Meter's ticking on gypsy cabs

[admin]

Great pictures on this link

www.app.com/article/20081114/NEWS01/811140393

FREEHOLD — Ask Borough Councilman George Schnurr about taxi drivers in town, and one image comes to mind: A woman on a cellular phone, chatting as she commits one traffic violation after another, putting herself and others at risk as she speeds her way through town.

Schnurr says he personally witnessed this driver. But she is not an isolated example, based on the complaints Schnurr says he hears from residents.

"These types of things are happening all the time," Schnurr said.

Some of his fellow council members agree that something has to be done about the rogue taxi drivers in town who are ruining the reputation of the group. These are the drivers who honk their horns loudly when they pick up customers, the ones who speed or carelessly run stop signs. The ones who overcharge customers or who don't even bother to apply for taxi licenses, preferring to operate instead as so-called gypsy cabs.

"It is . . . not fair to our residents to have to endure taxi cab drivers and their owners who continually don't obey motor vehicle laws," Schnurr wrote in a recent e-mail.

But where other council members prefer to resolve the problems internally, Schnurr and another councilman, Marc LeVine, have chosen to take their fight public.

Since this summer, LeVine and Schnurr have voted against taxi drivers' license that have come before the Borough Council for approval. Because they are outvoted by the rest of the council, the move is largely symbolic, but still important, they say.

"It's sending the message: Clean up your act," LeVine said.

Problems with some taxidrivers definitely exist in the borough, Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer said. But while she says she respects LeVine and Schnurr's efforts, Shutzer questioned whether it was fair to penalize all license hopefuls because of a few bad apples.

"I can't in good faith vote against driver applicants," Shutzer said.

Owners of several taxi companies that operate in the borough declined to comment on the councilmen's stand, some saying they did not want to make waves; others that they had not heard of any complaints against drivers or owners.

Chris Kontzialis, owner of Chris's Taxi in Freehold, would only say that he supported any extra vetting that put betterdrivers on the road.

"It's better because this way, owners are getting to have a better quality of drivers," Kontzialis said.

The borough issued 61 taxi drivers' licenses this year and approved the maximum number of owners' licenses — 30 — allowed in town, according to the borough clerk's assistant, Tony Jones. Each owners' license represents a vehicle that can be used as a taxi.

There are 11 taxi companies operating in Freehold, Jones said.

Drivers already must undergo a background check, submit a doctor's physical report, provide references and pay a $100 fee, according to the license application.

One of the options on the table is to beef up the application process even further. Stepped-up police enforcement, improved communications with taxi cab owners, an ongoing review of taxi operations by police and borough officials and license revocation for chronic offenders are also suggestions, LeVine said.

Other possible solutions include cutting the number of companies that do business in the borough or limiting the number of drivers, Schnurr said.

"As far as the taxis are concerned — everything should be on the table," Schnurr said.

Borough officials are reviewing their options, said Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina. He declined to describe them while the matter is still being debated.

Calls to the borough police chief, Mitch Roth, were not returned. But Councilman Kevin Kane, who serves as a police commissioner, said he has met with police officials on the issue. The difficulty, he says, is balancing the concerns of residents bothered by the taxis with the needs of residents who depend on taxis for transportation.

"We're just trying to do what's best for everybody," Kane said.







Kim Predham: [phone] or [e-mail]

[novillero]

Nov 14, 2008 11:29:51 GMT -5 admin said:

Great pictures on this link

www.app.com/article/20081114/NEWS01/811140393

FREEHOLD — Ask Borough Councilman George Schnurr about taxi drivers in town, and one image comes to mind: A woman on a cellular phone, chatting as she commits one traffic violation after another, putting herself and others at risk as she speeds her way through town.

Schnurr says he personally witnessed this driver. But she is not an isolated example, based on the complaints Schnurr says he hears from residents.

"These types of things are happening all the time," Schnurr said.

