Great Speech! If you missed it, here it is. If you saw it is worth watching again.
Top Stories
Saturday, January 21, 2012
update: Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina Republican Primay!
Update: Newt wins very big!
90% reporting
1:29
VOTES
PERCENT
DELEGATES
Newt Gingrich
214,702
40.4%
19
Mitt Romney
143,508
27%
0
Rick Santorum
92,610
17.4%
0
Ron Paul
71,691
13.5%
0
Herman Cain
5,500
1%
0
Rick Perry
2,237
0.4%
0
Jon Huntsman
898
0.2%
0
Michele Bachmann
427
0.1%
0
Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina Republican primary | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Wow! Great news as far as I am concerned. I await the details. Now it is a two man race, I assume.
I am closing my poll posted on this blog. Here are the result of the poll of visitors to A disgruntled Republican who voted. Thanks to all who voted.
Michele Bachmann
|
3
(2%)
|
Herman Cain
|
4
(3%)
|
Newt Gingrich
|
42
(37%)
|
Jon Huntsman
|
7
(6%)
|
Gary Johnson
|
1
(0%)
|
Ron Paul
|
22
(19%)
|
Rick Perry
|
2
(1%)
|
Mitt Romney
|
20
(17%)
|
Rick Santorum
|
11
(9%)
|
Votes so far: 112
Top Stories
Tootsies honored as one of the 25 best nightclubs - WKRN, Nashville, Tennessee News, Weather and Sports |
Tootsies honored as one of the 25 best nightclubs by Complex magazine.
I love Nashville and love to see our city get recognized as the great place that it is. I also love the honky tonks of lower Broadway. It is the music and lower Broad that makes Nashville a unique city. If you have never visited lower Broad, do it. If it has been a while since you visited, do it again.
I don't party on lower Broad as often as I did when I was younger but I do occasionally. I am more likely to go down to lower broad on a Sunday afternoon or a mid-week evening rather than a Saturday night. The music still plays but you have room to move. On a Saturday the crowds can be crushing and the dance floors are so crowded you can't dance. In December however, after an evening of doing the monthly art crawl, my wife Louella, our friend Sue Deuss and I ended up partying on lower Broadway. It was unplanned and spontaneous. We thought we would just walk back to our car by taking a walk up lower Broad. We ended up partying for hours. We went in and out of several bars. We would go in the front door of one bar, stand in the crowd listen to sample of a band, maybe stay for a couple songs, then work our way out the back door to the Opry alley, then walk in the back door of the next bar and work our way through it to the street. We ended up having a couple beers and spending a couple hours in Tootsie's visiting both the upstairs room and ground floor. It was packed and the music was loud and there was danger of getting beer spilled on you but we had a blast! There is something exciting about an enthusiastic crowd. The energy is contagious.
In the 70's when the Grand Ole' Opry abandoned the city and the city turned its back on Lower Broad and the area was overran by homeless and there were as many porno shops as honkytonks on lower Broad, Tootsie's stayed put and kept live music on lower Broad. Tootsie's is truly a Nashville treasure and Lower Broad is a unique place in America.
Top Stories
Friday, January 20, 2012
Southeast Conservatives Breakfast Meeting
Southeast Conservatives Breakfast Meeting
(council districts 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Saturday, January 21
8:00 am: breakfast & social time
8:30 am: Meeting
Please note new location
Shoney’s
Bell Road @ Cane Ridge Rd
Breakfast Buffet or order from menu - $5.00 minimum purchase required.
Guest Speaker: Mark Winslow
GOP State Executive Committee
Topic: Statewide redistricting and how it impacts Southeast Davidson County (that’s us!)
SPECIAL INVITED GUESTS
Shiri Anderson, DCRP District 28 Manager
David Birdsong, DCRP District 30 Manager
Carl Boyd, Jr., DCRP District 32 Manager
David Chilton, DCRP District 33 Manager
Please RSVP to hhtpat@aol.com or 731-1793.
Bring a friend or neighbor! Pass the invitation on to other S.E. conservatives!
