You Just Thought Anti-Uber Policies Place Restrictions on the Citizenry and Free Market!

Corpus Christi, Front Page, Opinion/Editorial


     For over a month, Corpus Christi has been up in arms over the policies governing taxis and ride-share companies. Why?  According to those who work for Uber, use Uber, or just like the name Uber, cities across the nation are killing freedom of choice when it comes to calling for ride.  The topic of taxis and TNCs has dominated local council meetings, set social media on fire, and forced friends on opposite sides of the issue to part ways.  I find it odd since most people in Corpus Christi drive their own vehicles everywhere.  But, something is looming over this city that could create more restrictions in the way we live than anyone can imagine.  That something is PlanCC 2035.   If you like the freedom to build in an area you choose, want to retain the few private property freedoms you currently have, prefer driving the vehicle of your choice, and want to see taxes, city debt, and utility costs decrease or remain static, then you must pay attention to what is about to happen in this city with the comprehensive plan, the law of the land that governs what the city will allow us to do with our land. 

     If you want to know more about this plan, I encourage you to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight (April 20, 2016)  at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall to hear for yourself what could be in store for all of us if this plan goes into effect.  If you haven’t read the plan, please do so.  You should read and compare the existing 1987 Plan, PlanCC 2035, and Councilman Chad Magill’s PlanCC 2036.  Then, read what citizens from other cities have said about the smart growth (aka sustainable growth, new urbanism) plans and how they feel the elements of these kinds of plans have bound them one little rope at a time.  Note:  Watch this VIDEO of Congressman McClintock talking about the effects of “smart growth.”

Related articles: “Free Market Not Quite So Free”

                             “1987 Comprehensive Plan Is a Classic”

                             “A Map Is Worth a Thousand Words”

                             “Is PlanCC 2035 the WISE Choice for Corpus Christi?”

Please follow and like us:

Free Market Enterprise: Not Quite So Free

Business, Front Page



     The trouble with politics isn’t so much that people don’t agree on basic principles about good and bad, right and wrong, but rather that they cannot agree on how to achieve any such principle. We all believe, for instance, that freedom is necessary in order for a good life to be lived. We do not agree, however, on an absolute formula for a way to achieve freedom. In fact, many of us do not even agree on the exact meaning of freedom. In reality, being free consists of two parts which can simply be referred to as “freedom from” and “freedom to.” For example, in order to protect your freedom from bodily injury, the state must take away my freedom to punch your nose with my fist. Thus, true freedom also means giving up certain freedoms. Balancing the free will of the masses is the reason government is necessary.

      In America, traditional beliefs about freedom and happiness are derived from a limited government that endorses a free market approach to enterprise. The fate of American Capitalism rests on the ability to choose one’s own business, purchase private property, operate with a profit motive, and succeed or fail based on competition and consumer values. In a nutshell, these concepts seem both reasonable and fair, but the concepts themselves do not indicate how free a market should be. After all, there must be some form of regulation. How much control should government take over an otherwise free market?

     Remember the example about my fist and your nose? Well let’s apply that to American enterprise. In order to protect your freedom to compete in the free market and/or purchase goods at a fair price, I must be willing to give up my freedom to use my business and profit motives to lie, cheat, and steal from you. This is where government regulation becomes relevant to free enterprise and is the point at which the slope has become particularly slippery for our political leaders. It is also the point at which the water of debate among Americans becomes particularly murky. Often, those who fear big business push for big government, and those who fear big government pull for big business. As with most issues, the instincts on both sides are as right as they are wrong. In truth, it is the coupling of big business with big government that has tainted the reputation of free market capitalism.

     Throughout human history, politicians and corporate entities have proved incapable of swimming out of the cesspool created by greed and control. Those who dare to challenge this statement need only look at the existence of black markets. A black market only exists because people either want something they cannot have for a fair price, or they want something they cannot have at all. And who paves the way in making products available, setting prices, and determining whether or not we are allowed to have a particular product? Big businesses (greed) and big government (control). Black markets, however, are a mere sample portion of the problematic substrate that trails behind the ongoing marriage between politicians and corporations.


