In seven years on Portland City Council—but maybe especially recently—Commissioner Amanda Fritz has made a habit of loosing blistering condemnations when it’s clear a majority of her colleagues disagree on an issue she cares about.
Fans of the Fritz catalogue will remember such hits as March 5 of this year, when Fritz, unable to convince council to pare down height limits for buildings near the river, said she was “absolutely disgusted with this entire hearing.” Or the time a month earlier when she excoriated her colleagues for the decision to re-partner with the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Now we’ve got a new joint!
With the writing on the wall that city council would pass new regulations on companies like Uber and Lyft today—and therefore make the controversial services’ entry into Portland official—Fritz went off with a lengthy prepared speech. (See below: It starts at 36:36.)
She compared City Council to a “Republican-dominated Congress in Washington, DC,” saying it was allowing industry have outsize influence rather than acting in the public good. She said public safety would suffer as “transportation network companies” (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft ran rampant, insinuated the city’s carbon-curbing goals could be hampered and transit use hurt, and accused colleagues—commissioners Steve Novick and Dan Saltzman teamed up with Mayor Charlie Hales to pass the rules—of taking meetings with Uber lobbyists while taxi interests were left out in the cold. (Expect critics to point out that Hales, Saltzman, and Novick have all been aided in political campaigns by consultant Mark Wiener—who’s lobbied for Uber)
“This is one of the saddest votes I have cast in almost seven years in office,” Fritz said toward the end of her 13-minute, five-page remarks [pdf]. “In casting my vote I would like to add an emphatic swear word.” She didn’t.
None of this is much of a surprise, of course. Since Uber barged into town without permission around this time last year, a robust and acidic debate has sprung up. Fritz and Commissioner Nick Fish have raised questions about TNCs throughout that process, and were already bested in a vote when council made a decision to let the companies operate under provisional rules in April.
Proponents have argued TNCs are convenient—offering quicker service in a city where cabs used to be hard to come by (they were heavily regulated until earlier this year)—and a useful source of supplemental income in a city struggling with rent increases and displacement. The public seems to agree: In the months since Uber and Lyft have begun operating legally in Portland, they’ve snatched up most of the market share.
Opponents say TNCs are inherently unsafe. They make compelling arguments about unfair insurance coverage the companies are required to carry—it’s separated into three “periods” with $50,000-per-person coverage when drivers are waiting to accept a fare, and more robust coverage when they’re on their way to a pick-up, or driving someone around. (Cabs carry $1 million in coverage at all times.) And they say Uber and Lyft have inadequate and self-serving background check procedures that can allow dangerous people into the system.
Fritz agrees with all of these criticisms, (“Commissioner Novick pledged to me that the system would be as safe for an aging woman like me as the existing taxi system. That is not the outcome.”), but saved her weightiest comments for the insurance question, which she said was the “most egregious” part of the new rules.
It’s probably not a coincidence Fritz was wearing a zebra-print sweater vest today (more tasteful than it sounds). Her husband, Dr. Steven Fritz, was a big fan of the pattern. He died in a tragic car wreck on Interstate 5 last year.
“As you are all aware, my husband was killed in a traffic crash last year,” Fritz said. “Through this excruciating life event, I learned a lot about insurance requirements in this state. This ordinance sets the value on a person’s life.. at $50,000 max.”
She was referencing the “phase one” coverage limit, for when a driver is waiting to accept a fare request. Concerns over insurance have been raised repeatedly by cabbies this year, and give even supporters of the new regulations pause.
Commissioner Steve Novick, responsible for shepherding the rules through to council, announced this morning that he doesn’t think the phase one coverage the city’s mandating is adequate. Then he said there’s not much we can do about it right now, since it’s become something of a national standard.
“Uber and Lyft have made it clear that if any jurisdiction tried to depart from this agreement, they intend to declare war,” Novick said. “If you’re going to pick a fight with a $50 billion company, you’re probably smart to look around for some allies. So I’m going to do that.”
Novick says he’ll be happy to testify before the legislature to get the state to enact tougher requirements. And he asked Uber foes to keep a weather eye out for big cities (300,000 residents or more) around the country that favor enacting tougher insurance rules, invoking “strength in numbers.”
Until that happens, Novick said he’ll turn his attentions back to the other great and thorny issue that’s plagued him during his time in office: finding more money for city roads. He’s expected to introduce a new 10-cent gas tax proposal in coming months.
“This is a no-win issue,” Novick said. “I’d be very happy if I never heard the words Uber and Lyft.”
