New Taxi License Debate - Half to Brokers?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

How? You don't need to apply for, and be approved for, a parking spot.

Because taxis can move, location restrictions aren't generally that meaningful, except in places where no parking is permitted, so taxis can't wait there. Zoning restricts the location of restaurants, not the total number of restaurants, and economic effect on other local restaurants isn't one of the considerations in a new application, I don't believe.

[GP_Matt]

I had no idea that they limit liquor licenses to an absolute/density target. I knew some cities limited liquor stores but I though for a liquor license you just had to meet the cities license requirements. Now I am annoyed all over again, thanks valo.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The city has the ability to limit most things but they don't. Can you imagine the outcry if the city announced that from now on they weren't going to allow any more food service licenses to help reduce the number of restaurants. Going forward any new restaurants had to instead buy the license from an existing restaurant.

Now that I think about it, the federal government does the same thing for cheese so maybe the population would put up with a restaurant limit.

Just because we have inefficient protectionist systems for cheese and taxis doesn't mean we need more of them.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That seems more analogous to parking restrictions than to a restriction on the total number of taxis.

I forget who posted it in our annual taxi thread, but hasn't the city not added any licenses in 20-25 years or something silly like that?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Because taxis can move, location restrictions aren't generally that meaningful, except in places where no parking is permitted, so taxis can't wait there. Zoning restricts the location of restaurants, not the total number of restaurants, and economic effect on other local restaurants isn't one of the considerations in a new application, I don't believe.

Read the rest of my post, zoning is just one aspect of restaurant regulation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I had no idea that they limit liquor licenses to an absolute/density target. I knew some cities limited liquor stores but I though for a liquor license you just had to meet the cities license requirements. Now I am annoyed all over again, thanks valo.

No idea what the current policy is in Calgary, but I know that the elimination of the old Electric Ave strip of bars was at least partially achieved through the revocation/refusal to renew liquor licenses.

Here in NYC getting a liquor license in certain areas is incredibly difficult. There are law and PR firms that are almost exclusively focused on getting their clients approved for licenses.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

Read the rest of my post, zoning is just one aspect of restaurant regulation.

Sure, and I'm completely in favour of safety, mechanical fitness, driving record, etc regulations for taxis. There should be licensing to ensure that the taxis available are operating in a safe manner for both drivers and riders.

But I don't see any reason why the number of those licenses should be artificially limited.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I forget who posted it in our annual taxi thread, but hasn't the city not added any licenses in 20-25 years or something silly like that?

According to the article I linked in the OP, new licenses were added in 2006. IIRC they were mostly new licenses for accessible taxis.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by valo403

No idea what the current policy is in Calgary, but I know that the elimination of the old Electric Ave strip of bars was at least partially achieved through the revocation/refusal to renew liquor licenses.

Here in NYC getting a liquor license in certain areas is incredibly difficult. There are law and PR firms that are almost exclusively focused on getting their clients approved for licenses.

For Electric avenue did they revoke/refuse new liquor licenses or did they rezone the area to make the bars non-conforming? I looked online but couldn't find anything that talked about how the city shut down the area.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

For Electric avenue did they revoke/refuse new liquor licenses or did they rezone the area to make the bars non-conforming? I looked online but couldn't find anything that talked about how the city shut down the area.

The Respondent clarified that Bylaw 9Z93 did not completely prohibit the partial use of one or more of the subject properties as a bar/nightclub, but rather prohibits drinking establishments, entertainment establishments and restaurants having a gross floor area in excess of 120 square

metres.

I found this in a property tax assessment ruling: http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....df/M058-97.pdf

Basically they stopped allowing new bars/clubs of any significant size to open up, so no new ones did, and as the old ones turned over the land use changed.

Edited to add a link to the bylaw: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Docume...f?noredirect=1

It's a zoning bylaw, and they zoned it direct control removing large restaurants/clubs/bars as an allowable use, so no new ones could open up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Sure, and I'm completely in favour of safety, mechanical fitness, driving record, etc regulations for taxis. There should be licensing to ensure that the taxis available are operating in a safe manner for both drivers and riders.

But I don't see any reason why the number of those licenses should be artificially limited.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. None of this is even remotely related to anything I have posted.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

How does it work in the UK? If my Top Gear watching serves me correctly, the system is quite different with 'minicabs'.

Two types of cabs in the UK, mini cabs which are basically a legalised form of gypsy cab who drive all kinds of cars, are often just some guy with a cell phone and a few business cards and can be a bit dodgy, they will respond to a phone call only and cannot do street pick ups and generally are unmarked as well.
Then there are hackney cabs (in London), your classic London Cab, they are very regulated, you have to take 'the knowledge' to drive one, which consists of learning, by heart, every street in central London and being able to verbally describe a route from point a to point b choosen randomly from 320 possible journeys, usually takes 2 to 4 years to learn.