Top Stories
Federal Court Denies Nashville’s Motion to Dismiss Transportation Case
Rejects Economic Protectionism as a Legitimate Governmental Interest
FROM INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, Arlington, VA.—Today, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the city of Nashville’s motion to dismiss a major federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of its limousine and sedan regulations.
The ruling by Judge Kevin Sharp is part of a civil rights lawsuit filed in April 2011 by the Institute for Justice on behalf of a group of independent limousine and sedan operators. The lawsuit argues that Nashville’s new limousine and sedan regulations, including a $45 fare minimum for car service, were passed into law to protect the city’s expensive limousine companies from more affordable competitors.
The city’s rules also prohibit limo and sedan companies from using leased vehicles, require them to dispatch only from their place of business and to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine.
Today’s ruling emphasized that “Courts have repeatedly recognized that protecting a discrete interest group from economic competition is not a legitimate governmental purpose,” quoting Craigmiles v. Giles, a 2002 case that the Institute for Justice won on behalf of casket retailers in Tennessee. The casket retailers in that case, like the affordable car services in this case, were being locked out of the marketplace by a cartel of well-connected individuals. The casket retailers won their case. And the Court today recognized that precedent in holding that legislating for no other purpose than protecting industry insiders is illegitimate.
“This case is about protecting our clients’ right to engage in business free from unreasonable government interference,” said Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who is representing the plaintiffs. “That is a basic right of citizenship under the U.S. Constitution and the government must respect it in good economic times and in bad. Today’s ruling correctly recognizes the principle that the government can’t deny your right to be in business, just so your competitors can get richer.”
“If my customers prefer to take a sedan over a taxi and to pay for that choice, that is their business, not the city’s,” said Ali Bokhari, owner of Metro Livery and a plaintiff in the case. “Limos and sedans have served the people of this city for decades without Nashville’s help. All we want is to be left alone to continue doing that.” Today’s ruling puts the case on track for a trial in January 2013, in which the plaintiffs will demonstrate that there is no health or safety justification for Nashville’s limo and sedan rules.
My Comment: This a great victory, not only for the independent limousine companies, but for all citizens who believe in free enterprise, the constitution, and that the power of government should not be used to protect the well-connected from competition. There is a long way to go in this case, but this ruling was a major victory. The Council could still do the right thing and repeal price-fixing, however the majority of the Council are not yet ready to make that move.
Top Stories
What Happened at the Jan. 17th 2012 Council Meeting
ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-49 sponsored by Council Member Blalock is the ordinance that would repeal Metro's limousine price fixing provision in the Metro code. The bill was deferred indefinitely. The action on the bill occurred in committee. To read all about it, click here and here.
ORDINANCE
NO. BL2011-82 which would allow the city to take over incomplete infrastructure
and complete it in those cases where developers have failed to do so, passed unanimously
without discussion. There are about 13 subdivisions where the streets or
drainage was never completed and the developer went bankrupt or abandoned the
project. People who bought in those subdivisions are enduring unfinished
streets with manholes covers extending above the level of the road and other inconveniencies
and hazards.
This
is what happened accord to the Council staff analysis:
A 2009 Office of Financial Accountability monitoring report regarding the performance bond process identified a number of failures by the planning department to adequately monitor and administer the bonds. Specifically, the report noted the failure of the department to follow its own policies and procedures resulted in expired letters of credit and a backlog of 248 breached performance agreements exposing the Metropolitan Government to potential liability of $6.2 million. The monitoring report made a number of recommendations to prevent future occurrences, which have now been implemented by the planning department.
I am disappointed that no Council Member expressed outage about this and demanded to know who screwed up and got assurance that this could not happen again. This was a good opportunity for someone to show leadership.
ORDINANCE
NO. BL2011-83 which would allow the extension of water mains to homeowners with
wells at the city’s expense was deferred one meeting. (see 18:30) The bill was deferred and rereferred to budget
and Finance at the recommendation of the B & F Committee. Extending water
mains in these circumstances has always been a responsibility of the homeowner wanting
Metro water.