     Greed and control also drive most of the politics surrounding “unicorn” solutions for inequality (unicorns = companies valued at more than $1 billion). It turns out that politicians not only cater to their largest campaign financiers, but also to the electorate whose votes can be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Take poverty as an example: Clearly, there is nothing equal about the many Americans who live without basic necessities of life, but is asking a greedy government that thrives on control really our best hope for a solution? If you are the kind of person who would feel confident asking a tiger to lead you out of the jungle, then you might answer with a resounding yes. But for the rest of us, it seems clear that we have been looking to the wrong people for help.

     In reality, free market capitalism in America isn’t so free. After the government and the big corporations have divvied up their slices of the pie, very little is left for the rest of us. Unfortunately, this scenario is one that is very difficult to reverse, but as long as we are on the subject, let us consider a hypothetical: Say that the government removed itself entirely from all market affairs. No longer do restrictions or legal minutia prevent people from forging ahead with their business ideas, and no laws exist to prevent people from taking advantage of one another. Naturally, some will be smarter, some will work harder, and some will be more successful. And when the best business minds begin to lap everyone else in the rat race, they will find themselves very rich. Some of these people will use their money to contribute to the betterment of society, and some won’t. Some will be overrun by greed, and they will work with others who share their sentiments.  Together, they will create a system that they can manipulate and control in order to grow their profits. Average people, many unaware of what is happening to them, will be at the mercy of these select few. Soon, those who are being put through the ringer will wise up and recognize the problem. They will be the ones who push for new laws, new regulations, some form of governance over the slavery of their free market. And if they are successful, meetings will occur, laws will be written, and government will intervene. Before long, this minority of wealthy crooks will have limits set on their practices.

     For a period of time, people will have a restored faith in the system and in the government they have chosen to referee their market. But it won’t be long before greed flares up again as wealth will this time be used to test the will of government leaders. Soon enough, politicians by the jet-loads will be flocking into the warm confines of the deepest pockets in the country. And once again, the backbone of the nation, its average citizens, will suffer the disadvantages being dealt down by the powers that be. Trust in the market, its biggest marketeers, as well as the politicians who were put in place to prevent such cooked practices, will flounder. Only now, people don’t know where to turn for help.


     The truth is a free market can only be free insomuch as that it allows people to freely choose their businesses, purchase property, and compete on a level playing field for profits from consumer dollars.  A level playing field and consumer dollars means that there are equal limitations, laws, and market freedom for all businesses and entrepreneurs and that money is earned solely as a result of legitimate trade as opposed to backroom political agendas.  Apart from these very basic measures, not much else can be expected from a good government. Good businesses should ultimately succeed or fail at the mercy of their consumers and clientele.

Related article:

Please follow and like us:

Is PlanCC 2035 the WISE Decision for Corpus Christi?

Corpus Christi, Front Page, Government and Politics, Opinion/Editorial

City Hall

     The marathon Council meeting on March 22, 2016, may have driven some to drink, but it drove me to think.  Of late, I have spent countless hours listening to people at City Council meetings, City Council retreats, school board meetings, Planning Commission meetings, Street Commission meetings, and town hall meetings.  Add that to conversations I’ve had with public servants, volunteers, community activists, business people, media personalities, school teachers, neighbors, Bible study groups, and the average citizen in the line at the grocery store.  Their words reside in my brain, like the family photographs I’ve placed in separate boxes and stuck on shelves here and there in the storeroom.  Only by opening the boxes and looking at the photographs could a stranger discover the common thread that ties one to the other, the thread of the subjects in the pictures.  Through careful and complete unpacking of the word boxes filled with the needs of the people, I discovered the common thread that connects them is actually twine (defined by Webster as “a strong string of two or more strands twisted together”).  The four strands that make up the twine are as follows:

  • Water (i.e. reliable clean water source, reliable waste and storm water systems)
  • Infrastructure (i.e. streets, bridges)
  • Safety (i.e. police, fire, hurricane and emergency preparedness)
  • Economic Development  (i.e. education, training, jobs, transportation, communication)