Some of his fellow council members agree that something has to be done about the rogue taxi drivers in town who are ruining the reputation of the group. These are the drivers who honk their horns loudly when they pick up customers, the ones who speed or carelessly run stop signs. The ones who overcharge customers or who don't even bother to apply for taxi licenses, preferring to operate instead as so-called gypsy cabs.

"It is . . . not fair to our residents to have to endure taxi cab drivers and their owners who continually don't obey motor vehicle laws," Schnurr wrote in a recent e-mail.

But where other council members prefer to resolve the problems internally, Schnurr and another councilman, Marc LeVine, have chosen to take their fight public.

Since this summer, LeVine and Schnurr have voted against taxi drivers' license that have come before the Borough Council for approval. Because they are outvoted by the rest of the council, the move is largely symbolic, but still important, they say.

"It's sending the message: Clean up your act," LeVine said.

Problems with some taxidrivers definitely exist in the borough, Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer said. But while she says she respects LeVine and Schnurr's efforts, Shutzer questioned whether it was fair to penalize all license hopefuls because of a few bad apples.

"I can't in good faith vote against driver applicants," Shutzer said.

Owners of several taxi companies that operate in the borough declined to comment on the councilmen's stand, some saying they did not want to make waves; others that they had not heard of any complaints against drivers or owners.

Chris Kontzialis, owner of Chris's Taxi in Freehold, would only say that he supported any extra vetting that put betterdrivers on the road.

"It's better because this way, owners are getting to have a better quality of drivers," Kontzialis said.

The borough issued 61 taxi drivers' licenses this year and approved the maximum number of owners' licenses — 30 — allowed in town, according to the borough clerk's assistant, Tony Jones. Each owners' license represents a vehicle that can be used as a taxi.

There are 11 taxi companies operating in Freehold, Jones said.

Drivers already must undergo a background check, submit a doctor's physical report, provide references and pay a $100 fee, according to the license application.

One of the options on the table is to beef up the application process even further. Stepped-up police enforcement, improved communications with taxi cab owners, an ongoing review of taxi operations by police and borough officials and license revocation for chronic offenders are also suggestions, LeVine said.

Other possible solutions include cutting the number of companies that do business in the borough or limiting the number of drivers, Schnurr said.

"As far as the taxis are concerned — everything should be on the table," Schnurr said.

Borough officials are reviewing their options, said Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina. He declined to describe them while the matter is still being debated.

Calls to the borough police chief, Mitch Roth, were not returned. But Councilman Kevin Kane, who serves as a police commissioner, said he has met with police officials on the issue. The difficulty, he says, is balancing the concerns of residents bothered by the taxis with the needs of residents who depend on taxis for transportation.

"We're just trying to do what's best for everybody," Kane said.







Kim Predham: [phone] or [e-mail]

Am I reading this correctly? Schnurr and Levine are voting "naye" on applications of innocent taxi drivers to send a message to the bad apples of the taxi community?

[admin]

I believe that is the gist of it.

[novillero]

Nov 15, 2008 20:09:56 GMT -5 admin said:

I believe that is the gist of it.

nice guys. I hope no one tries to take away their livelihood because of someone else's bad deeds.

[admin]

Nov 15, 2008 20:20:00 GMT -5 novillero said:

Nov 15, 2008 20:09:56 GMT -5 admin said:

I believe that is the gist of it.

nice guys. I hope no one tries to take away their livelihood because of someone else's bad deeds.

You make a valid point and apparently that is how the rest of the council is viewing it. But lets face facts, the complaints about the taxis in town have been going on for years. I know the town has been trying to work with the taxis, but it is questionable if things have really improved. Just ask people who get awoken at 6AM from rude taxis honking their horns.

What other solutions are there at this point? Maybe a hardball approach is not such a bad idea to put some preasure on the entire taxi community to start policing itself. Le Vine and Shnurr are at least taking measures to put preasure on them and put them on notice. We can't pretend that the issues surrounding rude taxis don't exist.