The Backyard Chicken bill: Video
coverage starts at 28:20 and does not end until 1:14:34. For a modern Council, this is a long debate. The bill was approved
by the Planning Commission, disapproved by the Health, Hospitals and Social
Services and disapproved by the Planning, Zoning and Historical Committees.
Council Member Bennett moved the bill. After lengthy discussion, with several
members taking to the floor to speak on the issue, the Council passed the bill after
Council Member Robert Duvall successfully exempted from the bill council
districts 12, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
Robert Duvall’s bill exempting the
various district received the following 18 “Ayes” votes: Matthews, Hunt,
Jernigan, Glover, Tenpenny, Moore, Allen, Baker, Langster, Harmon, Dominy,
Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Duvall, Todd, Mitchell.
The following 17 members voted “no”:
Tygard, Maynard, Harrison, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis,
Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Stites, Stanley, Weiner, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, and
Blalock.
These 3 members abstained: Barry,
Steine, and Gilmore.
The final vote on the bill was as
follows: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott
Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Stites, Allen,
Gilmore, Langster, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Todd (21); “Noes” Tygard,
Jernigan, Glover, Stanley, Tenpenny, Baker, Weiner, Harmon, Blalock, Dominy,
Johnson, Potts, Dowell, Duvall, Mitchell (15); “Abstaining” Moore, Bedne (2).
The bill passes with the following
vote: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks,
Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Jernigan,
Glover, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Langster, Weiner, McGuire, Harmon, Blalock,
Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Todd, Mitchell (31); “Noes” Stites, Stanley,
Tenpenny, Dominy, Duvall (5).
Top Stories
Thursday, January 19, 2012
BREAKING NEWS: BIG VICTORY IN LIMO LAWSUIT.
The Judge today ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling against Metro Nashville's motion to dismiss. The case moves forward! For background and more click here. Taxpayers of Metro can look forward to their tax dollars paying for the Limo Suit because the Council can't seem to vote to uphold the constitution. Apparently the Council does not care. As Bo Mitchell said in a Council Committee Meeting Tuesday night, "Metro gets sued everyday." Stay tuned for updates.
Top Stories
What Now for South Carolina Primary? Is it Down to Romney vs. Gingich?
Newt surges, Huntsman is out, Perry calls it quits, Newt wanted an Open Marriage. Is it over? Does Romney win?
Is the race down to Romney vs. Gingrich? Will the allegations of Gingrich's ex-wife hurt Newt with the family values voters and will it boost Santorum? Will Perry's endorsement of Newt help him.? What about Ron Paul?
As one who has had a vengeful ex-wife lie and try to destroy you, I am taking the allegations against Newt with a grain of salt. And, even if there is some truth to the charges, I do not think being an adulterer necessarily disqualifies you from being president, nor does asking your spouse to indulge your infidelity disqualify you. I am still in the Newt camp.
If only people who never committed adultery were elected president we would not have had Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, or Bill Clinton. And, those are only the ones we know about. I do not think these allegations of Newts long-ago infidelity and the relationship with his former wife hurt him in the general election. Getting a blow job in the oval office and then lying about it did not hurt Bill Clinton. American is much less prudish and judgmental (or moral, if your prefer) than in years past. However, I am not sure how these allegation will play with Republican primary voters in South Carolina. What do you think?
Please vote your preference in the poll to the left and tell me your evaluation of the race today and why you support your candidate of choice.
Top Stories
Liberty on the Rocks Tonight!
This is such a fun event! There is no opening prayer, no pledge, no
treasurer's report, no reading of the minutes of the last meeting, no
guest speaker. There is no program and no agenda, no officers and no one
in charge. This is just a bunch of right-of-center liberty-loving
people getting together to drink and socialize.
I am a regular at these events. Now, I will tell you, the more libertarian end of the right-of-center spectrum dominates but right-of center folks of all strips are welcome. We need some more diversity in right-of-center opinion at these events. I need some allies. So, if you are a more mainstream conservative, I urge you to attend so I don't feel like the lone ranger.
