The city has already levied heavy fines for the infraction as a result of complaints from Plainfield taxi companies that must pay for licenses and meet requirements of the city taxi ordinance. But representatives of the North Plainfield companies said they are Plainfield residents who are just trying to earn a living..
The ordinance to allow towing of a non-city taxi at a police officer's request passed on first reading Tuesday and will be up for second reading and final passage on Dec. 12.
In public comment, the dispatcher for a new North Plainfield company, Gray Taxi, told the council he had been taught that America is the greatest country for its freedom, adding, "We just want to work honestly."
He said because of fines by the city he could not afford costumes for his daughters.
"We're not stealing nobody's business," he said.
Plainfield has four licensed taxi companies and because the number of taxis goes by population, no new city licenses can be issued. Soria Taxi owner Fabian Soria pleaded two years ago with the governing body to relent on the fines and said due to the cap on licenses he can't get one, even though he started out in Plainfield. His daughter said Tuesday she was born and raised in Plainfield and called it "unfair the way Plainfield treats my parents."
Another woman who drives for Soria said she was recently pulled over in Plainfield "for no reason," scaring her passengers. She said she had collected numerous signatures from Plainfield residents saying they liked Soria Taxi and a speaker alleged a city police officer called Soria on his personal cell phone to pick up bar patrons at closing time.
Others in favor of Soria claimed that Plainfield taxis may take half an hour to show up, but the Gray Taxi dispatcher put in a couple of similar digs at Soria.
All arguments aside, Corporation Counsel David Minchello said there is "no reciprocity" just because a person has a taxi license in North Plainfield.
Here is the amendment to the taxi ordinance that will be up for final passage on Dec. 12:
Any vehicle operating in violation of this chapter shall be deemed a nuisance and a menace to the safe and proper regulation of traffic, and any Police Officer upon his or her discretion, may provide for the removal of that vehicle. The owner shall bear the costs of removal and storage which may result from such removal before regaining possession of the vehicle.
The ordinance is anti-competitive and promotes inefficiency, thereby raising costs for Plainfield residents who utilize cabs. There should be reciprocity with all adjacent communities. Could be that campaign contributions to the powers that be greased this legislation.
ReplyDeleteI will operate my taxi in plainfield no matter what i make good money there and will tell customers to say i picked them up in North Plainfield hahaha
ReplyDeleteThank you for protecting the companies and hard working drivers who are operating legally. Soria will continue to try to get away with what they are doing and I look forward to seeing their cabs towed.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any skin in the game, however, I think it's worth noting the hypocrisy of those who voted in favor of this ordinance.
ReplyDeleteThe same group of people who clamour about the lack of job opportunities, near and far, for their friends, families and neighbors have chosen to block "outsiders" from doing business in Plainfield.
The same people who scream and shout about the importance of Paid Sick Leave or providing I.D. cards to undocumented individuals, prefer to prohibit legal residents and businesses from conducting their legitimate business on "their turf".
The same group of people who have been in and around Plainfield for decades, if not their lifetime, yet have allowed the City to deteriorate in favor of politcally motivated patronage jobs in the city, county and state, prefer to limit real job opportunities and growth to those who have actually worked for it.
Shame on each and every person in favor of this nonsense.
Competition, not complacency, stimulates growth, innovation and success, among businesses and individuals alike.
PLAINFIELD FIRST IS WHAT I SAY THESE OUT OF TOWNERS COMING IN TAKING OUR BUSINESS
ReplyDeletePlease remind yourself of what you state in this commentary the next time someone, somewhere, outside of Plainfield denies you the opportunity because you don't live within the imaginary boundaries of their community.
DeleteI suppose you think it's acceptable when people deny others an opportunity for the "right" reason (whatever you deem that to be) but would fume at the idea of being denied for what you perceive to be the "wrong" reasons.
Another piece to the puzzle as to the thought process of "old school" Plainfield residents who have allowed this great City to wither away for decades. This is the line of thinking that has prevented real progress around here, something which seems to be changing, finally!