[novillero]

Nov 16, 2008 11:16:31 GMT -5 admin said:

Nov 15, 2008 20:20:00 GMT -5 novillero said:

nice guys. I hope no one tries to take away their livelihood because of someone else's bad deeds.

You make a valid point and apparently that is how the rest of the council is viewing it. But lets face facts, the complaints about the taxis in town have been going on for years. I know the town has been trying to work with the taxis, but it is questionable if things have really improved. Just ask people who get awoken at 6AM from rude taxis honking their horns.

What other solutions are there at this point? Maybe a hardball approach is not such a bad idea to put some preasure on the entire taxi community to start policing itself. Le Vine and Shnurr are at least taking measures to put preasure on them and put them on notice. We can't pretend that the issues surrounding rude taxis don't exist.

I guess I'm old fashion; I disagree with punishing innocent people.

And Brian, horns are just a minor issue, reread the article:
Levine and Schnurr are trying to enforce motor vehicle laws by denying the application of innocent taxi drivers;
Levine and Schnurr are trying to stop gypsy cab drivers but denying licenses to legal operators.

Denying law abiding citizens the right to make an honest living just to make a point to others is nauseating and an abuse of power. But like I said, I'm just a regular old fashioned guy who believes in innocent until proven guilty and who believes in a citizen's right to make a living. It's not right to play games with a person's livelihood.

[admin]

Nov 16, 2008 13:43:43 GMT -5 novillero said:

Nov 16, 2008 11:16:31 GMT -5 admin said:

You make a valid point and apparently that is how the rest of the council is viewing it. But lets face facts, the complaints about the taxis in town have been going on for years. I know the town has been trying to work with the taxis, but it is questionable if things have really improved. Just ask people who get awoken at 6AM from rude taxis honking their horns.

What other solutions are there at this point? Maybe a hardball approach is not such a bad idea to put some pressure on the entire taxi community to start policing itself. Le Vine and Shnurr are at least taking measures to put pressure on them and put them on notice. We can't pretend that the issues surrounding rude taxis don't exist.

I guess I'm old fashion; I disagree with punishing innocent people.

And Brian, horns are just a minor issue, reread the article:
Levine and Schnurr are trying to enforce motor vehicle laws by denying the application of innocent taxi drivers;
Levine and Schnurr are trying to stop gypsy cab drivers but denying licenses to legal operators.

Denying law abiding citizens the right to make an honest living just to make a point to others is nauseating and an abuse of power. But like I said, I'm just a regular old fashioned guy who believes in innocent until proven guilty and who believes in a citizen's right to make a living. It's not right to play games with a person's livelihood.

I am not dismissing your point at all. What other solutions can be tried? This is a good place to put ideas, both councilmen read this site.

I was using the horns as an example. I know people who have dealt with it and although it may sound minor, it is a big time nuisance for them. they really wouldn't mind the peace and quiet at 6 PM. But, yes, there certainly are other issues.

[novillero]

Nov 16, 2008 18:34:16 GMT -5 admin said:

Nov 16, 2008 13:43:43 GMT -5 novillero said:

I guess I'm old fashion; I disagree with punishing innocent people.

And Brian, horns are just a minor issue, reread the article:
Levine and Schnurr are trying to enforce motor vehicle laws by denying the application of innocent taxi drivers;
Levine and Schnurr are trying to stop gypsy cab drivers but denying licenses to legal operators.

Denying law abiding citizens the right to make an honest living just to make a point to others is nauseating and an abuse of power. But like I said, I'm just a regular old fashioned guy who believes in innocent until proven guilty and who believes in a citizen's right to make a living. It's not right to play games with a person's livelihood.

I am not dismissing your point at all. What other solutions can be tried? This is a good place to put ideas, both councilmen read this site.