The rest of the votes went down as expected. Fish voiced his long-held concerns about Uber as a trustworthy partner, voting no (his remarks [pdf]). Saltzman said services like Uber and Lyft represent a “generational shift”—Saltzman only uses cabs, he says, but his 20-year-old daughter swears by Uber. And Hales repeated a statement he’s made often: That Portland has tougher regulations than the vast majority of cities where TNCs have cropped up.
Now, it seems, they’re here to stay.
If transit was better we wouldn’t need UBER amanda, unfortunately since Trimet turns many routes off or down to once an hour starting as early as 9pm it turns out that something else is needed, and frankly the cab companies customer service is so awful that I’d rather walk 5 miles than try to use them. Thankfully Amanda has once again placed herself on an island, which is why she has become the least effective councilor. Hopefully she will exit soon.
RE: Uber snatching up “most of the market share”…Not true. They have vastly expanded the market, extending the ability to get reliable for-hire rides to people who were previously unable to do so because of the state of the pdx cab industry. Actual rides given by cabs haven’t declined in very large numbers, which is the key metric to look at when assessing TNC’s effect on the cab industry.
The most telling part of this article:
“If you’re going to pick a fight with a $50 billion company, you’re probably smart to look around for some allies. So I’m going to do that.”
He who has the gold makes the rules.
I agree that Uber/Lyft may be picking up some slack left by Tri-Met. But Tri-Met runs on payroll taxes, so unless Portlanders want to increase that tax, we should stop complaining.
And something’s wrong when all these new residents are willing to pay high rent, but our roads remain crap. Some wealth needs to be redistributed to the infrastructure.
I am not sure it’s accurate to characterize Amanda’s position as “anit-Uber”.
In reading her entire comments, I believe Amanda is more criticizing the final rules and the process by which they were adopted. For an example, Amanda criticized the new rules that will allow Uber and Lyft to not provide adequate insurance coverage and will not require that those companies conduct proper background checks on their drivers.
I am not clear why anyone on the council would oppose those improvements.
I also wonder about the wisdom of voting for the new rules only because Uber has a large bank roll.
It’s follow the money. I really thought P-Town was better than that. Once Hales and Novick had there secret meeting (that everyone knew about) the tables turned. It was not mentioned that when they gave Über a trail basis until that point Hales nor Novick would not meet with any of the cab companies. Also it might be noted that the Private for hire board approved more taxis to cover the rapidly expanding market then Novick nixed it. This is why we need city paid elections!
Bert Fox
Uber – 10 paid lobbyists, including a long-time Portland insider who ran Hale and Novick’s campaigns, Mark Weiner, currently under investigation by the City Auditor.
Cab Industry – 2 part time, at least one is an active cab driver.
Uber sit down meetings with the Mayor and/or Novick, Saltzman and/or their staff – at least 40 that they are willing to admit to, as required by law.
Cab Industry – 0 (although the day after this info came out in the media Novick called one of the taxi CEO’s and said, “Hey! Why don’t you drop in for a meeting?”)
Uber lobbyist’s phone calls accepted by City Hall, the Mayor and/or Novick, Saltzman and/or their staff – 140 officially, but who knows how many more?
Cab Industry – 0
Innovation (sic)Task Force members who were Uber sycophants – all, hand-picked.
Taxi industry representation – 0 (nor where they even allowed to speak at the meetings, meanwhile during breaks the committee members were mostly seen huddled with Uber lobbyists.
Did Hale get a boner when he got a call from former Obama adviser and ultra Uber lobbyist David Plouffe? Did this have anything to do with him going to Paris?
“allowing industry have outsize influence rather than acting in the public good.”
As opposed to the status quo, which has been allowing the taxi industry to have outsize influence — FOR DECADES — to the detriment of the public good?
“Opponents say TNCs are inherently unsafe.”
The only bona fide “opponents” to TNCs are taxi-industry players concerned solely with their own selfish financial interests. Their arguments that TNCs are “inherently unsafe” are specious at best, and despite having conned several councilmembers about it, that doesn’t make their arguments valid — and I *absolutely* think Blogtown should have included this (rather considerable) caveat.
“They make compelling arguments about unfair insurance coverage the companies are required to carry”
Not really. Taxis have full-time commercial insurance for a reason: not only do nearly all taxi drivers work full-time, but their vehicles are usually in service 16+ hours a day. TNC drivers, in contrast, are driving their *own* vehicles, and over 80% over them are doing so for fewer than 20 hours a week (and half of them work fewer than 10 hours). It makes *zero* sense for them to have the same types of insurance.
