Give us a break already!

We’ve looked again at the proposals offered up by the iTaxiworkers Association on how to Ð Once again! Ð reform the taxi industry.

We do see serious problems with some of them, possible usefulness with others, and we do realize they are little more than a wish list from a group that represents only a very tiny fraction of the entire taxi driver pool.

iTaxiworkers may grow and become a true representative voice in the future. But with an admitted membership of about 500 out of 10,500 licensed cab drivers, it can hardly be accepted now as that representative voice.

That said, for pity’s sake, let’s leave well enough alone for a while, shall we?

This taxi business has been the playground for politicians and special interest groups of all stripes for far too long. The result, to date, is that all the best intentions in the world have led to nothing but disaster for all.

Rigorous and honest economic impact studies of any and all proposals must become a standard before any more changes to the industry are made.

The industry is down in the dumpster, few are making a decent living as it is, there are still huge unresolved questions hanging over everyone’s heads and the very last thing anyone needs at this stage is more uncertainty.

What unresolved questions?

How about the Human Rights case of Asafo Addai that has the potential to change everything, or nothing, depending on the outcome.

There is the question of how “just cause” is going to be defined as it relates to termination of taxicab leases. Innocent question: will this new bylaw actually spell the end of taxi leasing, with the industry going back to a daily cash-in system?

Some have been around long enough to know leasing actually has proved to be (and this is a partial list) : A) far less expensive for drivers; B) gives drivers far more freedom of action in their working hours; C) allows better cars to be put on the road on an overall basis (we remember the junker fleet cars of 20 years ago, resulting from some drivers having absolutely no stake in the maintenance and quality of the cars they drove, plus owners trying to scrounge every penny from their plates in textbook false economies); D) long term leasing allows drivers to buy cars they can afford and not be forced to pay cost plus a premium when the owners buy the car; and E) drivers are forced to realize that bad driving carries a penalty in terms of higher insurance costs as well as unhappy customers (bad cab drivers and junk cars equal business going to the competition Ð like limousines, for instance).

We also recall that it was drivers who wanted longer term leases, not necessarily the owners, although the owners did benefit. But make no mistake, it was DRIVERS who pushed for the current system. It made financial sense for them at the time, and still does.

High on the agenda of the next City Executive Committee (we’re told) will be a decision on whether or not it will keep a 10-year old promise and do an independent review of the effects of the taxi reforms of 1999, including the Ambassador program. (Any bets there will be no money, as the City’s books will be in far worse shape than anyone has (or can) imagine?)

At this point all we can do is hope that someone at city hall has enough smarts to leave taxis well enough alone to allow everyone a little breathing space.

We can only hope that someone downtown has the brains to understand that taxis are a business Ð and that businesses cannot be run by political whim and ideology.