I was using the horns as an example. I know people who have dealt with it and although it may sound minor, it is a big time nuisance for them. they really wouldn't mind the peace and quiet at 6 PM. But, yes, there certainly are other issues.

Brian, ask yourself if these crimes are so heinous that you would take away a person's living in order to make a point? Would you take food out of the mouth of an innocent cabbie's family simply because gypsy cabs exist in the world? Which innocent person shall you pull out of the line to execute in order to get the real criminal to confess? What powers are you willing to abuse in order to effectuate "change"?

If I was on council, I would use motor vehicle laws to enforce motor vehicle violations. If a taxi cab driver has a poor driving record, then the council may want to revoke or fail to renew the license of the scofflaw.

If there are gypsy cab operators, I would again ask our fine police force to find them. I would not punish lawful cabbies.

If someone honks their horns, since it would be hard for someone looking out their window at 4:00 a.m. to identify the driver, I would hold the cab company responsible unless they provide the identity of the driver.

Yes, there are a limited number of things that can be done before you trample over people's rights in order to weed out the real culprits. Our justice system is based on innocense until proven guilty, because we would rather have a guilty person go free than to punish innocent people. Levine and Schnurr's "naye" votes are going to affect not only the innocent taxi driver, but their families (in these hard economic times). Is this what you as a resident of Freehold Borough want them to do? (Why doesn't all council have e-mails for residents to let them know how they feel on issues?)

But you asked for my solution, why not hold all Schnurr and Levine personally responsible? Sure they may be innocent of these heinous honking crimes, but so are the other people they want to punish. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Nov 17, 2008 9:15:23 GMT -5 novillero said:

Nov 16, 2008 18:34:16 GMT -5 admin said:

I am not dismissing your point at all. What other solutions can be tried? This is a good place to put ideas, both councilmen read this site.

I was using the horns as an example. I know people who have dealt with it and although it may sound minor, it is a big time nuisance for them. they really wouldn't mind the peace and quiet at 6 PM. But, yes, there certainly are other issues.

Brian, ask yourself if these crimes are so heinous that you would take away a person's living in order to make a point? Would you take food out of the mouth of an innocent cabbie's family simply because gypsy cabs exist in the world? Which innocent person shall you pull out of the line to execute in order to get the real criminal to confess? What powers are you willing to abuse in order to effectuate "change"?

If I was on council, I would use motor vehicle laws to enforce motor vehicle violations. If a taxi cab driver has a poor driving record, then the council may want to revoke or fail to renew the license of the scofflaw.

If there are gypsy cab operators, I would again ask our fine police force to find them. I would not punish lawful cabbing.

If someone honks their horns, since it would be hard for someone looking out their window at 4:00 a.m. to identify the driver, I would hold the cab company responsible unless they provide the identity of the driver.

Yes, there are a limited number of things that can be done before you trample over people's rights in order to weed out the real culprits. Our justice system is based on innocense until proven guilty, because we would rather have a guilty person go free than to punish innocent people. Levine and Schnurr's "naye" votes are going to affect not only the innocent taxi driver, but their families (in these hard economic times). Is this what you as a resident of Freehold Borough want them to do? (Why doesn't all council have e-mails for residents to let them know how they feel on issues?)

But you asked for my solution, why not hold all Schnurr and Levine personally responsible? Sure they may be innocent of these heinous honking crimes, but so are the other people they want to punish. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I'd like to see councilmen becoming outspoken about the fact that we are now number three in violent crime in the county, and that they want a drug and gang task force back here to in FORCE to clean up our streets! This is a real danger to our community.

The TWO minority council 'NO" votes are nothing more than show of elevated awareness of a problem with no theeth behind it. The council, as a body... WILL NEVER have a majority vote disallowing an applicant their Taxi license ... if they did, would be exposing themselves and the borough to a law suite from the applicant and the taxi company for an unreasonable denial and god forbid a civil rights violation too.

If the applicant has a clean background, and the Licenses available, punish him, deny him the ability to service the community, and help put another drive another gypsy cab on to the street.