As for the period known as “app-on mode” (when a driver is actively seeking fares but does not yet have one): this is about as gray an area as it gets in terms of ground transportation. (I say that as a lawyer btw.) Uber and Lyft drivers are not, technically speaking, “working” unless they’re either carrying a passenger or en route to pick one up. Further, they formerly had *zero* insurance for drivers during the app-on period. Finally, they compromised: they now offer drivers roughly the same coverage they’d have under their personal insurance policies while not on the clock.
Not only is Fritz being melodramatic in stating that, “This ordinance sets the value on a person’s life.. at $50,000 max,” she’s also wrong. The number of ACTUAL accidents that have taken place when a TNC driver is in app-on mode — and I’ll note here that Uber and Lyft collectively provide over one million rides in the U.S. PER DAY — is borderline-infinitesmal.
“And they say Uber and Lyft have inadequate and self-serving background check procedures that can allow dangerous people into the system.”
Yet again, the taxi industry is both distorting the issue *and* projecting one of their own inadequacies onto TNCs. The traditional fingerprint checks used by the industry have more holes than Donald Trump’s campaign platform, and produce an *astounding* number of false positives *and* false negatives — ones significantly skewed to the detriment of young men of color in particular. The worst part is what they leave *out*: there’s no way to determine from a traditional background check, for instance, is whether the person being checked out is even a U.S. citizen or documented immigrant.
And guess what? Commercial insurance generally doesn’t cover employees who are working at taxi companies under false pretenses on the employee’s part, e.g. providing a fake SSN on an I-9 to cover up being an undocumented immigrant — a circumstance which is *most* pervasive on the East and West Coasts, as well as Texas.
“Commissioner Steve Novick, responsible for shepherding the rules through to council, announced this morning that he doesn’t think the phase one coverage the city’s mandating is adequate. Then he said there’s not much we can do about it right now, since it’s become something of a national standard.”
Gee, I wonder why? Is it because Uber “declared war” on EVERY city that refused to go along with it, as Novick subsequently implies? Or is it because City Councils elsewhere recognize a red herring when they see it, and understand that entrenched taxi interests are behind the ENTIRE scheme to make Uber and Lyft appear unsafe? They clearly have no shame about it, either, manipulating Fritz like a marionette over it, knowing that her husband was tragically killed in a vehicular wreck last year.
“Uber – 10 paid lobbyists, including a long-time Portland insider who ran Hale and Novick’s campaigns, Mark Weiner, currently under investigation by the City Auditor.
Cab Industry – 2 part time, at least one is an active cab driver.”
UNBELIEVABLE level of bullshit. Why pay for milk when you can get it from the cow for free? The taxi industry’s tentacles slither through the deepest levels of municipal divisions – how *else* do you think it’s gotten away with horrific mistreatment of its drivers for so many decades? From the city’s Taxi Driver Labor Report from 2012:
“The calculated average net hourly income of all Portland taxi drivers is $6.22. These low hourly wages are consistent with those found in recent studies in other U.S. cities. Drivers at non-driver owned companies typically work long hours—often 12-14 hours per day, 6-7 days per week—to be able to meet the required company payments, expenses, and provide income for their families. Taxi drivers work as independent contractors. Low wages are not supplemented with health care or retirement benefits, paid vacation or sick leave. Large weekly payments from the driver to the company (the “kitty”) are a major factor in the low net income and long working hours of the professional taxi driver. “
I think it’s merely stating the obvious that they (quietly) pulled out all the stops to halt TNCs.
“Uber sit down meetings with the Mayor and/or Novick, Saltzman and/or their staff – at least 40 that they are willing to admit to, as required by law.
Cab Industry – 0 (although the day after this info came out in the media Novick called one of the taxi CEO’s and said, “Hey! Why don’t you drop in for a meeting?”)”
Gee, maybe that’s because the taxi CEOs have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the issue? They’re against TNCs, period. WE KNOW IT. And you’ve gotta be *kidding* me if you think no one from the taxi industry met with Fritz, Fish and Hales at the very least, even if the discussions were “off-book.” In any event, the council and public certainly heard the taxi side at length: TNCs are “unsafe” and “unfair competition,” in their view.
“Uber lobbyist’s phone calls accepted by City Hall, the Mayor and/or Novick, Saltzman and/or their staff – 140 officially, but who knows how many more?
Cab Industry – 0″
See above. (And please: the main taxi players are thick as thieves with enough of the council and city staff that they undoubtedly have their private cell and home numbers on speed dial.)
I am *always* astounded when taxi companies play the “victim” after enjoying a 50-year-long government-sanctioned monopoly — which made its owners very, VERY rich, and allowed them to get away with substandard service AND piss-poor treatment of their own drivers for decade after decade. The “enemy-cum-bully” in this game is obvious, and it’s absolutely NOT Uber or Lyft.