In Defense of United Paulding Taxi

[truckman42]

This is a supplement to the 28 Apr 2014 post: ‘Paulding County’s only taxi company is under attack.’

 

On his 29 Apr 2014 post, ‘Concerned Pldg Resident’ alleged that ‘… the owners have a habit of not paying vendors or paying late and then trying to “cut deals”…’. United Paulding Taxi pays its bills and vendors promptly. It does not attempt to take advantage of any of its business partners.

 

On the 29 Apr 2014 post, ‘Nice Green’ says ‘I don’t see $100 as excessive when one county’s fee is $50.’ Paulding Taxi’s reply is that driving a cab is a low paying, difficult job and the hours are erratic. Therefore, it is hard to find reliable people to do this kind of work. When they learn that Paulding charges them $100 per year and Cobb charges them $50, many candidates simply refuse to take the job.

 

Regarding the age of taxi cabs, the Paulding.com member, ‘Nice Green’ and other participants do not see the maximum ten year age requirement as prohibitive. United Paulding Taxi does not have the business volume to afford discarding clean functional vehicles whose ages are ten years or older. Taxi cabs are United Paulding Taxi’s capital equipment. As such they receive regular maintenance and parts are replaced if they are even in borderline condition. Age-wise, this company’s taxis are younger than my family’s automobiles.

 

My wife bought her Toyota new in 1983 and I bought my truck new in 1986. Both are reliable and due to regular maintenance, they run good and start up without difficulty on cold mornings.

 

If our local officials are fearful that one of his taxis might break down and leave a customer stranded, the company has a procedure to summon a back-up taxi to take the customer to their destination.

 

In the spirit of America’s ‘can-do’ ethos, the owner of United Paulding Taxi began his business during the depth of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Through very hard work and perseverance he now has a small but thriving business and numerous customers who rely on him.

 

I call him my friend and it is a shame to see how our local politicians have put obstacles in his way. If he could somehow work his way into the local ‘old-boy’ club, the artificial headwinds would diminish, but that is unlikely. So I can only appeal to the sense of fair play that exists in most Americans.

 

If he is driven away, unlicensed ‘gypsy cabs’ will come in to the vacuum.

 

 

[mhparker92]

I've never figured out why the taxi business as seen as such a bad thing. This is similar to what the state is trying to do to Uber. What's up with it? Just let people run their business. Especially because of the internet, social media, etc., any bad publicity due to any of the concerns that have been raised will quickly put the company out of business. We don't need local government being like this.

 

Really - I can't call a cab if I need one in this county???

[tundra]

After sitting through the DOT meeting yesterday, Taxi service will take away from some of the proposed "new" plans they have, especially for downtown areas of Hiram and Dallas.

 

They can't get federal money for a private business (well, they aren't supposed to lol). It's all about getting that almighty federal money to put in what they want.

 

It's an absolute shame they continue to drive away private business.

[publisher1]

Do you care to elaborate tundra?

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

[tundra]

Do you care to elaborate tundra?

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

I don't have time to elaborate but they are talking about shuttle services or both Dallas & Hiram and GRTA going to the Park & Ride in Dallas. Richard was there, he should be able to fill you in.

[Nice Green]

On the 29 Apr 2014 post, ‘Nice Green’ says ‘I don’t see $100 as excessive when one county’s fee is $50.’ Paulding Taxi’s reply is that driving a cab is a low paying, difficult job and the hours are erratic. Therefore, it is hard to find reliable people to do this kind of work. When they learn that Paulding charges them $100 per year and Cobb charges them $50, many candidates simply refuse to take the job.

 

Regarding the age of taxi cabs, the Paulding.com member, ‘Nice Green’ and other participants do not see the maximum ten year age requirement as prohibitive. United Paulding Taxi does not have the business volume to afford discarding clean functional vehicles whose ages are ten years or older. Taxi cabs are United Paulding Taxi’s capital equipment. As such they receive regular maintenance and parts are replaced if they are even in borderline condition. Age-wise, this company’s taxis are younger than my family’s automobiles.

 

I'll repeat what I said in the last thread and supplement it. $50 extra a year is $4.17 a month, or about 14 cents a day. If you're business can't handle that small of an increase, then you're doing it wrong. And that extra cost could be passed to the customer without them noticing. Even three customers a day paying a nickel more would cover the extra cost.

 

Granted, everyone would want to see $50 more in their pocket, and I understand that, but showing that one other county has a cheaper fee isn't strong evidence that Paulding's fee is too high. For all we know, bordering Bartow County could charge its cab operators $200 a year. Now if you could show the fees of every bordering county and Paulding's remained the highest and nowhere near the fees of all the other counties, then you'd have a strong argument.

 

As far as the age requirement goes, I'd would have to imagine that when vehicles get past the 10-year mark, you're replacing more than just belts and hoses. When the need arises to replace those major components, the costs are going to increase, are they not? It therefore seems to make more sense to invest in new vehicles rather than pay the high repair costs.

 

And I could be wrong, but I think our schools are required to replace their buses when they get past the 10-year mark, or at least they're strongly encouraged to do so by losing funding. If that's good enough for our children, then it should be good enough for the adults who need cab service.

[dawneykids]

I don't have time to elaborate but they are talking about shuttle services or both Dallas & Hiram and GRTA going to the Park & Ride in Dallas. Richard was there, he should be able to fill you in.

SOOOO, is a shuttle service going to pick me up and drop me at my front door after I've had one too many at the local bar/restaurant on a Saturday night? Are they going to pick grandma up for a dr's appt on time and come back and get her when she's done? Yea right. More grand plans going nowhere and the residents get the shaft again by the very elected officials who are supposed to make this county a better place. Brilliant.

[truckman42]

Replacing ten year and older taxi cabs

 

The city of Dallas has mandated that taxi cabs that pick up customers in the city limits be no older than ten years

 

If a taxi company’s vehicles are unsightly, dirty, or prone to breakdowns, customers will take their business someplace else.

 

Also, successful business managers in all sectors constantly monitor expenses. If a piece of equipment frequently needs repairs, it will be replaced if better equipment is available. This is Business Management 201.

 

If a taxi is operable, reliable, well maintained and is kept clean both inside and out, it makes business sense to keep it in service.

 

Conservative politicians on all levels fret and wail about the evils of government intrusion, and how they must remove the barriers that are placed in the way of small businesses. But here, deep in the heart of a very red state, the story of United Paulding Taxi shows that the politicians speak with forked tongue’.

[NITR0]

 

 

As far as the age requirement goes, I'd would have to imagine that when vehicles get past the 10-year mark, you're replacing more than just belts and hoses. When the need arises to replace those major components, the costs are going to increase, are they not? It therefore seems to make more sense to invest in new vehicles rather than pay the high repair costs.

 

 

And what business is it of the government what your expenses are?

If the cost of doing business increases, the price to the customer increases.