If there was a "Gypsy" Restaurant opened, would you prevent other restaurant from opening? If there was a situation were illegal rentals were pervasive, would you block the issuance of new rental CO's ?


There are two issues being addressed...one being a lack of control over the fares being charged by the ligament Taxis. The Boro can offer two solution...require the implementation of Taxi Meters (this is expensive and would need too much oversight), or a system of "Fare Zones". Let the free markets decide what the cost to the consumer is, but the cab company must provide the Borough with their Fare structure, as well, the fare structure must be posted clearly in each Taxi.

If a specific driver is guilty of gauging, they lose their hack license for two months on the second offense, and on the third offense they lose it for good! Further violations from multiple drivers at the same company, the company will be levied significant fines as well, possibly loose their ability to operate in the Borough.

The second problem...., the Gypsy cabs, and this is difficult to manage if the community they service continues to use them. This is difficult to prove as well, if an officer stops an operator, and all of his passengers claim to be "His Friends and Family" ... making the offense difficult to prosecute.

There are a number of other problems that are not being talked about, like Taxis used as a delivery service for contraband.

Less broadcasting and implementation of real solutions with measurable results would be nicer.

If we have 11 Taxi companies operating in the Borough. and each has 5 active vehicles ..averaging 2 rides an hour....that's a lot of cash and movement happening in a 1.9 square mile doughnut hole folks.

Is this a unique problem in FB? Something tells me no....so should there be a County Taxi Commission with oversight?

[botaniseur]

I have to agree with fiber on this one. The reaction of these two councilman is extremely childish to me in response to this issue. It is my understanding that the PD has been instructed to lay-off enforcement of these gypsy cabs due to a threatened lawsuit by a special group, not sure how valid, but if it is this council needs to be on the same page.This council needs to address the real crime in this town, stop this ridiculous foot patrol to appease these out of town business owners at the sacrifice of residents security. Think of what the cost is to tax payers..1 officer X 16 hours per day X 7 days a week.Seems that money could be better spent somewhere else ..

[adefonzo]

All my own opinion, but...

The continued votes of Councilmen Levine and Schnurr are ridiculous. As others have already mentioned, their "reactions" are focused on the wrong people. It is nothing more than a weak symbolic gesture to try and show that they are "cracking down on the lawbreakers".

Admittedly, I have never taken a cab here in town. In fact, the couple of times when I needed one (after sleeping past my bus stop on the way home from the city) I have either gotten no answer when calling their dispatchers, or waited so long that I wound up simply walking home.

My experience with taxis is limited to taxi's that I take on occasion in New York City, or when traveling in other towns and cities. Now, I realize that Freehold doesn't have the resources to regulate taxi's the way the city does, but there are a couple of items that should seem simple enough that they can be part of licensing requirements for the drivers and the companies they work for. These couple of ideas only deal with part of the taxi problem, but it is certainly a first step.

First (as Fiber mentioned), rates should be posted in some form or another in the car. Furthermore, when someone calls for a taxi (again, this is based on experiences in other areas, not Freehold), more often than not, the dispatcher will ask where you need to be picked up, and where you are going...the dispatcher should then be able to tell the potential customer what the rate will be. There should never be a case where a person doesn't know the rate until they have reached the destination.

Next, does the Boro require that the driver's taxi license along with a photo id (if their taxi license doesn't already have a photo) be posted in the car for the passengers to see? This is something that every cab in the city requires, and it is a tremendous tool. First of all, it enables the passenger to be sure that the person driving them is indeed the person with the proper license, and if there is a problem, it makes it very easy for the passenger to report the driver and their license number to the taxi company, the police, or even Boro Hall if necessary.

The sad fact of the matter is that a good deal of responsibility falls onto the passenger. If we just get in the car, don't pay attention, and then complain that we were somehow cheated later, I feel that some of the blame falls squarely on you the passenger. It's just a microcosm of my philosophy on life in general...pay attention to what's going on!!! Don't complain later when you were somehow cheated if you sat back and did nothing to prevent it while it was happening.