Attendance is usually about fifteen to twenty-five people. It is on the patio at
Mafiaoza's in the 12th Avenue South neighborhood. Mafiaoza's provides
delicious hor'devers or pizza (sometimes they don't) and you are responsible for your own
drinks. For this group, happy hour with two-for-one drinks is all night long. The group
ranges in age from those in their early 20's to those in their 70's, and with everyone from students to laborers to attorneys. The
larger group usually ends up breaking into four or so smaller groups
with people floating between the groups. Right of center is still a
pretty broad spectrum and interesting discussion and respectful but
animated debate is the norm. If you are tired of hanging out with your
liberal co-workers or family or people who never talk about anything of
substance, come party with some smart like-minded people.
Top Stories
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
More on the Attempt to Repeal Metro's Price-fixing Limo Law
Below is additional information about last night's council meeting and the effort to repeal Metro's limousine price-fixing ordinance. I don't know how I forgot Councilman Bo Mitchell. Along with Councilman Tygert, he was the other leading proponent of maintaining Metro's price-fixing ordinance. Actually, he was much worse than Tygert. Tygert argued we needed a comprehensive approach to the issue. Mitchell seemed to have contempt for those wanting to change the law and belittled the opposition as a few insignificant people who did not want to play by the rules. He was also dismissive and arrogant in is unconcern for the law suit facing the city over this issue.
Mr. Bokhahi is the owner of Metro Livery, one of the companies Metro is trying to drive out of business and one of the plaintiffs in the law suit against the city. Rod
From Syed A Bokhari
Rod,
Thank you for writing a good article with the true picture of how metro council handled things last night. Councilman Bo Mitchell spoke in opposition of BL2011-049, stating that all parties had been invited with the formation of the original bill in 2010. Simply, I am here to say, that was not the case. My company, Metro Livery, was never invited.
1. In 2009, we gave opposition to the Transporation Licensing Commission. See link:
2. Additionally, I called and even mailed letters to Mr. McQuistion to ask him to come and see my operation, so that I may explain my business model, and show him my 24 hour dispatch facilities. Mr. McQuistion did not return my calls or accept my invitation.
3. During the formation of the bill, I personally called Bo Mitchell and never received a return phone call.
4. Matter fact, even in 2011, there was a meeting called, at the behest of Council Lady Edith, where again, I was not invited. A representative of my company was invited to attend in my place. It was during that meeting late last year, that Bill Faeth stated the parties that formed the original bill did so to put my company out of business.
Bo Mitchell stated only two companies are behind the bill because they do not want to follow the rules. Councilman Mitchell also stated out of 57 operators, only two operators disagree. In reality, there were over 15 operators that attended last night’s meetings in support of BL2011-049. Mr. Mitchell stated Metro gets sued every day. He does not mind that Metro has to spend thousands of taxpayer’s money in lawsuits for the City.
My company, Metro Livery, has been a licensed operator with the Metro Nashville Airport for the last six years. Our business entity was same like any Tennessee Livery Association member. We are a licensed operator with the Transportation Licensing Commission from the FIRST DAY of the new ordinance in December of 2010. We are safety complaint and have spent a lot of resources to ensure we are complaint with the rules. Metro Livery stands firm in its commitment to safety regulations. Some of the rules are to support the luxury limousine business model. My business does not have room to survive with several of the rules in the ordinance.
It saddens me to see that we have to defer the bill, while there are many companies and families waiting for these changes. Mr. McQuistion wants a consultant to and what is called a comprehensive analysis of his office. Meanwhile, he and his inspectors continue to work tirelessly to put existing companies out of business that try to follow the rules. And Mr. McQuistion himself stated there were about 40 operators in the city that have not even applied to his office.
