To the Chairman and Members of the Chattanooga Passenger Vehicle For Hire Board
This letter is being filed in opposition to the issuance of new Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to Uber Technologies. Also, it’s being filed to oppose the issuance of a TNC Network Application License to Uber Technologies which may violate the city charter. More importantly, I am opposing the issuance of a license to Uber due to Uber providing “application dispatch services” to its TNC operators in violation of section 35-286 (f), and operating without authority by providing unlawful transmissions through the Uber App without having a valid Transportation Network Application Company license issued by the PVH Board.
On Feb. 19, the PVH Board met without considering a timely submitted or properly filed application for a license by Uber. Although, the new ordinance was approved on Jan. 6, on second reading, Uber has continued to operate in violation of the new ordinance despite not having a license to do so. Specifically, Uber has been providing Transportation Network Services in violation of Section 35-284 (a) Transportation Network Application Company License – Required, which states, “No person shall engage in, or provide, Transportation Network Services in the city without a license issued pursuant to this Article. Additionally, section 35-286 (f) states; “The PVH Board shall not issue a license to operate as a TNC if the PVH Board determines that:
1. The applicant fails to submit proof of insurance;
2. The applicant assigns, leases, permits, or otherwise allows others to use its application dispatch system without the express consent of the PVH Board;
3. The applicant affiliates with, and provides application dispatch services to, drivers without for hire driver’s, chauffeur’s license or considered TNC operators;
4. The applicant affiliates with, and provides application dispatch services to, drivers without a for hire vehicle or taxicab license, or a vehicle without a TNC vehicle endorsement
8. Has failed to meet one or more operating responsibilities as detailed in Section 35-285
In summary, Uber ignored the regulations and failed to meet the application licensing provisions established under sections 35-284 (a), 35-286 (a3), (a4), (a6),(a8), (f) (f1), and (f3), including sections 35-285 (3-a), (3-c) and (3-d), (10), (13-b), (14), and 35-289 (a, b and c). Despite these and other requirements, Uber continues to operate without authority and a license issued by the PVH Board.
Also, please be aware that no city official has the legal authority under any city ordinance of the city, or the city charter to grant any person or entity any period of time including a 30 day moratorium to operate in violation of the vehicle for hire ordinance. As a result, it is inaccurate for anyone to suggest that Uber was permitted a relaxing of city law or a moratorium was granted to operate in violation of city law without Uber first having obtained a Transportation Network Application License issued by the PVH Board.
PRECEDENT SET BY BOARD DENYING A LICENSE FOR OPERATING WITHOUT AUTHORITY
On March 13, 2014 the Transportation Board set a precedent by denying Liberty Taxi a license for operating without authority from the Board. In relations to Liberty Taxi, the Board denied Liberty’s request for a license on the grounds that Liberty Taxi was found to be already operating without authority. Likewise, the Board is requested to deny Uber’s request for a license on the same grounds as decided upon in the Liberty Taxi matter.
DUTY TO RENDER SERVICE, CENTRAL PLACE OF BUSINESS REQUIRED
All certificate holders are required under city law to have a central place of business. A review of the county’s web link for local business license do not show a county license or local address for Uber Technologies. As a result, the record shows the applicant has been operating in violation of this provision, and the Passenger Vehicle Hire Board (PVHB) is hereby notified of Uber’s violation of section 35-41 of the city code.
TNC’S EXEMPT FROM BOARD REGULATION ONCE APPROVED
The Passenger Vehicle Hire Board serves as the enforcement arm of the city of Chattanooga for the supervision of vehicles for hire. According to the newly adopted ordinance, 12891, section 35-294 (d) (enforcement), states, “Except for the rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of this article, TNC, TNC operator, and TNS shall be exempt from regulation by the PVH Board including any rules or regulation requiring a TNC to collect or transmit data or information about a customer or a customer’s trip to the PVH Board.” This exemption for a TNC, its operators and TNS appears to be a violation of the “equal protection” provision of the state of Tennessee and United States constitutions that require other similarly situated public service businesses to comply with regulatory provisions.
In accordance with section 35-294 (d), the PVH Board will have no authority to regulate the activities of Uber or any TNC once approved. Therefore, it is important to establish the violations against Uber and hold them accountable for operating without a license. Uber’s view of local laws is to violate them first, then impose its size and will on local authority. We are a nation of laws, and by violating them first then seeking forgiveness after the fact is an unacceptable practice utilized by Uber. Uber has failed to comply with many sections of the old and new ordinance including the city charter.
THE CITY CHARTER
According to MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service), the city charter is to the ordinances of a city as the Tennessee Constitution is to the state statutes. The charter has often been termed the “organic law” of a city; it is the document that gives a city its life and its power. The relationship and importance of the city charter to its ordinances was succinctly stated by the Tennessee Court of Appeals as follows:
“The proposition is self-evident, therefore, that an ordinance must conform to, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not exceed the charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a provision of the constitution of the state.”
Accordingly, Title 2, Section 16, Vehicles for Hire under the City Charter mandates the following, “require indemnity bonds, issued by surety companies, or indemnity insurance policies to be filed with the city by the owner or operator of any such vehicle for the protection of the city or any person against loss by injury to person or damage to property (Not Uber).
Additionally, Title 2, Section 16, Vehicles for Hire under the City Charter, the city is “to determine the number of taxicabs, automobiles or buses needed for the furnishing of transportation to the inhabitants of the city and the public in general,” and the PVH Board under section 35-49 (b) “shall take into consideration the number of vehicles for hire already in operation, whether existing transportation is adequate to meet the public need.” These provisions must be adhered to prior to the PVH Board issuing any new certificates, permits, or license authorizing additional “automobiles for hire” services.
Lastly, I am requesting the PVH Board require that all vehicles operated by TNC operators be immediately impounded in accordance with Section 35-45.1 (Immobilization and Impoundment of unauthorized passenger vehicles for hire) that continue to operate in violation of city ordinance.
Timothy Duckett
CEO, Millennium Taxi Service
* * *
Well, if the decent, law-abiding, members of our highly esteemed Wrecker and Taxi board think Uber is bad, it must be good for anyone needing transportation at a reasonable cost. I just bet this really gets into their pocket. Are they not able to force Uber drivers, or Uber itself, to pay for the privilege of driving others in our city?
My guess is they are getting a lawsuit together to extort concessions from someone. Probably you and me.
Robert Harvey
Chattanooga
* * *
If Uber is a problem, it's a problem of the local taxi companies' own making. The last time I took a cab in Chattanooga, the shady looking driver of the filthy vehicle was listening to some sort of disturbing rap nonsense, driving with one hand and, literally, eating cheese puffs from the bag with his other. For this lovely journey, I paid $17 from downtown to Mississippi Avenue.
If Uber puts this sort of "business" out of business, I can say nothing but " good riddance."
F.L. Benton
* * *
Instead of trying to prevent Uber from operating here, you want to try working with them...they can actually bring you business.
In other cities, I have used Uber Taxi, where a taxi picks you up rather than a private individual, and it was seamless and easy and the cost was comparable to standard taxi fares, tip included; and I was able to do the entire transaction from my iPhone.
John Fricke