Friday, April 20, 2012

Saam Aryan Accuses SFMTA Of Violating State Laws.

(Note from the blog's administrator - this article is published in the interest of free speech.  The following views are those of its author, and not necessarily the views of the blog's publisher.)

By Saam Aryan. 

Proposition 26, approved by voters on 11/2/2010, requires local taxes to be approved by voters.  Before, local governments would put a misleading label “fees” to bypass that.  That loophole then got closed.  

Now a charge is Tax, if the charge specifically does not benefit those who pay the charge.

Millions that SFMTA got from us is equivalent to getting around 5 Billion dollars from those in San Francisco.  California Constitution Article XIII-C Section 2 says you need 2/3 of the voters to do that.

They get away with this, and other laws that they broke,  because nobody presses charges.  I brought that to the Supervisors that reelected Mr. Malcolm Heinicke.  They do not give a damn.  They just had our time wasted because they had already made their mind before they got into the Room 263, today 4/19/12.  If our comments were noteworthy to Supervisors, then they would consider its truthfulness and relevancy before approving Mr. Malcolm Heinicke unanimously. 

I gave Supervisors the segment below.  They said they would file it for me (or something like that).  They did not pay any attention to verify if it would disqualify his reelection or not.  That is why I am sure that Supervisors will not put our agenda on the ballot for the voters to vote and surely taxi industry will pay for its inaction.  


The positive side is that life will go on; with or without us.  Below is my last gift to those that would not read it/would  not care.

If I am correct, in deciding whether to reelect Mr. Malcolm Heinicke to MTA board, your decision is based on his qualification; not just on what the Mayer wants.  Please make sure thatMr. Malcolm Heinicke, a lawyer and taxi industry expert of MTA Board, knows these very simple basics.  Because, you do not want to appoint a Math teacher that does not know 1 + 1 = 2.

To form an educated decision, let us get confirmation about these facts and then learn about his stand and voting records.

Facts:
  • Mr. Malcolm Heinicke is a lawyer and taxi industry expert in the MTA board.
  • It has been his intention, since he was in Taxi Commission Board, to get taxicab medallions back and sell/rent them; and he still does.
  • He agreed to selling medallions for $250,000 to taxi drivers (those that did not have medallion).
  • He knows that taxi drivers are not unionized, and are self-employed independent contractors.
  • He knows that taxi drivers do not receive benefits (such as sick leave, retirement, paid vacation, etc.) from the City.
  • He knows that only around 1,530 of the entire taxi drivers (around 7,000 of them) have taxicab medallion (medallion holders).
  • He knows that medallion holders make close to $1,800/month, gross, more than the other taxicab drivers do.
  • He knows that City issues permits to taxi industry, and so many other businesses in San Francisco.  He also knows that every business is under, at least, one Governmental regulatory body.
  • He knows that he himself, as a lawyer, is under, at least, one Governmental regulatory body.
  • As a lawyer, he knows that United States Constitution and California Constitution apply to all of those working in City of San Francisco.
  • He knows that when MTA sets a rule/requirement MTA should be followed for as long as it is not changed.  MTA Res. 09-077.
  • He knows that when MTA sets a rule/requirement it cannot Willy-nilly break it.  It must follow the proper procedure; have hearing, voting, etc.
  • He knows that majority of cab drivers are immigrants with English language barrier.
  • He knows that most immigrant cab drivers have not had a Democratic government.  Thus, at the minimum, they fear persecution for opposing Government.  Many of them, when in their country of origin, feared disappearance for descent.
  • He knows that people are not guilty unless they are proven guilty.
  • He knows that government cannot punish the entire neighborhood for one criminal being among them.  Group punishment is not allowed.
  • He knows that MUNI drivers, on average, make more money than cab drivers do (counting the cost to government for providing them with benefits such as, retirement, vacation, medical, sick leave, etc.)
  • He knows that there are people making over a million dollar/year from their profession, such as being a lawyer, software developer, real estate broker, etc.  Further, he knows that cannot be said about cab drivers.
  • He knows that Taxi Division of MTA operates under MTA’s supervision.  For example, MTA board can decide to demote Ms. Hayashi for Directorship to Deputy Directorship.  Ms. Hayashi cannot vote to demote an MTA board member.  This means Taxi Division cannot execute rules/regulations without MTA board voting for it.
  • For the first time ever in San Francisco, around 600 cab drivers circled the City Hall and honked in protest; protesting MTA’s policies.
  • According to MTA TAXI DIVISION, increasing number of cab drivers have been caught driving town cars as illegal taxis.