Again, my company applied the first day for the operator certificate. My assistant met with Mr. McQuistion to set a plan of action (since the ordinance did not have a defined timeline of when all existing companies should get complaint by) to get all vehicles and drivers in my company complaint and to find out from the Director when the enforcement would begin. My assistant was told by Mr. McQuistion that he would notify us before enforcement began. Sadly, that was not the case. He began enforcement targeted to my company almost immediately. We asked Mr. McQuistion for a “comprehensive fix” for our company, he denied, and brought my company in for disciplinary action. And yet, now Mr. McQuisiton needs a “comprehensive analysis” of his department?
To this day there are still drivers working for Tennessee Livery Association companies that are unlicensed. There has been no enforcement upon those companies. My company has even reported to the Inspectors specific locations of drivers for these companies so that everyone could be fairly enforced. Sadly, we were told “that is out of my jurisdiction” by the Inspector.
I am not a taxi. I am not a luxury limousine. I am a car service. I do not exist in the ordinance. All we are asking for is the opportunity to survive.
As Wesley Hottot stated in his article for the Tennessean: "‘The Supreme Court has long recognized that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living, stating in Truax v. Raich, for example, that this right is “the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the 14th Amendment to secure.””
This is a sad example of abuse of power and authority by the legislators who took the oath to protect the constitution.
Thank you again for all your support and for covering this story on your blog.
Syed A. Bokhari
Top Stories
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Chicken Bill passes; Some Districts out.
The Council tonight passed Council Member Karen Bennett's backyard chicken bill after Council Member Robert Duvall successfully exempted from the bill council districts 12, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
Top Stories
Council Indefinitely Defers Limo Price-fixing Repeal Bill.
 |
| Davette Blalock |
The bill had a mixed reception from the various committee's considering it. The powerful Budget and Finance Committee voted 4 in favor, 10 opposed and 1 abstention. The Convention and Tourism committee failed to return a recommendation, voting 2 in favor and 2 opposed. The Public Safety Committee voted 1 in favor, 1 abstention and 4 opposed. The Transportation and Aviation Committee voted 4 in favor and 0 opposed.
 |
| Charlie Tygert |
 |
| Jacobia Dowell |
Mr. Brian McQuiston, Director of the Transportation Licensing Commission, argued that Metro needed to hire an outside consultant to evaluate and advise metro on transportation regulation policy.
 |
| Bill Pridemore |
Councilman Tygert said the administration wished to have the issue studied by an outside consultant. It was explained that to hire an outside consultant to help study the issue and draft legislation, that Request for Proposals would have to be issued and proposals evaluated. It would be a time consuming process.
When it came to the floor of the Council for consideration, Council Member Blalock moved to defer the bill indefinitely. On second reading a bill must have the votes of a majority of those present in order for it to pass. Two council members were absent and one member had said he would have to abstain due to a conflict of interest so passage was in doubt. One of those who was absent was thought to have been a favorable vote had he been present. Also, one of the members who we had thought would be in favor of the bill was Jerry Maynard, but he voted against it in committee. The sponsor was not sure she had 19 votes which would have been required for passage. The vote was going to be so close that the sponsor did the prudent thing and deferred the bill.
An indefinite deferral does not mean the bill is dead. According to the rules of the Council, a council member who has indefinitely deferred a bill may at any time request that the bill be placed on the next agenda of the council and the clerk shall place it on the agenda for the next meeting. Hopefully, at least some of those members of the Council who said they wanted a more comprehensive look at limousine and taxi regulation were sincere and will now get to work drafting an improved bill. Hopefully they were not all simply trying to kill the bill by continuous delay.
It is my hope that the sponsor will not allow this bill to die a slow death. If there is a not a speedy drafting of a more comprehensive bill, then the sponsor should bring the bill back and force the council members to take a stand. Even if it does not pass, I want to know who believes in free markets and who supports crony capitalism. Those who believe it is the proper role of government to protect the well-connected from competition should be on record voting for the price-fixing status quo.
Top Stories
Metro Council shouldn't stand in car service companies' way
There is an excellent editorial appearing in this morning's Tennessean! It is written by Wesley Hottot of the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firms challenging the constitutionality of Metro's current price-fixing law that protect established, luxury limo companies from competition. Please read it here.
