File Name: LYFT (RIDE SHARING SERVICE) IN MIAMI-DADE
Introduced: 5/27/2014
Requester:
NONE
Cost:
Final Action:
Agenda Date:
Agenda Item Number:
Notes:
Title:
DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING THE COMPANY LYFT (RIDE SHARING SERVICE) IN MIAMI-DADE
Indexes:
NONE
Sponsors:
Bruno A. Barreiro, Prime Sponsor
Sunset Provision:
No
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist:
None Listed
Legislative History
Acting Body
Date
Agenda Item
Action
Sent To
Due Date
Returned
Pass/Fail
Transportation & Aviation Committee
6/11/2014
1F1
Presented
REPORT:
Chairman Moss announced that items 1F1 and 1F5 would be considered simultaneously.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber read the foregoing discussion items into the record.
Chairman Moss voiced his concerns regarding companies like Uber and Lyft continuing to operate in the County despite being aware that it was illegal to do so. He stated all rules and established procedures should be obeyed and followed if companies wished to conduct business in Miami-Dade County.
Chairman Moss stated he would like to publish a short video clip about Uber and Lyft operations at the San Francisco airport before hearing from his colleagues and County Mayor Carlos Gimenez.
Upon conclusion of the video clip, Chairman Moss recognized Mayor Gimenez.
Mayor Gimenez told the Committee members that the Administration believed the County was in need of transportation options such as those provided by Uber and Lyft and agreed that a modification to the existing codes and law was necessary to allow the companies to operate within the County and comply with the restrictions currently in place for the taxi-cab industry such as the type of vehicles that can be used, background checks for drivers and insurance coverage for vehicles and passengers.
Mayor Gimenez informed the Committee members that the Administration was working on bringing Legislation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) that would address the concerns of the industry and meet the needs of the community.
Vice Chair Barreiro asked what was being done with regards to enforcing the current code and law.
Responding to Vice Chair Barreiro’s question, Mayor Gimenez clarified that while the Administration believed the County was in need of the services provided by Uber and Lyft, it did not negate the fact that both companies were currently operating illegally and the County’s regulatory office for “For Hire” services were enforcing the Miami-Dade County Code (Code) as much as possible by the issuance of citations and imposition of fines. He noted that letters were sent to the companies informing them that they were in non-compliance with the County’s rules and regulations and as such were operating illegally.
Vice Chair Barreiro enquired about the legal process available to the County regarding the Code enforcement and questioned when legal action could be pursued against the companies.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber reviewed and explained the options available to the County beginning with the issuance of citations and imposition of fines. He further explained that the County could take legal action to enjoin Uber and Lyft from continuing to operate if so directed by the BCC.
Mr. Libhaber pointed out that both Uber and Lyft had only recently begun operations in Miami-Dade County and as such the County Attorney’s Office was waiting to see how the companies respond to the citations and fines before taking action. He noted that the County Attorney’s Office would be guided by the instruction of the Administration or the BCC.
Vice Chair Barreiro reiterated his believe that action needed to be taken now to prevent the companies from continuing to operate. He pointed out that while he was in support of new and emerging technologies and businesses he could not support Uber and Lyft in this instance because of their blatant disregard for the County’s rules and regulations.
Chairman Moss informed his colleagues that he would be leaving the meeting shortly to attend a previously scheduled meeting. He stated it was his intent to open the floor for public comment after hearing from his colleagues on the matter. Chairman Moss added that he would relinquish the Chair to Vice Chair Barreiro upon his departure.
Commissioner Monestime voiced his concerns regarding the possibility of unlicensed drivers and unregulated cars operating in the County. He noted that members of the public may use Uber and/or Lyft without knowing that the cars and/or drivers were operating in non-compliance with the rules and Code of this County. Commissioner Monestime spoke about the current attempts being made to modernize and improve the taxi-cab industry and questioned where Uber and Lyft would fit in. He pointed out that both Uber and Lyft considered the fines imposed on drivers a business expense and did not believe imposition of said fines and citations would deter the companies from continuing to operate in the County.
Commissioner Monestime spoke about Uber and Lyft’s business model and their use of technology to find and secure passengers. He noted that he was aware of other counties and cities in which regulated taxi-cabs used the same technology to find passengers leading him to question the business model and claims made by Uber and Lyft.
Commissioner Bovo questioned whether the individuals shown in the video were being solicited by Uber and Lyft drivers or if they were contacting the drivers on their own accord.
Vice Chair Barreiro responded that he believed the video showed both instances in which drivers were soliciting passengers and vice versa.
Commissioner Bovo commented that while he was concerned about companies ignoring the County’s rules, procedures and laws, he believed that many times local government made it difficult for new companies to enter the market and conduct business which forces them to operate illegally and go “underground”. He stated the BCC needed to engage in a serious discussion on how to utilize emerging technology to lower prices and improve service to consumers instead of impeding advancement.
