joslyn at the U
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:50 p.m.
Ditto to what diagbum said ryan. Good show
diagbum
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
Thank you Ryan J. Stanton! For actually having the nuts to print that! Now can we put this one to bed folks?
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:01 p.m.
Yes, the state law seems to read as the limo association president describes it. I also found a Senate Fiscal Agency analysis that flat-out states "the Limousine Transportation Act requires limo carriers to comply with local ordinances only in a city with a population of 750,000 or more," just as the limo association president describes it. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/senate/htm/2011-SFA-0561-B.htm