There is no limit to the number of cabs on the road, the rigor of the test though becomes a self limiting device.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

While we may not limit ice cream stands in particular we certainly do limit the number, and location, of all sorts of businesses. Zoning laws, permits and a variety of other regulations impact pretty much every industry and in effect can limit the number of locations of those businesses.

I was responding to this post. There are a number of regulations affecting restaurants that indirectly affect the number of total restaurants.

There are also a number of regulations affecting taxis that would indirectly affect the number of taxis.

The outlier is that the number of taxis is directly regulated.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I was responding to this post. There are a number of regulations affecting restaurants that indirectly affect the number of total restaurants.

There are also a number of regulations affecting taxis that would indirectly affect the number of taxis.

The outlier is that the number of taxis is directly regulated.

And who has disputed that?

Edit: I guess I'm just somewhat confused by these analogies. I don't see any application. The point of my first post was that every industry is regulated in a number of ways, and it was made as a counter to the idea that the market is the sole dictator of operations in other industries when that's simply not the case.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

And who has disputed that?

Edit: I guess I'm just somewhat confused by these analogies. I don't see any application. The point of my first post was that every industry is regulated in a number of ways, and it was made as a counter to the idea that the market is the sole dictator of operations in other industries when that's simply not the case.

Ahh, sorry, I don't think I understood your point. What I'm trying to point out is the different level of regulation. Regulation in pursuit of public health and safety goals is generally speaking a good idea (food safety, seatbelts, taxi driver licensing, etc). Regulation in pursuit of providing an economic advantage to a specific group by limiting supply almost never works out as intended and should be avoided.

Examples include taxis, where licenses end up being owned by brokers. Then new entrant taxi drivers don't make any extra net income from the restricted supply, since that "extra" gets siphoned off by brokers.

Another example as mentioned above was dairy supply management. Canada restricts supply of cheese, which increases cheese prices to theoretically benefit farmers. But now anyone starting to produce cheese has to buy quota for such a huge amount that it eats up all of the extra profits from higher cheese prices.

Basically it transfers money from customers to current owners of licenses/quota, which isn't a noble goal, imo.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Ahh, sorry, I don't think I understood your point. What I'm trying to point out is the different level of regulation. Regulation in pursuit of public health and safety goals is generally speaking a good idea (food safety, seatbelts, taxi driver licensing, etc). Regulation in pursuit of providing an economic advantage to a specific group by limiting supply almost never works out as intended and should be avoided.

Examples include taxis, where licenses end up being owned by brokers. Then new entrant taxi drivers don't make any extra net income from the restricted supply, since that "extra" gets siphoned off by brokers.

Another example as mentioned above was dairy supply management. Canada restricts supply of cheese, which increases cheese prices to theoretically benefit farmers. But now anyone starting to produce cheese has to buy quota for such a huge amount that it eats up all of the extra profits from higher cheese prices.

Basically it transfers money from customers to current owners of licenses/quota, which isn't a noble goal, imo.

You will probably find those 'brokers' make substantial political 'contributions'.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You will probably find those 'brokers' make substantial political 'contributions'.

Roger Richard, owner of Associated Cabs has run for parliament for the conservatives. The fact that half of these new licences go to brokers shows that they are trying to protect their monopoly and is bull. It does nothing for the taxi industry other than line the pockets of the brokers.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Ahh, sorry, I don't think I understood your point. What I'm trying to point out is the different level of regulation. Regulation in pursuit of public health and safety goals is generally speaking a good idea (food safety, seatbelts, taxi driver licensing, etc). Regulation in pursuit of providing an economic advantage to a specific group by limiting supply almost never works out as intended and should be avoided.

Examples include taxis, where licenses end up being owned by brokers. Then new entrant taxi drivers don't make any extra net income from the restricted supply, since that "extra" gets siphoned off by brokers.

Another example as mentioned above was dairy supply management. Canada restricts supply of cheese, which increases cheese prices to theoretically benefit farmers. But now anyone starting to produce cheese has to buy quota for such a huge amount that it eats up all of the extra profits from higher cheese prices.

Basically it transfers money from customers to current owners of licenses/quota, which isn't a noble goal, imo.

To add an Alberta example and tie in all three levels of government look to grazing lease holders. The government leases land to the ranchers at well below market value. The ranchers can then sell that lease for big cash so it keeps new entrants out and transfers a bunch of cash to the established ranchers.

The big problem with these systems is how to unwind them. You can't cancel the dairy quota outright because some poor farmer may have just bought into the system.

[SebC]

55? They need to add about 1000 (if we're not scrapping the system entirely).

[RougeUnderoos]

According to the cabbies themselves, they'll tell you that there are plenty of cabs, but not enough dispatchers.

"Mr. Cab Driver, it took an hour and a half to get through. Why?"

"Oh, there are plenty of cabs, just nobody to answer the phone."

Sure.