Questions for Mr. Malcolm Heinicke:

Facts above resulted in cab drivers, fearing Government, showed their frustration from MTA board decision by circling the City Hall in mass; when MTA board did not responded to their demand, having family to feed, they started driving town cars as illegal cabs.  Is there any truth to that?

Given you wanted cab drivers buy medallions and then pay for it; how would they pay off these $250,000 loan (with interest), if they give their medallion to a qualified cab company and then drive as gas-and-gate?  

Isn’t it true that not wanting cab drivers to run their small business (buy their cab, get their insurance, hire drivers, etc) is being anti-competition and anti-small business?

What is the justification for getting $250,000 from cab drivers, to allow them to operate a taxi cab medallion permit (this is not counting thousands of dollars that they have to pay every year for other fees; as a consequence), while those making over a Million/year pay only a small fraction of it for operating their permit?  By the way, there are over 200,000, in America that make over one Million Dollars/year.

Mr. Malcolm Heinicke’s stand/voting record:

Mr. Malcolm Heinicke agreed to MTA selling around 200 medallions; and collecting around $30 Millions from taxi industry.  My comment: This is equivalent to collecting 5 Billion dollars from San Francisco population.  According to Article XIII-C, Section 2 of California Constitution, 2/3 of the voters must agree to that before it being implemented.

Mr. Malcolm Heinicke agreed to MTA GPS monitoring of cab drivers; which are self-employed independent contractors.  My comment: In the name of collecting data and improving service, no other governmental regulatory body has done that to the businesses they regulate.  Fourth Amendment of United States Constitution has given us protection against government abuses.

Mr. Malcolm Heinicke wants cab drivers work as gas-and-gate; no more running their own business as a small business owner.  My comment: This is anti-completion, and anti business and not good for the consumers.  Anti-monopoly, anti-trust laws were implemented to protect small business and prevent monopoly for the good of consumers.  This Mr.Malcolm Heinicke knows; yet he ignored it.


Questions for Supervisors:

Given that in the past, Government showed green light to abuse.  As a result, hair and skin was taken from men, women, and children of American Indian descent to profit.  Should authorities draw a line and prevent abuse of power?

Should Board of Supervisors prevent an unqualified person from reelection?  Mr. Malcolm Heinicke is a lawyer and taxi industry expert in MTA board.  There is no justification for repeated abuse of power.

Saam Aryan, 415-626-TAXI (8294)

7 comments:

  1. How'dy yealll.
    I was just wondering if anybody had any advice, I got a ticket about 3 weeks ago, I was turning left off of 5th st on to folsom there was a car infront of me and I turned left before he did, anyway there was a cop behind me and came after me and gave me a ticket he said it was an unsafe turning movement, even though i tought it was swift and clean, I got the tioket on the 3rd of April and when I signed the ticket I noticed he only gave me 5 days to take care of it, he put down the 8th of April, he actually got the month wrong, Would'nt that be proof that his perception and perhaps his eyesight was of that day. I have protested this ticket and was wondering would that be grounds for a judge to chuck out this ticket out. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you schedule a court date, if the cop who issued the ticket doesn't show up, it's automatically dismissed. But you probably know that.

      I would think a cop can't just make up for himself how long you have to take care of a ticket... like 5 days. Cops must enforce laws, and there's got to be laws specifically stating how long you have.. like 21 days or so... and a cop shouldn't be able to overrule it. Look on the back of the ticket and see if it says otherwise.

      If that's the case, the fact alone that he might have improperly issued the ticket could possibly get it dismissed. It looks like you're already looking in to that, and you should.

      Also, look on the ticket and see which specific traffic code he's accusing you of violating. Knowing the specific language of the traffic code could help you formulate an argument.

      Delete
    2. Hi John and Chris and thanks for your responses.
      When I got the ticket the date of the violation was 4/3/2112. When I signed the ticket at the bottom where it says I swear to take care of this by this date the cop made a mistake and put 4/8/2112 instead of 5/8/2112, a simple mistake but none the less a mistake. That is 5 days from the date of violation. I am aware that you get 21 days are so to take care of a ticket and I did get a courtesy notice in the mail, but being that this ticket is all about perception, his against mine I just thought I would bring this to the judges attention as proof that his sense of timing was way of that day. I plan on pleading not guilty on those grounds. I am eligable for traffic school and if the judge says guilty I shall beg the courts mercy and ask if i can still go to traffic school and reduce the fine. The violation was cvc 22107, unsafe turning movement. 234 dollors, and this poor soul just cant afford that! Latere

      Delete
    3. Best of luck to you. I hope you win.