If there is no gouging going on, it's none of the governments business what a business charges.

We operate on the free market economy. That means the customers decide where they do business

and how much of that business they will utilize, NOT the government. Yes, after the 10 year mark, some items likely will

need to be replaced on a vehicle, but with regular maintenance, that can be a hell of a lot less expensive than replacing

with a new vehicle. If a customer brings me a 10 year old vehicle and needs a timing belt, water pump, hoses, etc... we are looking

at roughly $1000-$1200. If maintenance has been done and this long term regular maintenance is performed, then that

vehicle can continue to stay on the road, reliably, for many more miles and years. That beats the hell out of going out and buying

a new $20,000 vehicle, which also comes with higher tag prices as well as higher insurance rates.

The government has no business telling a market entity how to run their business.

You don't see them telling restaurants that they have to replace their fry vats every 10 years.

You don't see them telling mechanics that they have to replace their lifts every 10 years.

Hell, I know for a fact, the county itself has vehicles well over 10 years old that are still being used.

We still live in a free market... and a free market works when the consumers decide the fate of a company, not the government.

[Inconceivable]

...

We still live in a free market... and a free market works when the consumers decide the fate of a company, not the government.

 

I generally agree with you, but I'm going to be Devil's advocate for a second:

I've never called for a taxi and known what was coming before it showed up at my door. Also, if you take a taxi from the airport, you don't get to pick which one you get in. You get a ticket at the booth and whichever car is next is your ride. If my daughter flies in and is taking a taxi, I sure want that driver & car regulated by someone. Your argument assumes that all business owners are honest & responsible, like the company that we're talking about here, but unfortunately most are not.

 

Ten years seems like an awfully short time for a replacement car requirement to me, but it's likely just an arbitrary number that they pulled out of the air to apply to everyone. Probably because some idiot was taking advantage of the unsuspecting and picking up drunk kids at the bar in a '78 Buick LeSabre with a spare tire and an exhaust leak.

 

Like I said, I almost always agree (I consider seat belt laws to be an encroachment on people's right to be stupid), but there are just too many that would abuse zero regulation on taxi companies.

[Nice Green]

And what business is it of the government what your expenses are?

If the cost of doing business increases, the price to the customer increases.

If there is no gouging going on, it's none of the governments business what a business charges.

We operate on the free market economy. That means the customers decide where they do business

and how much of that business they will utilize, NOT the government. Yes, after the 10 year mark, some items likely will

need to be replaced on a vehicle, but with regular maintenance, that can be a hell of a lot less expensive than replacing

with a new vehicle. If a customer brings me a 10 year old vehicle and needs a timing belt, water pump, hoses, etc... we are looking

at roughly $1000-$1200. If maintenance has been done and this long term regular maintenance is performed, then that

vehicle can continue to stay on the road, reliably, for many more miles and years. That beats the hell out of going out and buying

a new $20,000 vehicle, which also comes with higher tag prices as well as higher insurance rates.

The government has no business telling a market entity how to run their business.

You don't see them telling restaurants that they have to replace their fry vats every 10 years.

You don't see them telling mechanics that they have to replace their lifts every 10 years.

Hell, I know for a fact, the county itself has vehicles well over 10 years old that are still being used.

We still live in a free market... and a free market works when the consumers decide the fate of a company, not the government.

 

As I believe I mentioned in the other thread, the 10-year requirement is also a safety issue. A newer car is bound to have more safety features and/or be better designed to withstand an impact from another vehicle. And while you can replace belts and hoses, there are going to be things on a vehicle that aren't as easily replaced and can still fail. I'd say the government has a responsibility to make sure a taxi service has vehicles that aren't likely to fail.

 

As far as government regulations go, would you want the health department to look the other way if a restaurant isn't heating meat to the proper temperature, or if the fridge isn't keeping certain foods cool enough? Would you want those restaurants to take the grease from the fry vats and pour it into the sewer? Saying "the government has no business telling a market entity how to run their business" is foolish.

 

If the taxi age requirement is too strict, then show us city/county/state policies on taxi cabs that don't restrict vehicle age. I'd like to know if Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. have vehicle age policies. I think the big cities would know how to regulate taxi services, but if they don't have restrictions on taxi age limits, then you have an argument to strike down this local policy. At the very least, there should be a comparison made to similar municipalities. But showing how one county does it isn't enough evidence. As I said about the county fee issue, merely comparing Paulding's $100 fee to Cobb's $50 fee isn't enough evidence that would compel me to lower Paulding's fee, but if you showed me the fees of all neighboring counties or at least a few similar to Paulding and showed that the $100 fee was too high, then you'd have an argument.

 

My mentioning of the expenses is just my reasoning why a business may want to replace its vehicles in a timely manner.

[NITR0]

 

I generally agree with you, but I'm going to be Devil's advocate for a second:

I've never called for a taxi and known what was coming before it showed up at my door. Also, if you take a taxi from the airport, you don't get to pick which one you get in. You get a ticket at the booth and whichever car is next is your ride. If my daughter flies in and is taking a taxi, I sure want that driver & car regulated by someone. Your argument assumes that all business owners are honest & responsible, like the company that we're talking about here, but unfortunately most are not.

 

Yes, you most certainly do get to decide which taxi you take. If you call a taxi and a piece of crap shows up that you don't feel comfortable riding in, you simply don't get in it and tell the taxi driver why you refuse his service. You call the dispatcher and tell them the same thing and you request them send you another taxi or you call another service. There is absolutely nothing that says you have to get in to the vehicle.

[Nice Green]

 

Yes, you most certainly do get to decide which taxi you take. If you call a taxi and a piece of crap shows up that you don't feel comfortable riding in, you simply don't get in it and tell the taxi driver why you refuse his service. You call the dispatcher and tell them the same thing and you request them send you another taxi or you call another service. There is absolutely nothing that says you have to get in to the vehicle.

I think they meant that if you're trying to get somewhere in a hurry or in a reasonable amount of time, you don't really get much of a choice in the matter—it's first available. You don't get a pick of car 1, 2, or 3 just sitting around waiting for a customer.

[NITR0]

As I believe I mentioned in the other thread, the 10-year requirement is also a safety issue. A newer car is bound to have more safety features and/or be better designed to withstand an impact from another vehicle. And while you can replace belts and hoses, there are going to be things on a vehicle that aren't as easily replaced and can still fail. I'd say the government has a responsibility to make sure a taxi service has vehicles that aren't likely to fail.

 

As far as government regulations go, would you want the health department to look the other way if a restaurant isn't heating meat to the proper temperature, or if the fridge isn't keeping certain foods cool enough? Would you want those restaurants to take the grease from the fry vats and pour it into the sewer? Saying "the government has no business telling a market entity how to run their business" is foolish.