     If one looks closely, it becomes apparent that each strand is connected to the other three.  For example, if my house catches fire, I use my telephone service provider (Economic Development) to dial 911.  The operator contacts the fire department (Safety) who dispatches trained firefighters who drive the streets (Infrastructure) to get to my house where they connect a hose to a nearby fire hydrant (Water) to douse the flames and hopefully spare my family loss of life and property.  If the council members adopt a comprehensive plan that makes WISE use of tax dollars to ensure these four strands are in place and well-maintained, then my family stands a better chance of moving on with our lives after the smoke has cleared.  Fortunately, we the people of Corpus Christi already have such a plan in place, the 1987 Comprehensive Plan, a plan that meets the legal requirements of the City Charter (Article V. Sec. 4) and gives clear direction to City staff so that they can make WISE decisions.  Two very WISE gentlemen, Councilman Chad Magill and local businessman, Andy Taubman, have been saying this for some time.  One might ask why they are saying anything at all if we have a workable plan in place.  The answer lies in a document entitled PlanCC 2035, a plan that could become the law of the land unless people educate themselves and speak out against it.

Comprehensive plan 1987
1987 Comprehensive Plan

     On February 11, 2015, the City hired Goody Clancy & Associates of Boston, Massachusetts, to serve as the lead consulting firm for PlanCC 2035.  The firm held public meetings where they engaged residents, neighborhood and business leaders, community advocates, and stakeholders in the creation of the plan, collected $957,487,  but evidently failed to check the City Charter to see if they were on the right legal track.  Maybe the tax payers should ask Goody Clancy to repair the plan or refund our money if the plan cannot be brought up to local standards.  It’s what we do when we spend hard-earned money at an eatery, and they mess up the order.  “It started out as a viable plan until it morphed into something I can no longer support,” said Bart Braselton, a local developer who worked on the plan and offered his opinion before the city council last year when the document was presented to council.

     Ralph Coker, a retired petroleum refinery plant manager who writes on business, economic, military and political topics for the Caller-Times, describes it as “a detailed plan for the next 20 years that cannot work.”  Chad Magill sees many problems with the plan and has offered his comments in the form of an alternative plan entitled PlanCC 2036.  Magill highlights some differences in the two plans on his website:


“Plan CC 2036 takes the best of the existing Comprehensive Plan (a bricks and mortar type of plan) and the best of the Plan CC 2035 (a vision-based type of plan) and marries them into Plan CC 2036. Many ideas in Plan CC 2035 become a Vision Document (Ambitions & Aspirations) that may be used as guiding principles for city staff to use in their future budget recommendations.  Plan CC 2036 becomes the Comprehensive Plan that with support by City Council, becomes the Rule of Law. It is important to make very clear that ‘Imprecise language leads to unintended consequences.’ Precise language in the Comprehensive Plan is extremely important. For example, Plan CC 2035 includes absolutely no mention of Public Safety. Even the 1987 Comprehensive Plan included Police, Fire, Public Safety, and other critical public services.”

Taubman PlanCC 2035
Andy Taubman addressing Tea Party on PlanCC 2035

    Andy Taubman outlined the problems he sees with PlanCC 2035 at a Tea Party meeting on March 22, 2016.  He began with what he calls flawed wording.  In a document he presented to those in attendance, Taubman states:

“According to the City Charter, Article V, Section 5, ‘All city improvements, ordinances and regulations, shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.’  Future City councils will be guided by it; City staff will be bound by it; and the citizens will make choices in reliance upon it.  Because this document will become law, every word must be considered, and each word has the awesome potential to shape the future of our City.  For example, the word ‘support’ is used throughout the document.  I take this to mean that this could include financial support – thus creating numerous unfunded mandates.  The word is so imprecise, one cannot determine the meaning.  Imprecise words create bad law.  Bad laws will be misused or misapplied.”

     Taubman then addressed “Private Property Issues” and the impact of PlanCC 2035 as it is written.  For example, on page 13, under Goal 2, it states: “Wetland areas are protected or effectively replaced so that there is no net loss of wetlands.”  The private property concern that Taubman sees with this goal is that it “seems to authorize the City power to identify wetlands on private property to halt development or otherwise require expensive mitigation.”  Following are a few of the many issues Taubman addresses, along with his analysis of each (Click Andy Taubman PlanCC2035 Analysis July version with markup-1 for full document):