      Delete
  2. Reply to Doug Barney,

    Hi Doug, I would talk to a lawyer. The UTW can help you find one. The problem with fighting a moving violation is that if you lose, it will probably go on your record. I am not sure you will find a judge who cares about the time problem, so you might lose that fight, and then have a point against you, which is evidently permanent. In general, I think it is wiser to suffer the abuse and go to traffic school, but if you can't, because you have gone too recently (within the last 18 months), then you should fight it, since in that case, you have nothing to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Response to Saam Aryan's article,

    Of course Mr. Aryan realizes that there was no genuine political process at the Rules Committee meeting. The Committee did not care that the cab drivers, who of professional SF drivers have known Malcolm Heinecke the longest and best, turned out in a vast majority AGAINST him. The decision was obviously made already, the meeting was a formality; the Rules committee was not going to let their victims' objections matter! We are dealing with genuine predators, and we should not be surprised that they behave like genuine predators.

    I was personally offended by Mr. Heinecke's statement that he is qualified to go on serving, because he has "known" a number of us for years, as he said, and named me among these persons. It cannot be said anyone "knows" someone who only speaks against them on one narrow topic for a maximum of four minutes a month, and with whom Heinecke has only personally spoken once while holding his hands in his armpits.

    All that matters is that the drivers registered their objection. This will matter in the long run, but only if we persist. What matters is the agreement of all reasonable drivers against Mr. Heinecke. (It was sad that one driver supported Heinecke because that driver says he's gay, and thinks he gets more "support" from Heinecke. The implication upon the rest of us - as a group no less! - is quite out of order, and the fact that this was one of the only things any driver said in "favor" of Heinecke suggests how desperate his support structure among drivers actually is. Once in a while Heinecke listens to a gay driver complain... that makes him qualified to run the MUNI? NO! So that driver did more good than harm for Heinecke's opposition.)

    Saam, the Rules Committee chairwoman said only that they would read your document. That is to say, they would read it LATER! If you had wanted those points to be made you would have had to say them all out loud! And you only had two minutes of course, and no point that takes longer than two minutes to be made can ever have even a theoretical effect at a public meeting. Personally I don't submit documents unless it is just extra, something informational. It is possible your document had an informational effect. But obviously we are all cynical about this.

    One indicator that the whole proceeding was politically superfluous is that the first and longest point Heinecke made, and which he developed for longer than any of us even had to speak, was that he deserves to be on the Board because he is a father of three, and because he takes his kids on picnics on the MUNI. This was completely absurd - it implies that any driver who could afford a family would be better qualified than Heinecke. (That Heinecke's policies prohibit drivers an income that makes a family likely would make his "qualification" a personal affront, if it were taken seriously. But nothing is taken seriously by the committee. They are only there to rubber-stamp the Mayor's wishes.) More absurdity: so, for example, since Board members do not have to annually swear with a fingerprint that they are alive, as father of three my dead ex-father-in-law would qualify... according to the actual "rules" implied by the things we are required to do, such a dead man can be on the Board. This is bureaucratic hell we are in, and we just have to weather it like Washington at Valley Forge.

    Saam, I thought your verbal remarks were as pertinent as needed, and since there was no chance they were not going to be ignored like everything else we drivers said, it is opportune and correct for you to publish them here now. I think this should be our preferred SOP, and if there become too many documents for one particular blog, then we should get our own record-keeping page going.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have driven a cab for over 26 years. I am now making less than a Starbucks emplyee and drive 1- hours per day just to pay gate and gas. I am now hearing of UBER drivers charging as much as 50. for a mere 10 block drive and in one case the limo was full of vomit from Santa Conn drunks yet he continued to drive and pickup passengers steve webb thetaxidriversguidetosanfrancisco.com

    ReplyDelete

Before commenting, please scroll to the top of this page and review the "Comments & Submissions" section for guidelines and policies.

To report abusive comments, send email to this address: 1johnhan@earthlink.net, or call or text the blog's administrator at...
(415) 571-1574.