He explains how Metro came to pass the current price-fixing laws at the behest of the industry trade group and established a $45 minimum for limo services and other anti-competitive measures. "These regulations have nothing to do with public safety," says Hottot, "but everything to do with economic protectionism."
He argues:
Metro cannot and should not pick winners and losers in Nashville’s transportation industry. Businesses like Metro Livery put people to work and take people to work. They are an essential part of the city’s economy. For the sake of Nashville’s consumers and its economic recovery, the Metro Council should repeal its limo and sedan ordinance. Just as important, the council should send a clear message to every other trade association that seeks to use the power of government for its own purposes.I could not agree more. The council needs to pass the BL 2011-49 which will be on second reading tonight after being deferred last month. Some members of the council are going to claim they need more time to study it. That is just an excuse to kill it. It has been deferred once and it not really that complicated. Council members should read their staff analysis. It is explains what the law is now and how BL2011-49 will change it.
A vote for BL2011-49 is a vote for:
- Free Markets as opposed to crony capitalism.
- A level playing field and justice as opposed to using the power of government to protect the well-connected.
- Economic growth.
- Enhanced pubic transportation options.
- The Constitution.
Top Stories
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Please attend the Council Meeting! Put an end to Limo Price Fixing.
Please join me at the Council Meeting Tuesday, January 17th, 2011 at 6:30PM.
This bill will undo the limo price fixing bill that was passed by the Council in June 2010. Unless BL2011-49 passes the competitors to the well-connected, established limo companies will have lost and have to cease operation. There is a lot information on this bill on this blog, just click here scroll down and read.
I believe there are enough good Council members who will do the right thing that SB 2011-49 can be passed. However, too many Council members have to be encouraged to do the right thing. Please call your councilman today and ask them to support this bill. You may also email them.
For your councilman's email address and phone number, follow this link: http://www.nashville.gov/council.Then click on "Council Member Roster." If you do not know who your council member is, then when on the page of the above link, look to the right and see "Quick Links"and under that, see "Where do I vote." When you get to that page, enter your address and on the page listing your voting place it will list your Council district number. Then, go back to the council roster and find your councilman.
Council members also are more inclined to do the right thing if they have an audience who cares about the issue. That is why we need butts in the seats. You will be given a distinctive badge to identify that you are there for this particular issue.
If you attend, please follow proper decorum. No applauding or verbal outburst and no signs in the Council Chamber. Please help by spreading the word. Please use your facebook and other social media to spread the word
On Council meeting night, there is free parking. Arrive early as you must go through security to enter the chamber.
This is one of those relatively rare issues that pit advocates of free
markets and limited government against those who advocate more
government control and see government's roll as protecting the special
interest against competition. Please help get this bill passed!
Top Stories
Repeal of Limo Price Fixing on Metro Council Agenda.
 |
| Davette Blalock |
Background:
In June 2010, the council enacted Ordinance No. BL2010-685, a limousine price-fixing bill that protected the big limo companies from competition. That ordinance imposed a minimum $45 fee for limo services, it prohibited the use of leased vehicles, and imposed age and mileage restrictions. All of these provision were designed to protect the luxury established limo companies from competition. Economy limo companies were providing limo service for a little as $25 and were cutting into the business of the established limo companies.
When learning that Metro had passed such a bill in June 2010, I was appalled that not a single member of the Metro Council opposed it, even the conservative members of the Council who I would assume claim to be champions of limited government and free enterprise. To their credit a couple members, Councilman Eric Crafton and Councilman Sean McGuire attempted to repeal the price fixing bill but were unsuccessful. Several Council Members told me that when the bill was presented to them, they really did not know what it did and were led to believe that it had the support of the industry. That is not a good excuse; they should have read the bill. Now, the Council has the chance to do the right thing and correct a grave error.
