Comments on: Ann Arbor Taxicab Board Grants Appeal

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:40:54 +0000

Re: [5] George, I think the nature of the complaint is that the parking is on the bike lane. But if the bike lane and taxi stand are configured so they overlap, then that just invites friction. Google Map's new 45-degree satellite imagery for Ann Arbor makes it easy to check out what the configuration is from the comfort of your own home: [Google Map image of Hill Auditorium with two taxis parked in front]. That looks to me like it's a taxi stand (as George says), and it's configured right on top of a bike lane. I don't see that a taxicab has an option to use the stand without blocking the bike lane. But a cyclist has the option to claim the whole traffic lane if there's a taxicab parked there.

By: George Hammond

George Hammond — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:22:28 +0000

a2cents: taxis are *supposed* to park in front of Hill Auditorium. There’s a designated taxicab stand there.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:30:36 +0000

Right. And it seems like there’s some evidence against the driver, and none for him (except for it happened to us”), so the only principle that applies here is “be lenient.” Which is fine, as long as that’s acknowledged, I guess, but as you note, where do you stop?

But I’ll stop here–I don’t want to beat up on the guy.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:52:13 +0000

Re: [2] Lobbyist. I think the idea is to encourage a change in the state legislation regulating limos so they can’t have top lights at all.

RE: [2] Rationale for granting appeal. The wording of the ordinance says that the administrator will grant a license after all the criteria have been met. But it doesn’t say, for example, “No license shall be granted if these criteria are not met.” So by granting the appeal, the board is not deciding to allow for a “violation” of the ordinance. But yours isn’t just a semantic point; it’s one about the rationale for granting the appeal. And I’m understanding your point to be essentially the same issue that Benson raised: If we go to 7, would we also go to 8? Based on board members’ remarks that the same thing had happened to them (particularly thinking of the right-on-red violation), the implicit rational from the list quoted out in the ordinance is the one about the seriousness of the offense. Their questions about when the points would expire indicated to me that they were applying the criterion that speaks to how long before the points would expire.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:35:26 +0000

I’m not sure what the city’s lobbyist has to do with the limousine issue. The limo companies either are or aren’t in violation of the ordinance, right? Is there some issue with what taxicab boards are able to regulate per the state?

Also, the first story *seems* to be a case in which the licensing ordinance was clearly violated, and the driver’s record indicated an ongoing problem, but his appeal was granted on the basis of… what? “I don’t get the same feeling of speed on the road” doesn’t seem like much of an excuse. The ordinance says “6 points,” not “6 points give or take a couple.” (Not trying to be punitive here, just struggling to understand the logic.)

By: a2cents

a2cents — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:03:46 +0000

Reference the cab-stand sign picture: Meanwhile, taxis routinely park for extended periods of time on the bike lane in front of Hill Auditorium (and resent being criticized).