Please do not paint "old school" Plainfielders with the same brush. "Old school" Plainfielders left million of dollars to Muhlenberg,to local foundations, and for scholarships for students of Plainfield and adjacent communities. "Old school" Plainfielders fought to keep some of these monies within the City limits and are still fighting. Before you cast a label on "old school" Plainfielders, look deeper into the facts. Some people who have come here have failed to protect Plainfield's legacy or simply exploited it. Anyone who grew up here would have known how much money was left to the Hospital, library, and local foundations. The assumption by some that Black equals poor has caused Plainfield to be robbed. If "old school" Plainfield is not valued than the assets of "old school" Plainfield will not be protected, and those assets had no color and were left for all. We have lost more than the Hospital.
DeletePerhaps "Old School" was not the best terms to use; regardless it was intended as a pop culture term in reference to greedy administrations, council people, local political hacks and self-enitled residents over the past several decades who are always on the take.
DeleteMy comment did not intend to reference those who have genuinely sought to help preserve and protect the legacy of Plainfield. We are fortunate more and more people are starting to re-discover our City and have chosen to, either, move here, or invest. It's just going to take a little more time.
I THINK THE CUSTOMER THAT CALLS OUT OF TOWN TAXI FOR RIDES SHOULD ALSO GET A FINE FOR ENCOURAGING THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:54 - I think this is a ridiculous statement and idea. Where does this type of thinking end if this is allowed? Should you be fined for buying clothing outside of Plainfield? Shopping at a grocery store outside of Plainfield? Ordering services like carpet cleaning or plumbing outside of Plainfield?
DeleteThe city should provide a license to any qualified taxi company interested in performing services in town - if they are limited by the number of licenses they can issue, they should bring it up to the state. We are not an island and we should not be fining citizens for selecting any sort of service from outside Plainfields borders - that is pure nonsense.
I agree. Why allow Plainfield taxis to hike prices because of an unfair law.
DeleteLet us also ban out of town shoppers from coming to the City AND not allow companies in other towns to hire Plainfield residents. We do not want a brain drain our best and brightest.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you wonder where these Laws come from. Why not limit the number of churches or nail salons. There's too many of these.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:39 - very good point. My guess is that the taxi license structure came about for a good reason years ago - which was likely to regulate the industry for safety and keep them from charging excessive or usurious fees for rides etc. I am sure it was created with the best intent but like all things, laws become outdated or morph into something that was not the original intention and they should be looked at and "upgraded" like software so the bugs are eliminated and they function properly.
DeleteWhy is the PMUA picking up recyclables in a nearby town. STAY in Plainfield like you're telling everyone else!!!!. Besides, my sharing fees have not been reduced and there is litter everywhere. Where is my money going????!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is part of a PMUA initiative to gain outside income. The authority now has contracts with several municipalities to provide services. I'm guessing you are reacting to the PMUA newsletter - why not ask the PMUA directly rather than post off-topic here? Just asking. FYI here is an old Plaintalker post that mentions the initiative. http://ptalker2.blogspot.com/2014/02/pmua-adding-new-customer-reorganizing.html
DeleteI think this law is totally un-American and goes against free enterprise. I can't believe the mayor or our City Council is going along with this. Any legitimate taxi service should be able to pick up here in Plainfield. I may just walk across the border to get an out-of-town taxi. This just isn't right and I haven't heard anything that convinces me otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBob Bolmer
By the way, I would like to know how the Council and Administration plan to monitor and address those of us who use UBER or call for "town cars" for the airport, work or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI suspect this matter, like so many other issues that face our City leadership, was not properly thought out and deliberated upon -- much more reactionary than anything else.
If out of town taxis are coming into Plainfield, it is because of a shortage of in-town taxis. One way Council could solve problem is by increasing the number of licenses- if they were in the problem=solving business- as they set the number by ordinance. Look at the ratios in some other towns:
ReplyDeleteJersey City: 1 license/2,000 residents
Hoboken: 1 license/667 residents.
Punishing out-of-town taxis neither solves the shortage problem nor helps the residents.