 

If the taxi age requirement is too strict, then show us city/county/state policies on taxi cabs that don't restrict vehicle age. I'd like to know if Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. have vehicle age policies. I think the big cities would know how to regulate taxi services, but if they don't have restrictions on taxi age limits, then you have an argument to strike down this local policy. At the very least, there should be a comparison made to similar municipalities. But showing how one county does it isn't enough evidence. As I said about the county fee issue, merely comparing Paulding's $100 fee to Cobb's $50 fee isn't enough evidence that would compel me to lower Paulding's fee, but if you showed me the fees of all neighboring counties or at least a few similar to Paulding and showed that the $100 fee was too high, then you'd have an argument.

 

My mentioning of the expenses is just my reasoning why a business may want to replace its vehicles in a timely manner.

 

A 10 year old vehicle is a safety issue? Sorry, but not hardly. There are plenty of vehicles out there that are over 10 years old that are A LOT safer than some vehicles made just this year. If you want to ensure safety of the vehicle, you need to propose safety inspections, just like is done in many states. Georgia even did this many years ago. If this is such a safety issue, are you telling me that you would refuse to ride or own any vehicle over 10 years old because it's likely not as safe as a new one?

 

Your comparison to the health department is not valid.

Do you think there are restaurants out there with refridgerators and freezers older than 10 years old?

Absolutely there are. That has nothing to do with the food being store and chilled correctly or heated and cooked completely.

If the health department visits a location that has a 20 year old refridgerator and it still keeps the food cold and at proper storage temperature, the health department doesn't come in and say, "You have to replace that fridge because it's not as efficient as a newer one."

 

A couple of the big cities, like Atlanta and Los Angeles do have taxi age requirements. Do you know why?

Because of the Olympics. Atlanta nor Los Angeles had age requirements on their taxi services until the Olympics came to the respective cities. They were too concerned about what outsiders from other countries might think about the existing taxi services, which had never proven to be unsafe, looked to foriegn countries. So they imposed the restriction. It had nothing at all to do with safety.

It had to do with the image the city wanted to falsely portray so they didn't look bad in the eyes of others.

I think they meant that if you're trying to get somewhere in a hurry or in a reasonable amount of time, you don't really get much of a choice in the matter—it's first available. You don't get a pick of car 1, 2, or 3 just sitting around waiting for a customer.

 

Then you simply go to the rental counter and rent a vehicle.

It doesn't matter... you have a choice.

[Nice Green]

A couple of the big cities, like Atlanta and Los Angeles do have taxi age requirements. Do you know why?

Because of the Olympics. Atlanta nor Los Angeles had age requirements on their taxi services until the Olympics came to the respective cities. They were too concerned about what outsiders from other countries might think about the existing taxi services, which had never proven to be unsafe, looked to foriegn countries. So they imposed the restriction. It had nothing at all to do with safety.

It had to do with the image the city wanted to falsely portray so they didn't look bad in the eyes of others.

 

Then you simply go to the rental counter and rent a vehicle.

It doesn't matter... you have a choice.

I posited that the vehicle age ordinance was passed due to safety concerns, but after you brought this up, think too that a city's image is a valid concern. If one of a business owner's first experience with a city/county is its taxi service, and that experience is bad due to an aging vehicle, then it doesn't paint a good picture for the community.

 

Another possible reason for this ordinance is that newer vehicles tend to pollute less. Shouldn't a government be concerned about the cleanliness of its air? There's a reason why you have to do emissions tests around here.

 

Without knowing the logic behind this particular vehicle age ordinance, I can't say what those who passed it had in mind. But I think there are some logical and valid reasons why it may have been passed.

 

You have ordinances against eyesores on residential lands and commercial properties. Yes, it's a restriction on what the landowner can do with the land, but at the same time, the government (and the public too) has a valid interest in bringing down eyesores.

 

As far as your taxi service "choice" example goes, not everyone will want to drive themselves around a big city—one that they're probably not familiar with. And some travelers CAN'T drive because they don't have a license or aren't physically able. So for many, there is no choice between a taxi and a rental car.

[cookies are sweet]

I don't think a 15 yr old taxi is going to make Paulding look bad.

We got other things that can handle that.

If Cobb can live with $50, then so can Paulding, but then $100 isn't that huge of an increase.

 

My thought has always been that the "powers that be" didn't want a lot of taxi service in the county.

That is not unusual in rural counties that are changing demographics and have the "old guard" still resistant to change.

Heck, even back in the 70's, little ole Smyrna had a good taxi service.

[bored]

A Shuttle Service for Paulding County????

Serious????

 

Okay, I am buying a car and starting my own business.

I will gladly purchase a 9 year old vehicle and pay the $100 per year fine.

Then I can transfer people to:

The Airport

Ampitheater

Sidewalk to nowhere

Fred's

All the Tunnel Entrances

Chucubbra's home

Krispy Kreme

And the Old Kmart

 

I can make a fortune.

You better call and make your appointments now because I see a great demand for my service and I will undercut all of the Shuttle Buses.

Edited May 14, 2014 by mysterious

[cookies are sweet]

We have a Krispy Kreme?

[NITR0]

I posited that the vehicle age ordinance was passed due to safety concerns, but after you brought this up, think too that a city's image is a valid concern. If one of a business owner's first experience with a city/county is its taxi service, and that experience is bad due to an aging vehicle, then it doesn't paint a good picture for the community.

 

Another possible reason for this ordinance is that newer vehicles tend to pollute less. Shouldn't a government be concerned about the cleanliness of its air? There's a reason why you have to do emissions tests around here.

 

Without knowing the logic behind this particular vehicle age ordinance, I can't say what those who passed it had in mind. But I think there are some logical and valid reasons why it may have been passed.

 

You have ordinances against eyesores on residential lands and commercial properties. Yes, it's a restriction on what the landowner can do with the land, but at the same time, the government (and the public too) has a valid interest in bringing down eyesores.

 

As far as your taxi service "choice" example goes, not everyone will want to drive themselves around a big city—one that they're probably not familiar with. And some travelers CAN'T drive because they don't have a license or aren't physically able. So for many, there is no choice between a taxi and a rental car.

 

So, you're telling me anything that the city or any government deems to paint an unfavorable picture for itself, it should ban or restrict?

Please tell me then why more cities don't clean themselves up. Most major inner city areas are filthy and run down.

The governments role in society is not to determine what makes themselves look good.

If the government wanted to protect their image, they could do a hell of a lot more than worry about a 10 year old taxi.

 

The government is supposedly concerned about the cleanliness of their air.

But again, your argument is invalid.

If that was the case, they would outlaw or restrict ALL internal combustion vehicles over 10 years old.

There's a hell of a lot more private vehicles out there over 10 years old than there are taxi cabs.

The government has standards for air pollution and as long as that vehicle meets or exceeds those standards,

it should not be restricted or outlawed for use on that alone.

You are right, without knowing the actual thought behind a governments regulation, you don't know why.