Vice Chair Barreiro voiced his belief that attempts to have meaningful discussions were unsuccessful because of an un-willingness to compromise and restrictions placed on the Commissioners by the “Sunshine Law”.
Commissioner Monestime reiterated his belief that immediate action was necessary in light of the needs of the community. He pointed out that no two markets were the same and the proper time and consideration needed to be given when making a decision on how to proceed.
Vice Chair Barreiro opened the floor for public comment.
1. Ms. Holladay Smith, 475 Brickell Avenue, Miami FL 33131 spoke about traffic congestion in the downtown area and voiced her concerns that Uber and Lyft would add to the congestion. She questioned the companies’ claims of being a “ride sharing” enterprise and urged the Committee to think of the public’s safety when considering deciding the next course of action.
2. Mr. Christopher Davis, 475 Brickell Avenue, Miami FL 33131 stated that Uber and Lyft drivers should be subject to the same requirements as others currently operating in the industry. He expressed frustrations that companies ignoring the County’s rules and procedures continued to operate without regulation and stressed the need for uniformity and fairness within the industry.
3. Mr. Gustavo Chacon, 1051 NW 18th Avenue, Miami FL 33125 voiced his support for the sentiments shared by Commissioners Bovo and Monestime. He questioned why antique vehicles and Super Shuttle were allowed to operate without complying with Passenger Motor Carrier (PMC) regulations and stated that Miami-Dade County engaged in selective enforcement which could be used as precedent for Uber and Lyft to continue operations.
4. Mr. Neil Goodman, 3780 NE 207th Terrace, Aventura FL 33180 spoke about the availability of a mobile “app” which would rival the technology being used by Uber, Lyft and other entities in the industry. He pointed out that while the “app” was ready to be launched restrictions in the current ordinance prevented its introduction and use within the County. Mr. Goodman stated he was working alongside Chairman Moss on a modification to the ordinance that would address many of the public’s concerns pertaining to the taxi-cab and PMC industry.
5. Mr. Jackson Holmes, 915 Palermo Avenue, Coral Gables FL 33134 spoke about past County actions and compared them to what was now being done by Uber and Lyft.
6. Madame Renita Holmes, 350 NW 4th Street, Miami FL spoke about safety issues and concerns associated with unregulated taxis.
7. Mr. Diego Feliciano, representing South Florida Taxicab Association, spoke about the law suits filed against Uber and Lyft and the international negative impact both companies have had on the European taxi-cab and PMC industry. He pointed out that the Miami-Dade taxi-cab industry was in the process of installing credit card machines as required by the Commission and urged the Committee members to be fair and consistent regarding regulations and rules.
8. Ms. Mercedes Gonzalez-Arango, representing Transportation Sunshine Incorporated, 4218 SW 9th Street, Miami FL stated both Uber and Lyft were operating illegally. She referred to a handout regarding Uber’s pricing and noted that both Uber and Lyft charge at will. Ms. Gonzalez-Arango spoke about the regulations and requirements taxi-cab owners and drivers must comply with in order to work in Miami-Dade County.
Referring to the Uber handout distributed by Ms. Gonzalez-Arango, Commissioner Bovo pointed out that a consumer had the ability to cancel a transaction with Uber if they were unsatisfied with the price quote for the trip.
Ms. Gonzalez-Aranago reiterated her belief that Uber and Lyft continued to operate with complete disregard to the rules and regulations of the County.
Discussions ensued between Commissioner Bovo and Ms. Gonzalez-Arango regarding the consumers’ right to accept the terms of service from Uber and Lyft if they so choose.
9. Mr. Raymond Francois, 693 NE167th Street, North Miami Beach FL 33162 appeared on behalf of the “New Vision Taxi Drivers Association of Miami Inc.” and spoke in opposition of Uber and Lyft operating in the County. He questioned why the County was not pursuing legal action and enforcing the law against Uber and Lyft and their drivers.
10. Mr. Ernst DeFizier, 830 NW 143rd Street, Miami FL 33168, with the aid of an interpreter pointed out Uber’s extensive media presence and lobbying began months before entering the market in Miami-Dade County. He spoke about the need to enforce the existing laws and questioned who was responsible for overseeing enforcement of said laws.
11. Mr. Aaron Richmond, 20191 East Country Drive, Aventura FL addressed the issue of insurance coverage and noted that insurance companies would not issue policies or honor claims on policies where a personal vehicle was being used for the transportation of the public for monetary compensation. He pointed out that the “excess” policy offered by Uber and Lyft was not valid since the primary insurance would be null and void to begin with.
12. Mr. Joanel Ceremy, 12930 NW 21st Avenue, Miami FL 33130, with the aid of an interpreter, stated that he had no issues with Uber or Lyft operating in Miami-Dade County once they operated within the confines of the law and complied with the rules and regulations of the County.
