Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Consumer protection need resulted in TSA creation

Monday, May 18, 1998 | 10:07 a.m.

THERE'S LITTLE DOUBT that the 1995 Legislature did a sloppy job when writing a law which created the Transportation Services Authority. So what, you may ask, is new? A badly written law and too little time for the agency to put it into action effectively have caused some problems.

Recently Sun business writer Rick Velotta wrote an excellent article on how the law was affecting some independent limousine operators. At first blush, it might appear that the operators were being bullied by the agency. There is, however, more than one side to the several problems revealed. For example, two of the most prominent complainers have never applied for an operator's license. Another operator, who complained about the length of time to have a hearing for his license, failed to supply adequate data for several months. His hearing will be held this summer.

Many of the limo operators believe that a government agency shouldn't have the power to regulate their licensing and operating conduct. A clean driving record and a driver's license, along with a regular business license, should be sufficient to operate a limo. In a perfect world, this argument could fly, but because of a few scoundrels and 30 million visitors yearly, some additional protection must be provided.

Today, in New York City, the Taxi and Limousine Commission is gearing up for hearings to strengthen the rules of discipline and weed out reckless cabbies. This move is causing a real war between 12,187 drivers and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

The New York Times, looking at the one-day strike held by drivers and the mayor's plan, wrote: "But the basic direction of his plan is sound. Among other things, it would revoke the licenses of any driver convicted of driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol, and suspend or revoke licenses for reckless driving. It would also increase insurance liabilities.

"These changes, which would also apply to drivers of car-service vehicles, livery cars and limousines, are necessary because taxis set the tempo for the rest of the city's traffic, in effect creating the rules of the road, and because there has been a sharp rise in serious accidents involving taxicabs."

The same editorial points out, "Driving a cab is a privilege, not a right, and reasonable steps to make the streets safer -- tighter rules, stiffer fines and tougher insurance requirements -- are justified by the requirements of public safety."

People new to Las Vegas should be told that the Taxicab Authority, a state agency, wasn't created because government wanted more power. It was created because, 30 years ago, a few taxi drivers held their own little war and refused to respond to rules of common sense and decency. There was a public demand for protective action. Furthermore, visitors getting ripped off by a few bad drivers did nothing but harm to the reputation of Las Vegas.

So that was then, and today is something entirely different. Limo operators aren't throwing bombs, and they only want to be good business people. This is probably true, because the same can be said for a large majority of all cab drivers, 30 years ago and today. But there are too often those few who bring about the need to control their illicit and sometimes thoughtless actions.

Going over the TSA files, I found a note describing a few of the problems some limo drivers have already recorded.

Among the complaints listed, the litigants point out that "the TSA allows existing limousine services to intervene in the process and object to the application on the grounds that the new service would adversely affect their business by directly competing with them. The existing services regularly join forces in cartel-like fashion to oppose all new applications and to protect the allocation of the limousine market amongst themselves. The TSA allows these intervening limousine and taxi services to barrage the applicant with requests for documents and other information, often duplicating requests of prior interveners."

I sympathize with the people making this argument, but there is already a district court decision supporting the right for such intervention. It's on appeal at this time, and the results will eventually have a bearing on the limo operators' most recently filed complaints.

So it's not just some new state agency flexing its muscle. There are real needs for consumer protection, but the 1999 Legislature may have to hold additional hearings to strengthen and clarify the present law.

As for the attempt to legally get rid of the TSA and the law creating it, they had better not hope for too much success. The way I read the law, such court action could very well also do away with the Taxicab Authority's ability to function.