But I do know why Los Angeles and Atlanta did it. It was made public during both Olympics.

Los Angeles did it and when the Olympics came to Atlanta, they looked at what other cities did to prepare

and they followed LA's lead on the taxi restrictions. They did not hide this fact, the publicly stated why they did it

and it was solely for the appearance of the city.

 

You are talking about eyesores. Who said that a 10 year old vehicle is an eyesore.

I've got a vehicle in my driveway that is 20+ years old and isn't an eyesore. It's well kept.

Paulding County government has many vehicles in their fleet over 10 years old that are not eyesores.

Again, not a valid argument. Could it be a valid argument? Sure, if the vehicles were indeed eyesores.

But to simply say a vehicle is an eyesore just because it's over 10 years old is again, invalid.

If that's the case, home owners associations and governments should be able to say you can't park

a 10+ year old car in your driveway because it's an eyesore. Why kind of citizen outcry do you think

that would instigate if they did? Would you want someone telling you that you can't park your 10 year old

car in your driveway?

 

And sorry, there is ALWAYS a choice.

It may not be the choice you want and it may not be the most convenient choice,

but you always have a choice.

I have traveled all over this country, many times over.

There have been times I have taken a taxi somewhere.

There have been times I refused to get in to a taxi because of the way it or its driver appeared.

But, I ALWAYS have a backup plan BEFORE I leave to go.

You can say you don't have a choice, but that is a false claim.

It would be more correct to say that you decided you would take a path, when you got to your destination,

and if that path didn't work out for you, that you were stuck because you failed to plan accordingly for

unforeseen circumstances.

Edited May 14, 2014 by NITR0

[Nice Green]

 

So, you're telling me anything that the city or any government deems to paint an unfavorable picture for itself, it should ban or restrict?

Please tell me then why more cities don't clean themselves up. Most major inner city areas are filthy and run down.

The governments role in society is not to determine what makes themselves look good.

If the government wanted to protect their image, they could do a hell of a lot more than worry about a 10 year old taxi.

 

The government is supposedly concerned about the cleanliness of their air.

But again, your argument is invalid.

If that was the case, they would outlaw or restrict ALL internal combustion vehicles over 10 years old.

There's a hell of a lot more private vehicles out there over 10 years old than there are taxi cabs.

The government has standards for air pollution and as long as that vehicle meets or exceeds those standards,

it should not be restricted or outlawed for use on that alone.

You are right, without knowing the actual thought behind a governments regulation, you don't know why.

But I do know why Los Angeles and Atlanta did it. It was made public during both Olympics.

Los Angeles did it and when the Olympics came to Atlanta, they looked at what other cities did to prepare

and they followed LA's lead on the taxi restrictions. They did not hide this fact, the publicly stated why they did it

and it was solely for the appearance of the city.

 

You are talking about eyesores. Who said that a 10 year old vehicle is an eyesore.

I've got a vehicle in my driveway that is 20+ years old and isn't an eyesore. It's well kept.

Paulding County government has many vehicles in their fleet over 10 years old that are not eyesores.

Again, not a valid argument. Could it be a valid argument? Sure, if the vehicles were indeed eyesores.

But to simply say a vehicle is an eyesore just because it's over 10 years old is again, invalid.

If that's the case, home owners associations and governments should be able to say you can't park

a 10+ year old car in your driveway because it's an eyesore. Why kind of citizen outcry do you think

that would instigate if they did? Would you want someone telling you that you can't park your 10 year old

car in your driveway?

 

And sorry, there is ALWAYS a choice.

It may not be the choice you want and it may not be the most convenient choice,

but you always have a choice.

I have traveled all over this country, many times over.

There have been times I have taken a taxi somewhere.

There have been times I refused to get in to a taxi because of the way it or its driver appeared.

But, I ALWAYS have a backup plan BEFORE I leave to go.

You can say you don't have a choice, but that is a false claim.

It would be more correct to say that you decided you would take a path, when you got to your destination,

and if that path didn't work out for you, that you were stuck because you failed to plan accordingly for

unforeseen circumstances.

Frankly, I don't know why this ordinance seeks to have taxis less than 10 years old. I didn't write it, and I didn't vote for it. I'm just suggesting some reasons why it might have been passed just for the point of discussion. And some of those reasons may be good, while others may be weak. Why don't you ask those who passed it?

 

You misunderstood the reason why I mentioned the eyesore ordinance. I wasn't saying that old cars are eyesores—just that those ordinances restrict one's right to do what they please with their property because a government and its people have an interest in having communities free from eyesores. Now you can argue that the government shouldn't stick its nose into your private property, but here, I do see an argument to rid the community of views such as junk cars on cinderblocks, run-down flashing signs, and other possible eyesores (not sure what all the local ordinances outlaw, but those are examples of potential eyesores that ordinances may ban).

 

And homeowners associations could very well tell you not to park a 10-plus-year-old vehicle in your driveway. They can pretty much say anything as long as it's in the bylaws that a homeowner agrees to—now that homeowner can fight it in court but they may have a tough go if it's in the contract they themselves signed. I've heard of at least one that says you must park your vehicle in your garage, not on your driveway. I wouldn't agree with such a HOA restriction, but hey, at least one HOA has enacted it.

 

I don't buy your argument that you "always have a choice" when it comes to taxis. I provided an apt example of someone from another country who does not hold an American driver's license—they don't have the choice to get a rental car at the airport. Would you say that they've "failed to plan accordingly for unforeseen circumstances" due to the fact that they're foreign and don't have an American driver's license?

 

What about the elderly person who can't drive? Should they have planned to not to get old?

[NITR0]

Frankly, I don't know why this ordinance seeks to have taxis less than 10 years old. I didn't write it, and I didn't vote for it. I'm just suggesting some reasons why it might have been passed just for the point of discussion. And some of those reasons may be good, while others may be weak. Why don't you ask those who passed it?

 

You misunderstood the reason why I mentioned the eyesore ordinance. I wasn't saying that old cars are eyesores—just that those ordinances restrict one's right to do what they please with their property because a government and its people have an interest in having communities free from eyesores. Now you can argue that the government shouldn't stick its nose into your private property, but here, I do see an argument to rid the community of views such as junk cars on cinderblocks, run-down flashing signs, and other possible eyesores (not sure what all the local ordinances outlaw, but those are examples of potential eyesores that ordinances may ban).

 

And homeowners associations could very well tell you not to park a 10-plus-year-old vehicle in your driveway. They can pretty much say anything as long as it's in the bylaws that a homeowner agrees to—now that homeowner can fight it in court but they may have a tough go if it's in the contract they themselves signed. I've heard of at least one that says you must park your vehicle in your garage, not on your driveway. I wouldn't agree with such a HOA restriction, but hey, at least one HOA has enacted it.