Anyway...as for the moving violations...I am not sure of the legality of this, but if I were able, my first move as Councilman, rather than deny licenses to people who are innocent until proven guilty, would be to double or even triple moving violation fines for taxi drivers. And on top of that, I would fine both the driver and the company they work for. Perhaps even automatic revocation of their license if they are caught for certain offenses.

As for enforcement...I am sure the police in town are increasing occupied with the growing number of violent crimes in town, but there are certain "hot spots" where patrol cars can sit and monitor stop signs, speedways, or other traffic violations that are likely to occur.

The reality is that until you hit people in the pocketbook they often shrug off any symbolic gestures made by those in power. Honestly, the cabbie who's speeding through town, blowing stop signs...what does he care if the town doesn't issue any more taxi licenses? In fact, he's happy if they don't issue more licenses...it means less competition and more money for him!!!

We need people who are willing to go beyond symbolic gestures and actually do something that has some teeth to it...something that actually might deter illegal behavior...imagine what we could do with this great town if we had people like this in charge??!!!

[ka19]

I've also seen taxis running stop signs and such.

It would be best if they stayed out of town due to a lack of customers.

[novillero]

Nov 18, 2008 17:27:27 GMT -5 ka19 said:

I've also seen taxis running stop signs and such.

It would be best if they stayed out of town due to a lack of customers.

ka19, good to see you back. Congratulations on your new addition. Hope all is well with you and your family.

I saw a van ride around a school buses - the stop sign was not completely starting to open, but it was obvious that it was making a scheduled stop. (p.s. he got caught)

I was doing some research on this issue and found some articles online. These items are just what can be gleened from articles, there is most likely more to the story. Make your own conclusions.

Here is a summary of the taxicab problem. Once done, you need to re-read the original article above to put it all into further perspective.

December 1999 - at this time, there were only 10 licenses issued. It became news when Ron Reich pushed the issue on behalf of a spanish speaking taxi cab driver who was getting ticketed as a gypsy cab (he apparently was awarded numerous tickets but that did not deter him). He couldn't get a license because none were available - he did have one for the township. Reich argued that more licenses would be a benefit for the hispanic community.

December 2000 - the licenses numbered 12.

September 2001, the limit on licenses ws lifted.

November 2001, a proposed ordinance was reported on implementing medallions for licensed cabs. The article noted that there were many unlicensed cabs in town.

August 2002 - a taxi cab owner noted that there were a lot of unlicensed taxis in the borough. The article noted: Borough officials have now implemented the mandatory use of a medallion for all taxi owners. Upon registering their vehicle or vehicles, owners will receive a medallion that must be affixed to the cab. Drivers operating vehicles without a medallion affixed to the driver’s side door will be cited for violation of the statute.


2002 - a news report from December 2002 stated that additional taxi cab licenses were being awarded from the beginning of the year. The number almost quadrupled. In December 2002, there were 12 cab companies with 41 licenses and 77 drivers. The owners told council too many licenses were issued. Joseph Bellina stated at a council meeting that the taxis were a "menace." As to rates, as this was discussed on this thread: According to Higgins, municipal officials can only set rates within the confines of the borough itself.

Jan 2003 - council placed a moratorium on new licenses.

Feb 2003 - new story 2 illegals using fake id, also driving cabs without license in town. "The captain said this is not the first incident in which a taxi driver has been operating a cab on borough streets using false identification."

March 2003 - Borough "officials" complained of taxis citing reckless driving and hornblowing.

October 2003 - a new ordinance is being discussed - proposed were 35 licenses and an increase in the owner's license fee from $50 to $500 - the driver's license fee from $25 to $100. reported that no new licenses were issued since January 2003.