What the Proposed Bill would do:
This proposed ordinance would remove the current
$45 minimum fee that livery vehicles are required to charge. It would amend the permit process so that
the applicant for the permit is not required to hold the title to the vehicle in order
to obtain a permit. In other words, it would allow for the use of leased vehicles and would allow the driver of a vehicle to own his vehicle and work for a company that has the permits. A third provision of this ordinance adjusts the minimum
mileage requirements and maximum age requirements for vehicles used as a passenger vehicle for hire. Effective January 1, 2012, under the current code, a vehicle could not begin
service if it is more than five years old and vehicles could not remain in
service if they are more than seven or ten years old, depending on the
category of the vehicle. This ordinance would remove the age limitation
and rely solely upon the mileage limitation currently in the code. Under
this limitation, vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their
odometer. Also, the ordinance adds a specific minimum time
requirement of fifteen minutes for pre-arrangement of services.
Metro is being sued over this issue.
Now, IJ is suing the city on behalf of the econo limo companies alleging that the various restrictions in BL2010-865 are unconstitutionally arbitrary and are irrational regulations designed to eliminate competition. The challenged regulations are the minimum fee, the requirement that businesses must hold title to the vehicles, the requirement that they dispatch solely from their place of business, and the minimum age requirement, which the proposed bill would fix. If Metro does not pass the pending bill before it, I suspect the IJ will prevail in court. However, by the time it gets to court the econo limo providers will have had to stop providing limo service and most likely will have gone broke. Often justice delayed is justice denied.
Is this a perfect bill?
No, it is not. Other than a liability insurance requirements and some safety regulations and licensing, I would like to see all economic regulation of transportation removed including restrictions on entry into the market. I do not think Metro should be in the business of restricting competition in limos, buses, or taxis. However, a general deregulation is not going to occur immediately and the immediate issue of limousine price fixing should not be deferred because we can't get total economic deregulation. It would be foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There are three provisions of the existing limousine pricing fixing Metro code or proposals in the bill under consideration that do not adequately addressed the issue of over regulation.
- The 350,000 mile limit: Under this proposed bill the limitation that vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their odometer should be removed. This will not likely effect many, if any vehicles, so why even have it in the code. Anyway, by the time a vehicle has 350,000 miles on the odometer it may have a new transmission, a new engine, and all new components. A well maintained and repaired vehicle could be a mostly new by the time the odometer reaches 350,000 miles. Let the vehicle owner decide when it is time to replace the vehicle as long as the vehicle meets safety requirements. The following two restrictions are more serious are unnecessary and add inconvenience and cost to limousine operations.
- The 15 minute wait: Under this proposed bill, once a customer calls for a limo, at least fifteen minutes must lapse between the request for the limo and getting in the limo. Why? If someone is already late for the airport, maybe because a cab has stood them up or whatever, why make them wait another 15 minutes if the limo is already at the same hotel dropping off another guest?
- Only one customer per hour. There is a provision is the code that says a limo must be engaged for a minimum of one hour. What is the logic of that? If someone takes a limo from the airport to a downtown hotel, on a good day, that may only be a 20 minute ride. Why make the limo set idle for another 40 minutes?
Please Contact your Council Member:
I know their has been a lot of maneuvering to influence the council on this issue. The established limo companies wanting to keep their market share have lobbied the council hard to maintain the status quo. The have hired former Councilman Jami Hollin to lobby the Council. Some important metro figures have family connections to the luxury limo business. I hope the Council will do the moral think and vote against crony capitalism and vote for free markets.
Please call or write your councilman and all of the council members at Large and urge them to support BL2011-49. To get contact information for your councilman, follow this link.
I have covered this issue extensively on this blog. To see video, other articles, and learn more, follow this link.
Top Stories
New Address for Disgruntled Republican.
I have changed the URL or address for this blog. It is no longer "http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.blogspot.com," but is now "http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com." If I am on your blog roll, the redirect should be automatic but if you try it and it is not, then please change to the the address. Email me if there is any problem at Rodwilliams@yahoo.com. Also, I have changed the name from, "A Disgruntled Republican" to "A Disgruntled Republican in Nashville," but there is no need to change the name in any blog listing. Thanks for reading.