 

I don't buy your argument that you "always have a choice" when it comes to taxis. I provided an apt example of someone from another country who does not hold an American driver's license—they don't have the choice to get a rental car at the airport. Would you say that they've "failed to plan accordingly for unforeseen circumstances" due to the fact that they're foreign and don't have an American driver's license?

 

What about the elderly person who can't drive? Should they have planned to not to get old?

 

I didn't misunderstand anything. You used an example of an eyesore.

That implies that you are viewing older vehicles as being eyesores.

 

And no, a HOA cannot tell you that you cannot park a 10 year old vehicle in your driveway.

They can require that NO vehicles be permitted to park in a driveway and they

can require that no "junk" vehicles be parked in your driveway.

 

It really doesn't matter if you buy my "you always have a choice" or not.

It's about personal responsibility. And someone from another country does not need an

"American Drivers License" to drive in this country.

If someone from Spain comes to the United States, they are permitted to drive on our roads,

using our laws. Their foreign license is recognized.

So, you are telling me, just because I go to another country means that I cannot check travel websites,

check laws and regulations in the country in which I plan to travel, and find out what alternatives are available

if I am not happy with my first choice, when I get to my destination? I have never traveled anywhere where

I didn't have a backup mode for transportation or a backup place to reside once there.

One of two things... you either don't believe in personal responsibility or you simply don't travel much.

 

What about the elderly? My parents are elderly and they have never been stuck, while traveling.

Do you know why? They, like me, make alternate plans. They are responsible.

You can make all the excuses you want, but all the excuses you are throwing out come down

to personal responsibility. You do know that taxi services are not the only means of rented and chauffeured transportation, correct?

 

Personal responsibility.

Edited May 14, 2014 by NITR0

[Nice Green]

 

I didn't misunderstand anything. You used an example of an eyesore.

That implies that you are viewing older vehicles as being eyesores.

 

And no, a HOA cannot tell you that you cannot park a 10 year old vehicle in your driveway.

They can require that NO vehicles be permitted to park in a driveway and they

can require that no "junk" vehicles be parked in your driveway.

 

It really doesn't matter if you buy my "you always have a choice" or not.

It's about personal responsibility. And someone from another country does not need an

"American Drivers License" to drive in this country.

If someone from Spain comes to the United States, they are permitted to drive on our roads,

using our laws. Their foreign license is recognized.

So, you are telling me, just because I go to another country means that I cannot check travel websites,

check laws and regulations in the country in which I plan to travel, and find out what alternatives are available

if I am not happy with my first choice, when I get to my destination? I have never traveled anywhere where

I didn't have a backup mode for transportation or a backup place to reside once there.

One of two things... you either don't believe in personal responsibility or you simply don't travel much.

 

What about the elderly? My parents are elderly and they have never been stuck, while traveling.

Do you know why? They, like me, make alternate plans. They are responsible.

You can make all the excuses you want, but all the excuses you are throwing out come down

to personal responsibility. You do know that taxi services are not the only means of rented and chauffeured transportation, correct?

 

Personal responsibility.

 

I am not regarding old taxis as eyesores. Again, I mentioned that type of ordinance as one where the government reaches into one's usage of their private property because they and the public have a valid interest in how property in the county looks. Sometimes the wishes of the government and public trump the wishes of the individual. You can disagree over the need for such an ordinance, but at least in this case, I think there's good intent there.

 

And maybe there's good intent on the vehicle age requirement. Again, I don't know the true intent of it. I've only been speculating.

 

There are plenty of HOA horror stories out there. And some have passed bylaws that violate one's rights. That doesn't mean a homeowner can't take the HOA to court. Is there a vehicle age bylaw out there? Maybe not, but I've read too many HOA stories out there about bylaws that ridiculously restrict rights. Here are some links to some crazy stories: http://thestir.cafemom.com/home_garden/108353/10_Outrageous_Homeowners_Association_Rules

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/17v1fx/what_are_your_homeowners_association_hoa_horror/

 

Maybe you've taught me something if visitors from other countries can use their own driver's licenses here. But you still have those from other countries that have no driver's licenses at all, so they can't get into Hartsfield-Jackson and get a rental car.

 

Yes, there are alternatives to cabs, but that doesn't mean governments should turn a blind eye when cab companies aren't maintaining their vehicles. Like in the case of eyesore ordinances, governments have an interest in making sure cabs make a place look good. Yes, private companies should have the right to run their businesses like they want, but if there's a need to create regulations to better serve the public, then the government can enact regulations that affect those companies. Again, you can agree or disagree with these types of regulations.

 

I believe in personal responsibility, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand here, unless you want to talk about the cab company owner's responsibility to obey the laws of the land, no matter how unfair they seem, and if they disagree with a law, go through the proper channels in the hopes of overturning it.

 

We're talking about taxis here, not other forms of transportation someone can take if the taxi that comes to pick them up is too crappy. It doesn't matter what choices of transportation they have—taxi companies have a responsibility to the public to provide nice, working cabs and pleasant service to those who need it.

[NITR0]

There are plenty of HOA horror stories out there. And some have passed bylaws that violate one's rights.

 

Maybe you've taught me something if visitors from other countries can use their own driver's licenses here. But you still have those from other countries that have no driver's licenses at all, so they can't get into Hartsfield-Jackson and get a rental car.

 

Yes, there are alternatives to cabs, but that doesn't mean governments should turn a blind eye when cab companies aren't maintaining their vehicles. Like in the case of eyesore ordinances, governments have an interest in making sure cabs make a place look good. Yes, private companies should have the right to run their businesses like they want, but if there's a need to create regulations to better serve the public, then the government can enact regulations that affect those companies. Again, you can agree or disagree with these types of regulations.

 

I believe in personal responsibility, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand here, unless you want to talk about the cab company owner's responsibility to obey the laws of the land, no matter how unfair they seem, and if they disagree with a law, go through the proper channels in the hopes of overturning it.

 

We're talking about taxis here, not other forms of transportation someone can take if the taxi that comes to pick them up is too crappy. It doesn't matter what choices of transportation they have—taxi companies have a responsibility to the public to provide nice, working cabs and pleasant service to those who need it.

 

Sorry, but HOA's bylaws do not violate anyone's rights.

If you move in to a subdivision and there are bylaws to abide by, you either agree to those bylaws by signing a contract

stating you agree to them or you don't sign it and you don't move in there. It's a condition of purchase.

None of your rights have been violated.

 

Again, even if they don't have a license, there are still other forms of transportation, other than taxi cabs.

I've been in and out of Hartsfield and many many other airports in this country and I'm quite familiar with Limio's,

Super Shuttles, rail services, etc.

 

Nobody said the government should turn a blind eye when a taxi company fails to maintain a vehicle and there is cause for safety.

Your whole initial post was about the 10 year mark and you didn't think it was a bad idea and you named off several reasons

that a 10 year old vehicle should be banned, none of which were valid, simply because of the age of the vehicle.