December 2003. Ordinance effective Jan. 2004. 30 licenses to be issued. Proposed ordinace that drivers be 18 and that they can read, write and speak english. After applications were filed with the clerk, then a police investigation would issue on the driver - including fingerprinting.

Note that the federal lawsuit was filed in Dec 2003.

March 2004. requirement to read and write english is striken, and child seat requirements are mandated.

January 2007 - taxi driver reports to council workshop that many taxis are driving in the borough without licenses. He is told to obtain license plates and report it to the police. Higgins states that licenses are issued on a first come, first serve basis.

IN ADDITION, I note that I see permanent licenses were given out. I am not sure of the distinction. Or why they are necessary. Several have been given out over the past 2 years.

[admin]

Novillero,

That is some excellent research and a good reminder of the history. It is clear that the problems with the cabs is a long standing one and something must be done.

[adefonzo]

Nov 19, 2008 17:08:30 GMT -5 admin said:

Novillero,

That is some excellent research and a good reminder of the history. It is clear that the problems with the cabs is a long standing one and something must be done.

.....something beyond voting to deny new licenses....hopefully something that will actually deal with the people who have licenses now and are violating the laws....

I'm predicting maybe some minor ordinance by next summer...but I am not holding my breath...

Please....prove me wrong.

[admin]

Nov 19, 2008 12:21:23 GMT -5 novillero said:

Nov 18, 2008 17:27:27 GMT -5 ka19 said:

I've also seen taxis running stop signs and such.

It would be best if they stayed out of town due to a lack of customers.

ka19, good to see you back. Congratulations on your new addition. Hope all is well with you and your family.

I saw a van ride around a school buses - the stop sign was not completely starting to open, but it was obvious that it was making a scheduled stop. (p.s. he got caught)

I was doing some research on this issue and found some articles online. These items are just what can be gleened from articles, there is most likely more to the story. Make your own conclusions.

Here is a summary of the taxicab problem. Once done, you need to re-read the original article above to put it all into further perspective.

December 1999 - at this time, there were only 10 licenses issued. It became news when Ron Reich pushed the issue on behalf of a spanish speaking taxi cab driver who was getting ticketed as a gypsy cab (he apparently was awarded numerous tickets but that did not deter him). He couldn't get a license because none were available - he did have one for the township. Reich argued that more licenses would be a benefit for the hispanic community.

December 2000 - the licenses numbered 12.

September 2001, the limit on licenses ws lifted.

November 2001, a proposed ordinance was reported on implementing medallions for licensed cabs. The article noted that there were many unlicensed cabs in town.

August 2002 - a taxi cab owner noted that there were a lot of unlicensed taxis in the borough. The article noted: Borough officials have now implemented the mandatory use of a medallion for all taxi owners. Upon registering their vehicle or vehicles, owners will receive a medallion that must be affixed to the cab. Drivers operating vehicles without a medallion affixed to the driver’s side door will be cited for violation of the statute.


2002 - a news report from December 2002 stated that additional taxi cab licenses were being awarded from the beginning of the year. The number almost quadrupled. In December 2002, there were 12 cab companies with 41 licenses and 77 drivers. The owners told council too many licenses were issued. Joseph Bellina stated at a council meeting that the taxis were a "menace." As to rates, as this was discussed on this thread: According to Higgins, municipal officials can only set rates within the confines of the borough itself.

Jan 2003 - council placed a moratorium on new licenses.

Feb 2003 - new story 2 illegals using fake id, also driving cabs without license in town. "The captain said this is not the first incident in which a taxi driver has been operating a cab on borough streets using false identification."

March 2003 - Borough "officials" complained of taxis citing reckless driving and hornblowing.

October 2003 - a new ordinance is being discussed - proposed were 35 licenses and an increase in the owner's license fee from $50 to $500 - the driver's license fee from $25 to $100. reported that no new licenses were issued since January 2003.