  • “Support initiatives for preservation of bird rookeries and similar critical habitat sites.” (p. 13, Policy 3)  Private Property Concern:  Seems to authorize the City power to identify bird rookeries or other wildlife on private property to halt development or otherwise require expensive mitigation.
  • “Support initiatives to improve water quality so that shellfish beds are open and can thrive.”  (p. 13, Policy 1)  Anti-industrial Regulation Concern:  Increased water quality standards will burden the port, port industries, and shipping.  It will also probably bring increased scrutiny to run-off which affects farming and other heavy industry that produces or deals with chemicals of any sort.  Also, numerous municipalities and industries impact water quality.  Will the City have to become the supreme regulatory authority over the bay?
  • “Develop a plan for facilities and programs so that every resident has the opportunity to learn how to swim.”  (p. 14, Policy 9)  Unfunded City Government Mandate:  This is the domain of scouting organizations, YMCA, and numerous other private organizations.  This is not the appropriate role of government.
  • “…reduce single-occupancy vehicle use…”  (p. 27, Policy 4)  Unfunded City Government Mandate:  Unnecessary government regulation.  Most likely achieved by making car use more expensive.
  • “Support programs to manage the balance of fresh and salt water in the estuary.”  (p. 13, Policy 1)  Anti-industrial Regulation ConcernProbably would eliminate or substantially burden the possibility of a desalination plant.  The effect of a plant is to increase salinity in a localized area.
  • “Seek provision of high-speed Internet and telecommunications access to all residents and businesses.”  (p. 30, Policy 8)  Unfunded City Government Mandate: This is generally envisioned as being provided by the City.  Anti-competitive with existing communications providers.  Very, very expensive infrastructure required.
  • “Support a greenhouse-gas audit and use of renewable energy sources.”  (p. 17, Policy 3)  Anti-industrial Regulation Concern: First you measure; then you regulate.  Targets natural resource extraction, refining, manufacturing, transportation.  Will lead to high-cost choices for government programs to make government green.

     Taubman said, “To say it’s the role of City government to herd us into those development opportunities is wrong.  Not only is it wrong in choices for freedom and what it means for property rights, but it’s a choice which will lead us into bankruptcy.”

Planning Commission
Corpus Christi Planning Commission


     On March 23, 2016, Annika Yankee, the PlanCC 2035 Project Manager, gave input to the Planning Commission on the process to review and incorporate City Council members’ comments into the proposed plan.  Yankee explained, “We will present all the comments in a matrix by element and chapter.”  She also said, “We heard it was a lot of to read and that it would help if staff summarized those comments.  We plan to show the actual edit in PlanCC 2035 that results from the comment.”  She assured the committee members that they would receive the document two weeks in advance of the hearing which will be held on April 20, 2016, at 5:30 p.m., in Council Chambers.

     Hopefully, those who are reading this will take the time to review the current plan, PlanCC 2035, and PlanCC 2036 in order to see the major differences.  Then, mark your calendar and weigh-in at the April  20th meeting.  The plan must be a WISE one, complete with all the strands, or it should be rejected.  It’s just that simple.

Please follow and like us:

Could Fewer Regulations for All Solve Uber Problem in Corpus Christi?

Corpus Christi, Front Page, Government and Politics, Opinion/Editorial, Travel


     Kirsten Crow’s Caller-Times article, “City Council May Reconsider Ordinance That Drew Ire of Uber,” tells us that there may be hope for the much-desired Uber and Lyft companies to remain in Corpus Christi.  Councilman Chad Magill has shown an interest in allowing the local taxi companies and ride-hailing companies to reach an agreement through negotiations.  This seems like the right thing to do.  Too much regulation certainly can hinder the creative spirit, which can kill new businesses and make people look elsewhere to work, live, and vacation.  Magill’s idea to suspend the effective date of the ordinance for 60 or 90 days so that the primary stakeholders can come up with a workable plan is a good idea, one that will hopefully lead to less regulation for all.

     Regarding the safety concerns surrounding the ride-sharing companies, economists have long argued that stiff competition is often far better than detailed regulations when it comes to fostering safety and quality.  In many municipalities, the taxi lobby has convinced policymakers that there are only two solutions: Either level the playing field by forcing ride-sharing firms to obey excessive taxi regulations or ban ride-sharing completely. Maybe these groups need to stop fighting one another and join forces to get rid of some of the fees and regulations that are not directly related to safety, such as the fees

FTC Edith Ramirez
Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman of FTC