The reasons you named would be valid for ANY age of vehicle. Like I've said and continue to say, the age of the vehicle itself

should NOT be cause for the government to tell you that you can't drive it for your business.

If there are safety concerns for the public, sure. Eyesore concerns.... maybe. But again, it's hard to me to swallow the eyesore

reason when they can't keep the streets and alleys of the city clean and they are far more of an eyesore than the vehicles.

And again, if you are concerned about safety, reinstate the yearly safety and equipment inspections.

But to issue a proclamation that a vehicle is an eyesore or is not safe, simply because of it's age, is pure bullcrap.

 

Personal responsibility most definitely issue at hand when you are talking about people not having alternatives.

Personal responsibility comes in to play when you say that someone comes in to town and expects to take a taxi

and they aren't happy with the appearance of the vehicle or it's condition. A taxi is just like any other business.

If you are unhappy, go to a different business. If you take a trip and don't have backup provisions for travel, that

is your problem. When taxi's don't provide clean, courteous service, customers will go elsewhere.

They will take Super Shuttles. They will take limo services. They will take rail services.

Edited May 14, 2014 by NITR0

[Nice Green]

 

Sorry, but HOA's bylaws do not violate anyone's rights.

If you move in to a subdivision and there are bylaws to abide by, you either agree to those bylaws by signing a contract

stating you agree to them or you don't sign it and you don't move in there. It's a condition of purchase.

None of your rights have been violated.

 

Again, even if they don't have a license, there are still other forms of transportation, other than taxi cabs.

I've been in and out of Hartsfield and many many other airports in this country and I'm quite familiar with Limio's,

Super Shuttles, rail services, etc.

 

Nobody said the government should turn a blind eye when a taxi company fails to maintain a vehicle and there is cause for safety.

Your whole initial post was about the 10 year mark and you didn't think it was a bad idea and you named off several reasons

that a 10 year old vehicle should be banned, none of which were valid, simply because of the age of the vehicle.

The reasons you named would be valid for ANY age of vehicle. Like I've said and continue to say, the age of the vehicle itself

should NOT be cause for the government to tell you that you can't drive it for your business.

If there are safety concerns for the public, sure. Eyesore concerns.... maybe. But again, it's hard to me to swallow the eyesore

reason when they can't keep the streets and alleys of the city clean and they are far more of an eyesore than the vehicles.

And again, if you are concerned about safety, reinstate the yearly safety and equipment inspections.

But to issue a proclamation that a vehicle is an eyesore or is not safe, simply because of it's age, is pure bullcrap.

 

Personal responsibility most definitely issue at hand when you are talking about people not having alternatives.

Personal responsibility comes in to play when you say that someone comes in to town and expects to take a taxi

and they aren't happy with the appearance of the vehicle or it's condition. A taxi is just like any other business.

If you are unhappy, go to a different business. If you take a trip and don't have backup provisions for travel, that

is your problem. When taxi's don't provide clean, courteous service, customers will go elsewhere.

They will take Super Shuttles. They will take limo services. They will take rail services.

You said yourself that HOA's can tell you not to park your vehicles in your driveway or disallow junk vehicles in your driveway. Those rules ARE taking away your rights to use your property in any way you see fit. You may AGREE to the taking away of those rights when you sign the agreement, but your rights are still being taken away. And in most places, you can't buy a house in an area under a HOA without agreeing to the rules of the HOA. If you want to live there, you have no choice.

 

What's going to be more cost effective—a taxi or a limo? And does MARTA's rail line take you to Dallas? So while there are other forms of transportation, they're not all alike.

 

Frankly, I don't care if there are other forms of transportation out there. That's not the topic here. If you feel so strongly against this ordinance, then you should show up to the next meeting and complain about it.

[NITR0]

You said yourself that HOA's can tell you not to park your vehicles in your driveway or disallow junk vehicles in your driveway. Those rules ARE taking away your rights to use your property in any way you see fit. You may AGREE to the taking away of those rights when you sign the agreement, but your rights are still being taken away. And in most places, you can't buy a house in an area under a HOA without agreeing to the rules of the HOA. If you want to live there, you have no choice.

 

What's going to be more cost effective—a taxi or a limo? And does MARTA's rail line take you to Dallas? So while there are other forms of transportation, they're not all alike.

 

Frankly, I don't care if there are other forms of transportation out there. That's not the topic here. If you feel so strongly against this ordinance, then you should show up to the next meeting and complain about it.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain to me how agreeing not to do something is taking away your right?

Please explain to me, where the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia,

does it say that you have the *right* to park your vehicle where you please.

Please show me in the Constitution where it says you have the *right* to use your property how you see fit?

You, like many other people, confuse rights with privileges. You have the right to own property.

You don't have the right to do with it whatever you want.

 

Actually, a airport limo is often cheaper than a taxi. I'm guessing you might not know this unless you travel a fair bit.

Limo service doesn't necessarily mean a big stretched limousine comes to get you.

Limo services often use the same vehicles as taxi cabs... only they use a Lincoln model instead of the Ford model.

I have taken limo service vehicles several times and have often come out better than I would have in a taxi cab.

So yes, a limo service is often more cost effective than a taxi... and usually a more pleasant ride with a driver

who actually speaks and understands English and is generally more courteous to their passengers.

Not to mention, limos don't usually smell like curry or cheap gas station incense.

[lowrider]

Is it a full moon?

 

Why yes, yes it is.

[Nice Green]

 

Sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain to me how agreeing not to do something is taking away your right?

Please explain to me, where the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia,

does it say that you have the *right* to park your vehicle where you please.

Please show me in the Constitution where it says you have the *right* to use your property how you see fit?

You, like many other people, confuse rights with privileges. You have the right to own property.

You don't have the right to do with it whatever you want.

 

Actually, a airport limo is often cheaper than a taxi. I'm guessing you might not know this unless you travel a fair bit.

Limo service doesn't necessarily mean a big stretched limousine comes to get you.

Limo services often use the same vehicles as taxi cabs... only they use a Lincoln model instead of the Ford model.

I have taken limo service vehicles several times and have often come out better than I would have in a taxi cab.

So yes, a limo service is often more cost effective than a taxi... and usually a more pleasant ride with a driver

who actually speaks and understands English and is generally more courteous to their passengers.

Not to mention, limos don't usually smell like curry or cheap gas station incense.

 

 

Well, you didn't go full racist in your last sentence, but you came this close. Good job.

 

 

I think one would be hard pressed to find a law in any constitution that says where you can park your vehicle on your land, because it'd be a ridiculous overreach and overreaction of the government to spell out where you can park your vehicle on your land.