Top Stories
Tennessee Republican Assembly to feature Sharron Angle
The Tennessee Republican Assembly's (TRA) Annual Convention and TRAPAC Fundraiser will be 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, January 28, 2011, at the Hotel Preston, 733 Briley Parkway, Nashville, TN 37217.
The TRA identifies itself to be "grassroots conservatism, holding true to the platform of the Republican party." You can read more about TRA at http://www.tnra.org/.
The convention topic is “Taking back our country one state and one county at a time” and will feature several speakers, but the highlight will be keynote speaker Sharron Angle. Sharron has been dubbed "Tea Party darling" and is most widely known for her US Senate campaign against Harry Reid in Nevada.
The TRA identifies itself to be "grassroots conservatism, holding true to the platform of the Republican party." You can read more about TRA at http://www.tnra.org/.
The convention topic is “Taking back our country one state and one county at a time” and will feature several speakers, but the highlight will be keynote speaker Sharron Angle. Sharron has been dubbed "Tea Party darling" and is most widely known for her US Senate campaign against Harry Reid in Nevada.
Sharron will be sharing her story of the mom who fought to homeschool her son and change homeschooling laws in her state, as well as her message of "Enough is enough!" How to take action and win local elections at the convention. In addition to her presentation, Sharron will be conducting a book signing of Right Angle - sales of which help fund conservative candidates.
Top Stories
What's to Watch for at the Council Meeting 1-17-2012
End Limo Price Fixing, the Chicken Bill, Fixing Unfinished Roads, and Bribing Lifepoint
BILL NO. BL2011-49 on second reading, sponsored by Davette Blalock, would remove limousine price fixing from the Metro Code. Read all about it here.
ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-82 creates a means whereby Metro can accept unfinished infrastructure. When a developer develops a subdivision, he is supposed to complete the streets to an acceptable standard before Metro will accept them. There are several developments around town, where the developer went broke or the developer just abandoned the project and the streets were never completed. The developer is supposed to post a bond or secure a letter of credit which would insure that if the developer does go broke or abandon the project, Metro has the funds to complete the project. That did not always work out as planned. This bill establishes a procedure whereby, under certain circumstances, Metro can accept the incomplete streets and complete the development. This will set the stage for finishing the streets and infrastructure such as sidewalks and drainage systems in several subdivisions where the infrastructure was never completed. This will probably not be controversial and will offer relieve to many who are living in a new but never completed subdivision.
ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-83 by Councilman Stanley would allow Metro to extend water lines to homes using private wells. Currently, if one wants to extend a water line to ones property, it is at one's own expense. Fiscal watchdogs in the Council may have a problem with this bill.
This Chicken bill (ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-47) by Council Member Karen Bennett is on third reading. I am for this bill but I probably won't be raising chickens. Under this bill one can only have six hens, even on a big lot. On a 50' x 150' lot, which is the lot size in a lot of the more urbanized older areas, one could only have four hens and their are other restrictions and set back requirements. I don't think if your neighbor has four hens, you are going to smell them. I think cats running lose are a much bigger nuisance than penned hens. I am beginning to think this may not pass. It has a very enthusiastic core group of supporters but a lot of vocal opponents. I suspect it will be a close vote. Read all about it here.
The LifePoint relocation bill (ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-58) would entice Lifepoint to move from Brentwood to Davidson County by excusing them from paying property taxes for the next 15 years. I wish governments were not in the business of bribing companies to relocate. If this practice continues, companies will be playing a game of threatening to relocate unless they are bribed to stay put. And why not? Getting the best deal for moving or staying put will become what a responsible CEO does. Since this has become a standard practice, I guess we have to play the game however. If this makes sense for the city, I guess I would have to vote for it if I were in the Council, but I don't like it. I am not sure however, that in this instance, this deal makes economic sense for the city. I would like to see a healthy debate on this on the council floor, but this council seems to be adverse to debate. This would be an excellent opportunity for a council member to distinguish himself from the herd.
The council meetings are much more interesting (well, "interesting" may be too strong- they are less boring) if you know what is going on. An agenda and analysis help.
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