December 2003. Ordinance effective Jan. 2004. 30 licenses to be issued. Proposed ordinace that drivers be 18 and that they can read, write and speak english. After applications were filed with the clerk, then a police investigation would issue on the driver - including fingerprinting.

Note that the federal lawsuit was filed in Dec 2003.

March 2004. requirement to read and write english is striken, and child seat requirements are mandated.

January 2007 - taxi driver reports to council workshop that many taxis are driving in the borough without licenses. He is told to obtain license plates and report it to the police. Higgins states that licenses are issued on a first come, first serve basis.

IN ADDITION, I note that I see permanent licenses were given out. I am not sure of the distinction. Or why they are necessary. Several have been given out over the past 2 years.

I came back this thread because of the history that Novillero provided. That should help in keeping perspectives. It is clear that the council is serious about cleaning up problems with taxi cabs.


www.app.com/article/20090108/NEWS01/901080453/1285/LOCAL09

FREEEHOLD — Changes to the borough's taxi license regulations are on the way, Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins said.

Concerns have been raised recently about rogue taxi drivers and owners, perhaps most vocally by Borough Councilmen Marc LeVine and George Schnurr. The complaints include drivers who speed, overcharge customers, drive without a taxi license or cause a public nuisance in the streets of Freehold.

In response, borough officials have been reviewing taxi license procedures, including the number given and the method for issuing licenses, Higgins said. New regulations addressing the concerns will be introduced soon, likely this month or in February, she said.

As officials work to resolve the issues with taxi service and licensing procedures, council members have extended last year's taxi owner licenses for three months.

Each owner's license represent a vehicle that can be used as a taxi.

Existing taxi owner licenses will remain in effect until March 31, according to a resolution passed Dec. 30. Owners' licenses generally expire at the end of each year and must then be renewed.

The borough clerk has also been instructed not to issue any new licenses until new procedures and regulations are implemented, according to the resolution.

Also at the Dec. 30 meeting, LeVine and Schnurr joined their fellow council members in approving several temporary and permanent taxi drivers licenses, a surprising reversal for the two men.

LeVine and Schnurr have been voting against taxi driver's licenses since this summer, a largely symbolic stand, because they were routinely outvoted.

"We're making progress," LeVine said.

[novillero]

It ain't over - not exactly detailed reporting, but here is my reading:
- increased fees for taxi owners;
- increased fees for taxi drivers;
- a safe driving test.

Only one of these items (reported, there may be other items in the proposed bill) addresses the alleged safety concerns. The rest sticks it to taxis, who will inevitably stick it to their customers.

Changes may be coming to Freehold taxi ordinance
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
May 27, 2009

FREEHOLD — Changes appear to be on the way for Freehold Borough taxi owners and taxi drivers.

Municipal officials are in the process of crafting amendments to the existing ordinance that governs taxis in the borough.

An ordinance amending the business licenses and regulations for taxi cabs, although listed on the Borough Council's workshop meeting agenda on May 18, ended up being held.

Officials are considering making some last minute changes to the ordinance, according to Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina.

Bellina said he, along with Police Chief Mitch Roth and Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins have been meeting with taxi owners and have also listened to residents who have presented complaints about alleged unsafe driving by taxi drivers.

The residents' complaints concern taxi drivers who are speeding through town and disregarding stop signs. In addition, residents have complained about what they said is price gouging by some taxi drivers.

"We are in the final stages of making some revisions to the taxi cab ordinance that will take into consideration all those concerns," Bellina told the News Transcript.

In addition to raising rates and license fees, officials will also address a series of regulatory requirements that safeguard those who use the taxi services and at the same time impose additional requirements for taxi drivers and owners, he added.

Currently, according to the ordinance, a taxi owner's license costs $500 per year. A taxi driver's license costs $100 per year. Both fees are expected to rise.

Also being considered is the requirement of the "successful passage of a safe driving test for each and every taxi cab driver," Bellina said.


newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0527/front_page/016.html