 

The fact that you're asking me to find you a law in a constitution that says you have the right to park on your land where you please proves my point. There likely is not one, and basic law says that any rights not expressly granted to the government belong to the people. Therefore, unless a local or state law is expressly created for that purpose, a person can assume they have the right to park where they please on their own property. Continuing on that thought, if a HOA creates a bylaw that limits where one can park, they are by definition restricting one's right to use their property as they see fit, regardless of whether or not said person agreed to said rule. A right is a right even if you waive that right through a contract.

 

Lastly, I don't travel much. But I've taken MARTA, especially when it's the best way to get somewhere. If the MARTA train or its stations are dirty, there's not a second Atlanta rail system I can choose to take. That's why I would appreciate laws that would ensure that MARTA cleans up its act. If I felt taxis were my best option, I'd want to see laws passed that have my best interests as a potential taxi customer. Perhaps that's why Paulding wanted these rules passed. Again, I don't know.

 

I've said what I needed to say about these taxi rules, and I'm ready to move on.

[NITR0]

 

 

Well, you didn't go full racist in your last sentence, but you came this close. Good job.

 

 

I think one would be hard pressed to find a law in any constitution that says where you can park your vehicle on your land, because it'd be a ridiculous overreach and overreaction of the government to spell out where you can park your vehicle on your land.

 

The fact that you're asking me to find you a law in a constitution that says you have the right to park on your land where you please proves my point. There likely is not one, and basic law says that any rights not expressly granted to the government belong to the people. Therefore, unless a local or state law is expressly created for that purpose, a person can assume they have the right to park where they please on their own property. Continuing on that thought, if a HOA creates a bylaw that limits where one can park, they are by definition restricting one's right to use their property as they see fit, regardless of whether or not said person agreed to said rule. A right is a right even if you waive that right through a contract.

 

Lastly, I don't travel much. But I've taken MARTA, especially when it's the best way to get somewhere. If the MARTA train or its stations are dirty, there's not a second Atlanta rail system I can choose to take. That's why I would appreciate laws that would ensure that MARTA cleans up its act. If I felt taxis were my best option, I'd want to see laws passed that have my best interests as a potential taxi customer. Perhaps that's why Paulding wanted these rules passed. Again, I don't know.

 

I've said what I needed to say about these taxi rules, and I'm ready to move on.

 

I didn't go full racist or racist of any sort.

I see you are one of those people that when someone speaks the truth, you holler racism.

First, look up the definition of racist, because nothing I said even eludes to racism.

Racism in the inherent thought that one RACE is superior over another.

What I stated was a stereotype and guess where stereotypes come from? They come from

a majority of people seeing or experiencing the same thing from a specified group of people.

This is what is wrong with society... any time anyone says anything, they are racist or offending someone.

 

You obviously don't get the idea. Let me break it down for you as simply as I can.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the *right* to do anything with your land

or any property (real estate or otherwise). "There is likely not one..." In other words, you don't know what's

in the Constitution. There's another problem with people in this country, but that's for another conversation.

You can assume anything you want... that doesn't mean you have it as a right.

I suggest you read the Constitution a time or two and do some research on what rights actually are because

you don't understand what they are and how they are afforded to citizens.

And again, no a HOA with bylaws is not restricting your rights. YOU restricted your *rights* when you signed a contract

stating that you would agree to their terms and conditions for living in that community.

 

So there isn't a second Marta type rail system. You STILL have other options and modes of transportation available.

And once again, none of this really applies because my whole point originally was of the fact that you supported the ban

of taxis over 10 years old, simply because of their age. My whole point was the AGE of the vehicle should have NO bearing

on whether a vehicle should be allowed for taxi cab use. If there are safety issues involved or there is a law that prevents eyesores

or something to that affect, then fine... you have a ban. But to ban one simply on age is ridiculous, costly to the business owner,

and is nothing but a sales tax generator for the governing body of the municipality in which the ban is enacted.

Edited May 15, 2014 by NITR0

[Nice Green]

 

I didn't go full racist or racist of any sort.

I see you are one of those people that when someone speaks the truth, you holler racism.

First, look up the definition of racist, because nothing I said even eludes to racism.

Racism in the inherent thought that one RACE is superior over another.

What I stated was a stereotype and guess where stereotypes come from? They come from

a majority of people seeing or experiencing the same thing from a specified group of people.

This is what is wrong with society... any time anyone says anything, they are racist or offending someone.

 

You obviously don't get the idea. Let me break it down for you as simply as I can.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the *right* to do anything with your land

or any property (real estate or otherwise). "There is likely not one..." In other words, you don't know what's

in the Constitution. There's another problem with people in this country, but that's for another conversation.

You can assume anything you want... that doesn't mean you have it as a right.

I suggest you read the Constitution a time or two and do some research on what rights actually are because

you don't understand what they are and how they are afforded to citizens.

And again, no a HOA with bylaws is not restricting your rights. YOU restricted your *rights* when you signed a contract

stating that you would agree to their terms and conditions for living in that community.

 

So there isn't a second Marta type rail system. You STILL have other options and modes of transportation available.

And once again, none of this really applies because my whole point originally was of the fact that you supported the ban

of taxis over 10 years old, simply because of their age. My whole point was the AGE of the vehicle should have NO bearing

on whether a vehicle should be allowed for taxi cab use. If there are safety issues involved or there is a law that prevents eyesores

or something to that affect, then fine... you have a ban. But to ban one simply on age is ridiculous, costly to the business owner,

and is nothing but a sales tax generator for the governing body of the municipality in which the ban is enacted.

 

The negative stereotypes you mentioned would be seen by most people as targeting one group of people from a specific region of the world. That's at least borderline racist.

 

Rights aren't just given to us by our constitutions. Court decisions also give us rights or spell out what rights are or are not covered by our laws. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the Internet (go on, check it if you don't believe me), yet other laws and court decision have spelled out our rights as they pertain to online speech under the First Amendment.

 

I'm glad you're strongly against the taxi restrictions. Me? I don't really care either way—I was just citing possible reasons why the powers that be may have passed this. I'd suggest that if you feel this strongly, that you speak up at the next public meeting and ask that these restrictions be lifted. I feel that such actions would be a better use of your time and energy rather than arguing about everything I've said beyond the topic of the OP.

[NITR0]

 

The negative stereotypes you mentioned would be seen by most people as targeting one group of people from a specific region of the world. That's at least borderline racist.

 

Rights aren't just given to us by our constitutions. Court decisions also give us rights or spell out what rights are or are not covered by our laws. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the Internet (go on, check it if you don't believe me), yet other laws and court decision have spelled out our rights as they pertain to online speech under the First Amendment.

 

I'm glad you're strongly against the taxi restrictions. Me? I don't really care either way—I was just citing possible reasons why the powers that be may have passed this. I'd suggest that if you feel this strongly, that you speak up at the next public meeting and ask that these restrictions be lifted. I feel that such actions would be a better use of your time and energy rather than arguing about everything I've said beyond the topic of the OP.

 

Oh brother. There was no negative stereotypes that I mentioned.