13. Mr. Jerry Moskowitz, 2284 NW 36th Street, Miami FL, spoke in opposition of Uber and Lyft. He voiced his frustrations that taxi-cab owners and drivers who have been following the County’s laws for years were now being overlooked as both companies disregarded the rules and operated at will. He strongly urged the Committee members to take action against the illegal operations and enforce the laws currently in place.
14. Mr. Naiz Mohammed, 17922 SW 145th Avenue, Miami FL, appeared in opposition of Uber and Lyft, He stated the County needed to empower and listen taxi cab drivers.
15. Mr. Bill Perry, 2766 NW 62nd Street, appeared on behalf of American Shuttle Incorporated (ASI) operating as “Super Shuttle” at the Miami International Airport (MIA). He informed the Committee members that he wished to clarify misrepresentations made against Super Shuttle and its operations at MIA. Mr. Perry spoke about the public procurement process and stated he believed if companies such as Uber and Lyft were allowed to operate chaos would ensue.
16. Mr. Frank Hernandez, 3111 NW 27th Avenue, appeared and spoke in opposition of Uber and Lyft being allowed to operate in the County.
17. Ms. Veronica Juarez, Director of Government Relations at Lyft provided background information on Lyft. She spoke about the company’s screening process as well as the insurance coverage and asked everyone present to keep an open mind when discussing and considering the issue.
18. Ms. Tawana Dumont, 1265 SW 101st Terrace, Broward County FL spoke about the screening process prospective Lyft drivers must undergo before being employed by Lyft. She spoke of the benefits of working for Lyft and how the rating system ensures consumer and driver satisfaction. Ms. Dumont recalled personal experiences with taxi drivers and stated she believed change was necessary.
19. Ms. Vanessa Monson, appeared in support of Lyft. She spoke of her experience as a Lyft customer and asked the Committee members to keep an open mind moving forward.
Vice Chair Barreiro announced that he would continue to hear from the public despite the loss of quorum and asked for everyone wishing to speak to form a line at the podium.
20. Ms. Susan Fried, 1875 NE 197th Terrace, Miami FL appeared in opposition of Uber and Lyft operating in Miami-Dade County. She spoke about the County’s rules and regulations and addressed safety concerns within the industry. Ms. Fried expressed her concerns and questioned if Lyft representatives needed to register as lobbyists with the County.
21. Ms. Janet, Lyft driver, appeared in support of Lyft and read a statement into the record.
22. Ms. Orlie Jedwab, representing Miami Springs Taxi and Key Transportation, 199 NW 79th Street, Miami FL 33150 read into the record excerpts of an article about the taxi-cab industry published in the Miami Herald and expressed her disappointment regarding allegations made in the article. She also published a letter she penned to the Miami Herald responding to claims made by a fellow guest on the local television show “This Week in Florida”.
23. Mr. Jorge Lopez, attorney representing Lyft, 131 Madeira Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134, spoke of legal process and rights as it applied to the County and Lyft. He maintained that Lyft was operating within the confines of the County’s Code and laws and challenged the Committee members to identify where within the codes it could be stated otherwise. Mr. Lopez talked about Lyft’s screening process, background checks and insurance coverage and noted that Lyft was working closely alongside the Administration to bring forth regulations guaranteeing consumer protection.
Commissioner Monestime asked for clarification from the County Attorney’s Office regarding statements made by Mr. Lopez regarding the existence of a Code which would prevent companies such as Uber and Lyft from operating in the County.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber explained that the current County Code regulated “For Hire” services. He stated that both Lyft and Uber appeared to be operating “For Hire” services without the proper licenses and as such was not in compliance with the Code.
Commissioner Monestime expressed his concerns that Uber and Lyft continued to operate despite being informed of the process and procedure to modify existing laws which would make it lawful for them to conduct business within the County. He noted that he was hopeful that a viable solution would be found particularly in light of the fact that Lyft was working closely with the County’s Administration.
24. Mr. Rudy Gonzalez, USA Taxi, 3620 NW 22nd Avenue, Miami FL appeared in opposition of Uber and Lyft operating in the County and urged the Committee members to enforce the current law and Code.
25. Mr. Robert Fuente, 927 NE 199th Street, North Miami Beach FL, spoke in opposition of Uber and Lyft. He talked about regulations and the government’s responsibility to protect the community. Mr. Fuente argued that both Uber and Lyft have proven that they do not respect the law or the County by continuing to operate illegally.
26. Ms. Delilah Pinhasive (phonetic), 3011 74th Street, Sunny Isles FL questioned why a citation was not issued to the Uber driver who appeared and spoke before the Committee.
Vice Chair Barreiro explained that the Committee members did not have the authority to instruct the Administration to issue a citation and upon seeing no one else wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Legislative Text
There is no text currently available online for this item.