     The sharing economy, is not just about sharing. It’s about selling, swapping, trading, and bartering and is referred to as the peer-to-peer economy, the collaborative economy, or collaborative consumption.  Companies, such as Airbnb, Snapgoods, TaskRabbit, Uber, Lyft, DogVacay, Poshmark, provide services that people want and are most likely here to stay.  In a speech at Fordham University Law School, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez warned that imposing “legacy regulations on new business models” can stifle competition and ultimately leaves consumers worse off. But, she said that regulators shouldn’t shy away from enforcing important consumer protections on issues like health, safety, or privacy.  Ramirez ends her speech with questions that each governmental entity dealing with businesses that are part of the sharing economy must answer: 

“Assuming these new business models may benefit consumers, how can regulators provide a regulatory framework flexible enough to allow them to realize their full potential? Do existing regulatory frameworks have to be reworked or even abandoned due to these developments?  How do we also ensure that these same new business models do not inadvertently erode beneficial, existing consumer protections in such diverse areas as health and safety, privacy, and data security? Can the trust mechanisms built into some of these new business models replace regulation?  How do we best avoid creating two distinct regulatory tracks – with one set of rules for the older, incumbents businesses and a different set of rules for the new entrants they now increasingly compete against? I would suggest that picking winners by creating a regulatory differential in favor of new entrants should be just as undesirable as retaining regulations that deter meaningful entry. And how should regulators appropriately respond to a highly dynamic marketing which the business models of today may be completely transformed tomorrow?”


     Josh Brustein of Bloomberg Businessweek said, “The so-called sharing economy, which, depending on whom you talk to, is either a lightweight form of socialism or an artisanal flavor of capitalism spawned by the Internet.”  Whatever the case may be, these kinds of businesses pose special problems for municipalities, including Corpus Christi, in terms of what to regulate, whom to regulate, and to what degree to regulate.

Related articles:  “Does Anyone Really Know What ‘Uber’ Means?”

“Uber: Will It Stay or Will It Go?”

Please follow and like us:

Uber: Will It Stay or Will It Go?

Corpus Christi, Front Page, Travel


     The Corpus Christi City Council voted 7-1 in favor of amending Chapter 57 of the City Code of ordinances to establish Article VI, which covers regulations for Transportation Network Companies, such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar. The ordinance addresses drivers and vehicles and was modeled after the Houston ordinance. Passage of the ordinance will allow the ridesharing companies to operate in the city legally.  The ordinance goes into effect on Monday, March 14, 2016.

     At-Large Councilman Mark Scott voted against the ordinance and said, “I don’t like this ordinance. This is an opportunity to reduce the regulation on the whole industry. Let’s take a time-out and look at what other communities are doing.” Scott suggested that the City look at the El Paso Model.

     According an El Paso Inc article on Feb. 22, 2016, by David Crowder reported, “The final version of a new ordinance regulating El Paso’s vehicles for hire will force Uber to operate under city regulations, which the company has ignored for over a year. The new measure would eliminate a fingerprinting requirement that Uber doesn’t like, slash by more than 30 percent fees that taxi companies have paid, and reduce annual vehicle safety inspections from four to one.”

elpaso uber

     District 5 Councilman Rudy Garza likened the multi-billion ridesharing company to a bully who won’t stay and play if he doesn’t like the rules. “The biggest issue for me is that we’ve allowed them to operate in this environment without the same regulations as the cab companies,” Garza said.

     District 4 Councilwoman Colleen McIntyre, spoke against the ordinance but eventually voted for it saying, “So that this allows them  to operate legally, I will vote yes.”

     District 1 Councilwoman Carolyn Vaughn voted for the ordinance even though she asked that the item be pulled from the agenda. “I’m for Uber. I want them to stay here. I’m conflicted about this, but I’m not conflicted about the fingerprinting,” Vaughn said. “Chief Markle, I’m going to rely on you.”

     Markle said, “The best preventative maintenance is to reduce risk factors.” He explained that using the FBI fingerprinting system offers three elements: a biometric association to a person, access to state and national databases, and continuous updates. Markle added, “We do reject cab drivers based on the fingerprinting.”


     At-Large Councilman Chad Magill asked asked the representative for Uber, Lyft, or other rideshare companies to step to the microphone and answer some questions. After a moment of silence, no one appeared.  Magill said, “We’ve listened to people who work for Uber who are trying to earn an income, provide for their family, and make people safer, yet the company they fight for is not here to support them.”  Magill pondered Uber’s stance on fingerprinting their drivers and asserted that certainly a private company would want to keep their employees and riders safe. “I don’t think Uber, Lyft, or other rideshare companies want people to be unsafe. Safety in their models builds a successful company for them.”