I mentioned stereotypes. If a certain group of people like the smell of curry and their taxi's smell of it, what makes me mentioning it, negative? What makes me not liking that smell, a negative to that group? Absolutely nothing.

And again, what you *think* you are referring too is not racism, it's bigotry.

Racism in the thought that one race is superior over another. The fact that I don't like the smell of curry or incense is

not racist nor is it bigoted. You must be one of those super sentative people that don't like people speaking the truth

or get offended at any little thing... I'm sorry, I can't help you with that, except to say grow some thick skin.

 

No, sorry, court decision DO NOT give us rights. They INTERPRET the Constitution and clarify what our rights are

that are guaranteed by the Constitution. And your point about the internet proves EXACTLY my point.

The Constitution gives us the right of free speech and the courts INTERPRET that to include online speech on the internet.

The court didn't give us that right. The courts are not law makers. The courts job is to interpret the laws that are on the books.

The Constitution gives us the right of free speech... the courts interpret and uphold that right.

Again, I suggest you read and learn a little bit about the Constitution, how it works, how it plays in to our lives,

and what it means... Go take a course on it... it's clear you don't have a grasp on what its for.

 

I'm not strongly against the restrictions, per say. Honestly, I don't care either way.

As I stated before, I threw in the point of it being wrong that a government should not ban a vehicle from

service, simply based on age. You tried to say that all these things are wrong with 10 year old vehicles, which

is not necessarily, but could be, the case. I pointed out that the government should not have the authority

to ban a vehicle from the roadway, simply based on age alone. That's ALL I said.

[Nice Green]

 

Oh brother. There was no negative stereotypes that I mentioned.

I mentioned stereotypes. If a certain group of people like the smell of curry and their taxi's smell of it, what makes me mentioning it, negative? What makes me not liking that smell, a negative to that group? Absolutely nothing.

And again, what you *think* you are referring too is not racism, it's bigotry.

Racism in the thought that one race is superior over another. The fact that I don't like the smell of curry or incense is

not racist nor is it bigoted. You must be one of those super sentative people that don't like people speaking the truth

or get offended at any little thing... I'm sorry, I can't help you with that, except to say grow some thick skin.

 

No, sorry, court decision DO NOT give us rights. They INTERPRET the Constitution and clarify what our rights are

that are guaranteed by the Constitution. And your point about the internet proves EXACTLY my point.

The Constitution gives us the right of free speech and the courts INTERPRET that to include online speech on the internet.

The court didn't give us that right. The courts are not law makers. The courts job is to interpret the laws that are on the books.

The Constitution gives us the right of free speech... the courts interpret and uphold that right.

Again, I suggest you read and learn a little bit about the Constitution, how it works, how it plays in to our lives,

and what it means... Go take a course on it... it's clear you don't have a grasp on what its for.

 

I'm not strongly against the restrictions, per say. Honestly, I don't care either way.

As I stated before, I threw in the point of it being wrong that a government should not ban a vehicle from

service, simply based on age. You tried to say that all these things are wrong with 10 year old vehicles, which

is not necessarily, but could be, the case. I pointed out that the government should not have the authority

to ban a vehicle from the roadway, simply based on age alone. That's ALL I said.

You said "So yes, a limo service is often more cost effective than a taxi... and usually a more pleasant ride with a driver

who actually speaks and understands English and is generally more courteous to their passengers.

Not to mention, limos don't usually smell like curry or cheap gas station incense."

How would one not take those comments as negative?

The courts are not law makers, true, but their decisions can become de facto law. Take, for instance, voter ID laws. A state can pass a law that says you have to present a photo ID at the voting booth, but if a court rules that said law is unconstitutional, then that ruling becomes a de facto law.

And yes, the courts CAN grant rights. Look at Roe v. Wade: "The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to aboortzion until viability." (Wikipedia). Yes, the decision was that "a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an aboortzion" (Wikipedia again), so it was based on an interpretation of existing Constitutional law, but the decision effectively granted a right that was not expressly spelled out before.

You're mostly arguing over the semantics of my interpretation of law, and I'm not sure why it's important to you.

[NITR0]

You said "So yes, a limo service is often more cost effective than a taxi... and usually a more pleasant ride with a driver

who actually speaks and understands English and is generally more courteous to their passengers.

Not to mention, limos don't usually smell like curry or cheap gas station incense."

How would one not take those comments as negative?

The courts are not law makers, true, but their decisions can become de facto law. Take, for instance, voter ID laws. A state can pass a law that says you have to present a photo ID at the voting booth, but if a court rules that said law is unconstitutional, then that ruling becomes a de facto law.

And yes, the courts CAN grant rights. Look at Roe v. Wade: "The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to aboortzion until viability." (Wikipedia). Yes, the decision was that "a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an aboortzion" (Wikipedia again), so it was based on an interpretation of existing Constitutional law, but the decision effectively granted a right that was not expressly spelled out before.

You're mostly arguing over the semantics of my interpretation of law, and I'm not sure why it's important to you.

 

Ok, so what if they can been seen as negative? So what? It's still not racist.

So, the First Amendment doesn't apply to me if I have a negative comment to make?

 

No, courts do not make de facto laws.

In your example, if a state creates a law that the court deems un-Constitutional, that decision does not become law.

It's already the law, protected by the Constitution. The state created a law that violated the main law of the land, the Constitution.

The court ruled that the law the state created is not in keeping with the base law that already exists.

 

And again, your wrong. Roe vs. Wade was an interpretation of an existing law that protects rights.

The court ruled that a person has the right to have an aboortzion UNDER the CONSTITUTION.

Again, an interpretation of the primary law of the land. They did not grant a right, they issued an interpretation of

an existing law, that carries weight, and clarifies the law that is already there. They didn't grant any rights or create any laws.

No, I'm not arguing over semantics. I'm stating fact.

You don't understand why it's important to me? It's not important to me, really.

You've been trying to back up something you've said with statements that simply aren't true.

I started stating that 10 year old vehicles are not inherently any more dangerous, safe, or eyesores

than any other vehicle on the road when you tried saying they were.

And from there, you just keep trying to throw out misleading representation and moved from 10 year old vehicles to the law

and Constitution, neither of which, it's clear, you have little understanding of...

And you even start throwing out the race card, saying I'm borderline racist because I have a negative comment about something.

Well God forbid that ANYONE has a negative comment about anything these days.

As I said, grow some thicker skin and quit living your life being offended. You might have a happier existence on this planet.

I'm just curious.... would I still be racist if I told you that I was of middle eastern decent?

[sgt.rock]

Are you do-gooders going to insist that the Silver Comet Airport restrict aircraft carrying passengers for a fee,or used for flight instruction,to be no older than 10 years?Yeah,right.Tell Delta that.Don`t tell me about apples and oranges.I have a looong background in aviation.Leave the taxi folks alone.Their biz was not shoved down our throats.