Re: The Jitney, or more "Your tax dollars helping you"
Topics: Regulation
02 Jun 1994
From: ervan
>Chronicle May 13, 28a
>[...]
>But last month, follwing a FIVE YEAR court battle, US District Judge John D.
>Rainey ruled that the city's prohibition was outdated and served no useful
>purpose. When the city failed to appeal the decision two weeks ago,
>jitneys became leagal, though few if any have started running routes since
>then.
>[...]
>But first, city officials must determine how to regulate the
>business-in-waiting.
A judge decided the city cannot engage in this particular form of
restraint of trade and the first the city does is attempt to engage it
by another name. The same thing is happening with zoning. After it
was defeated, what happened to the planning board (which had already
been scaled up anticipating acceptance)? Nothing. It kept right on
planning, it just stopped calling it zoning. Now, many of their
ambitious plans were dashed at the ballot box, but much of the same
foolishness continues. Earlier this week I saw a piece about some
people that wanted 'something done' because a cellular phone tower was
erected next to their property. Various tactics were being considered
and various new rules considered by the city (regarding height of
towers, etc.). In other words, zoning. In the particular case, the
defeat of zoning did just what is was supposed to, it allowed a piece
of property to be used in more efficient manner (or it avoided the
cost of bribing city council to permit the tower).
>The city is entering a treacherous battle to balance the court order with
>the demands of a cab industry that has spent decades cultivating clout at
>City Hall through campaign contributions.
Screw the cab companies. The have been profiting from a government protected
monopoly all along, an entirely illegitimate, thing tantamount to pilfering the
public purse. They should be grateful for escaping without oweing compensation.
Once again, the government is blaming free enterprise for the very problem that
it created. Too many cars on the road? Well, does that have anything do with
the fact that it is illegal to accept money for giving someone a ride? Gosh, no.
Let's force people to be nice selfless individuals and carpool instead of letting
someone charge for a service (that would be more efficient). The other ugly
thing is that damnable city bus service sucking down 2X of every fare in taxes to
cover its profligate ways and then reveling in the prohibition of private busses
in an attempt to salvage the 'public' effort. Even a monopoly won't save
something so pathetic.
>"What has happened across the country is that if you allow too may jitneys
>to operate at will, then the local bus service is hurt", Chernow said.
Hurray! Expose the emperor's new clothes.
Disincorporate!
---Ervan
Home