     Magill then asked if it was about cost. “I don’t know if anybody has looked at the market capitalization of arguably the most successful private company in the world, which is Uber. You look at financial websites, and it shows them anywhere from fifty-one to sixty-two and half billion dollars at market cap.” He then questioned why a company such as Uber failed to have a department that assisted cities in improving their ordinances versus threatening to leave cities that don’t let Uber have their way.

     Through the discussion between Magill and Chief Markle, it was revealed that Uber has been operating illegally in the city for at least two years. As of last summer, Uber has used space at the TAMUCC Business Innovation Center as a meeting place for the drivers. “I just learned last week that Lyft has been operating in the city for several years, flying under the radar,” added Markle.

     In addressing the fingerprinting issue as the reason Uber will leave town, Magill said, “What I surmise is the fact that it’s the difference between a 1099 and employee status with the IRS. They would instantly have thousands of employees; they would have costs in health care; and perhaps the 20% they take off the top in profits would be less. It doesn’t make it wrong or right; it’s a financial decision.” He also pointed out that Houston’s ordinance also requires fingerprinting, but Uber is still up and running in that city.

     “There’s no 100% correct answer on this, but we’re elected to make decisions.” He then proposed that the council move forward with the ordinance but direct city staff to bring it back in a year’s time for a workshop review. Magill said this would tell Uber the city is going to be adaptable, and it would address the fingerprinting issue, as well.  Magill asked Chief Markle not to cite anyone who has been driving or riding in any of these types of vehicles since the companies have been allowed to operate illegally.  Markle assured Magill no citations would be issued.

     Scott said, “Mayor, I respect you, and I respect all of y’all’s opinions. But in my heart I believe with this vote, Corpus will be less safe.”

     District 3 Councilwoman Lucy Rubio said, “I take a lot of pride in being a law-abiding citizen, and I find it very interesting to hear the conversations that Uber has been operating illegally.” Rubio also alluded to the reports of Uber drivers allegedly committing criminal acts against their riders and reiterated the need for fingerprinting. “All we’re asking is that they follow the rules that have been in place.”

     District 2 Councilman Brian Rosas echoed concerns of the other council members and supported Magill’s idea of revisiting the ordinance in a year. “I don’t think that Corpus Christi’s not being innovative and not being progressive. I think we’re just being cautious because we’re being proactive with what we’re doing. If we have the tools in front of us – when it comes to fingerprinting – let’s use it,” Rosas said.

     As the vote neared, Vaughn said, “I think we’re going about this backwards. I think we need to look at the taxi regulations. I just wish that we could pull it and look at those regulations before we go making a decision.”

     Mayor Nelda Martinez responded to Vaughn’s suggestion by saying, “I understand what you’re saying, but if we pull it, then Uber will not be able to operate legally. At least we can pass this and still look at this within the year’s time.”

     McIntyre suggested that a contract be considered rather than an ordinance, omitting the fingerprinting. Martinez did not see this as an option. “What we’re doing is lowering our risk, not trying to increase them,” she said.

     Corpus Christi is not the only city struggling with what to do about ridesharing companies not wanting to do fingerprinting.   Even its hometown of San Francisco is at odds with Uber. Every major city in Texas has faced the Uber challenge. Some, such as Galveston and Midland, lost the service over their recent regulatory ordinances. Austin is putting it to a vote with the people in May, and San Antonio signed an operating agreement with Uber after watching the company abandon their city.  Some consider Uber and other rideshare companies the embodiment of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individualism and personal liberty.  Others see it is as a threat to established rules and regulations designed to level the playing field for all companies in the ride-for-hire industry.


Update –  The facts on the revenue for the City of Corpus Christi in Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (Current Budget), not including taxicab inspector, administrative costs, internal service costs, etc., are as follows:

“Page 108 and 109 in our FY15-16 budget states line 300960 taxicab franchises as $52,000 and line 301345 taxi driver permits $6,300. Those combined translate to 0.00025 of the $232,155,653 general fund and 0.000067 of our total $865,523,655 total adopted budget,” said Councilman Chad Magill.

Please follow and like us: