We already knew that the Uber tax, as I warned in my testimony opposing it, would hurt County residents and Uber drivers alike. Exactly as I predicted, Uber rides became more expensive, Uber drivers are being paid less than they were a few years ago, and no new ride-sharing competitor has entered the Montgomery County market since the tax was imposed.
This also made the County less appealing to the young professionals the Council has tried to publicly claim they wanted to attract, as millennials overwhelmingly use Uber rather than taxicabs. To our stuck-in-the-60s Council, diesel buses and Barwood Cab are still considered state-of-the-art transportation.
But now the Council is adding insult to severe economic injury to the County. When passing the Uber tax, the bleeding-heart language related to improving transportation for the disabled and elderly was used by the Council in the media as a fig leaf, to cover the anti-progress, fight-the-future nature of the Uber tax.
Now the Council is cravenly plotting to steal the money out of the hands of the disabled and elderly, and use it to fund their struggling $10 billion BRT boondoggle. The County, currently facing a $208,000,000 budget shortfall, has been unable to find enough funds for the BRT scheme. They failed to create an independent transit authority twice, which would have had unlimited power to tax and spend with no oversight by any elected official. Recently, they tried and failed to have their allies in Annapolis give them "quick-take" land seizure authority, which would have allowed them to seize homes and businesses - not only for the demolitions BRT will require along each route, but which could also have been sold to generate more money for the unfunded BRT boondoggle.
Desperate for money, the greedy Council will now try to pry it from the hands of disabled, poor and elderly residents, and put it into the pockets of themselves and their developer sugar daddies, whom the whole BRT scheme was dreamed up to profit.
It's outrageous.
It's bad enough Uber and Lyft riders have had to pay more, and via the tax pay Barwood Cab even if they weren't using their services. But to then find out the Council used the disabled and seniors to actually gain a new revenue source for their BRT boondoggle, this is a new low for even this corrupt Council.
Let me get this straight...
ReplyDeleteYou want highways, but oppose taking any land
You don't want to cut school funds or take money from the schools, but want to pay less to those that do the work
You agree that this area, like most urban/suburban area, hasn't come up with a system for handling ride services, but has watched them bankrupt existing systems.
5:13: We already have the rights-of-way for the highways we need to build; they were set aside decades ago. I said if schools don't meet performance standards, we should cut funds going to administrators - not teachers and classrooms.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with your premise that we need a "system for handling ride services." Uber and Lyft and the private sector were handling things just fine, until the County Council got involved. Now those services cost more for us to use.
Barwood didn't provide the service residents wanted, and is therefore in decline. It's not up to taxpayers to subsidize failure - or a $10 billion BRT boondoggle.
BRT is indeed a boondoggle. I thought this one was going to die since it's Leggett's pet project and he's not running for re-election.
ReplyDeleteAre they accepting public testimony for this one?
"Uber rides became more expensive, Uber drivers are being paid less than they were a few years ago"
ReplyDeleteDo you have any documentation of this, including comparable data from neighboring jurisdictions, Robert?
Robert, could you disclose whether you have now, or have ever had, employment by, any other business relation with Uber?
ReplyDeleteBut not for the roads that will connect to those highways, or need to be expanded to accommodate those highways.
ReplyDeleteUber drivers didn't make any money then, they make less now. Gig economy has exploded the standards and systems that had been cut-and-dried for decades; ride-sharing is just one example.
5:35: Yes, there is a public hearing on the bill April 24 at 1:30 PM at 100 Maryland Avenue.
ReplyDelete5:38: Ask any Uber rider or driver. You are paying 25 cents more right off the bat, plus the other costs the Council laid on the companies. It was after that that began to hear drivers complaining about making less.
5:44: I have never, ever had any business or employment relationship with Uber. Where do you get the idea I did?
5:46: Wrong - Montrose Parkway can go all the way to the ICC and Potomac River with no highways "to connect" to them. Same with I-370, M-83 and others.
ReplyDeleteThe amount Uber drivers can make has dropped since governments like ours starting taxing them, because they didn't have the patronage political control over Uber like they do over taxicabs.
Looks like Leggett and Berliner had key roles in passing the 2015 bill. Yet Dyer's article only credits Riemer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Dyer does not mention the role that the state of Maryland had in enabling the County's legislation: "The State law that authorized the charge imposed under Bill 33-15 was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in its 2015 session to regulate TNCs statewide."
Uber riders must be real cheapskates if they'd stop riding just because of an extra quarter charged.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any documentation of this loss of rides and/or loss of income for Uber drivers, Robert? Or is this yet another "statistic" that you pulled out of your... hat?
5:52: Both of your critiques are in error. Riemer is the sponsor of THIS bill, to divert the funds from seniors and the disabled, as clearly stated in this article. Berliner was indeed the lead on the original Uber tax bill; neither bill is one to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, they used the virtuous fig leaf of helping the disabled and seniors to gain this authority from the state.
5:55: They won't stop riding, just as no one stopped using plastic bags after the bag tax. It's robbery by taxation by the County Council. They just make us pay more and more, and we have less and less in our wallets each year. That's why term limits passed with almost 70% of the voter supporting kicking these bums out.
ReplyDelete"They won't stop riding"
ReplyDeleteBut you just said right above that they were riding less. Which is it, Robert?
"just as no one stopped using plastic bags after the bag tax."
And we're off... yet another morning of Robert Dyer's endless digression into more and more completely imaginary "statistics".
5:50AM That's what they said in the 1960's about 70N (soon to become 270) and that new-fangled road called 495.
ReplyDeleteGish Galloping With Bobbie D!
ReplyDeleteGiddyap, Hoss!!!
The Uber tax is added on to the Uber bill. It doesn't reduce the driver's income. So if your bill was $10.00 before the tax, now it's $10.30 and the driver earns their commission based on the $10 fare amount.
ReplyDeleteThe lying and thieving Council has reached an all time low by attempting to steal public funds designated for MoCo’s most vulnerable residents. The only way we can stop the Council from reaching further depths is by going to the the ballot box in June and November.
ReplyDelete6:18: The tax hike has made uber rides more expensive, and the regulations imposed by local and state government have reduced pay for drivers.
ReplyDelete6:17: Gish Galloping = when your behind has been whipped by your debate opponent who has all the facts, and you try to turn it around by coming up with a pejorative term for what just happened.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article in today's Wall Street Journal about the growing trend toward BRT; maybe it's not a total boondoggle after all?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wsj.com/articles/the-next-big-thing-in-urban-transit-fast-bus-systems-1523361600
8:06: It's a growing trend only because it is a [relatively] cheaper way to flip properties into qualifying for transit-oriented development. However, lacking any significant ridership, it only has a negative impact on traffic congestion and the environment. All the additional cars brought in by the new TOD outweigh the small percentage who actually use the BRT, plus congestion is made even worse by taking auto lanes for dedicated BRT lanes.
ReplyDeleteSo, no surprise the Wall Street Journal would be propagandizing for BRT...
When BRT doesn’t work well, it’s usually because the design has been compromised. To run well they require dedicated lanes; but the screeching from constituents enamored of their single-occupancy vehicles becomes so loud that politicians cave, and all we get is BRT-lite.
ReplyDeleteThe county desperately needs to build excellent transit supplements for Metro, such as the Corridor Cities Transitway, which would connect already-dense areas to commerce centers and the Red line. Progressive, growing, thriving communities understand the importance of transit and I applaud the Council’s commitment.
CCT- Just a bus now, if anything?
DeleteI'm standing in front of the Montgomery County jail. Why? To make a point: Hans Riemer was arrested.
ReplyDelete9:23AM will Hans Riemer disavow the threats made by his supporters or did he like jail that much?
DeleteHans Riemer's supporters threatening another candidate should be bigger news.
ReplyDeleteWill Hans Riemer disavow the personal threats? Should be asked by reporters and in debates.
Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that the bill would "allow use of the fund for any transportation purpose in the County." To assert that the funds will be directed to a "BRT slush fund" is disingenuous at best -- which is the baseline for a good day on the "Suburban News Network."
ReplyDelete9:30: Wrong - this is why people turn to this website for intelligent analysis. The Council has canceled every highway project (M-83, Montrose Parkway East). They've funded some part of the new Forest Glen Metro entrance, and postponed the new White Flint Metro north entrance.
ReplyDeleteThe only other major transportation project left to fund is BRT, which they've never been able to fund, especially because its low ridership means it will not pass the standards for federal funds. It's very clear that this money is being moved to BRT.
You’re so cute and clever deleting all of the comments from Hans Reimer supporters. You can try and control the narrative here but remember he still has 50-60,000 more voters than you. Lol.
ReplyDelete11:39: You're right, the cemetery precincts did come in strong for Riemer in 2010 and 2014.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, my supporters are actually alive, and voting by free will.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this article and analysis
ReplyDeleteSaith Dyer: "The Council has canceled every highway project"
ReplyDeleteWhat? They cancelled the ICC, Montrose Parkway, the Georgia Avenue/Randolph Road interchange, and several interchanges on US 29? That's news to me.
"The Council has canceled every highway project (M-83, Montrose Parkway East"
ReplyDeleteThis is a lie. They delayed funding by one year -- it's hardly "canceled."
"The only other major transportation project left to fund is BRT"
This is also an easily-verifiably lie. The budget for the coming year also includes funding for bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, an important access road in Burtonsville, an extension to Observation Drive in Clarksburg, and road work in Silver Spring. Greater Greater Washington has a nice overview for anyone interested, as does Bethesda Beat.
"no new ride-sharing competitor has entered the Montgomery County market since the tax was imposed."
ReplyDeleteHow many new ride-sharing competitors have entered the District and Northern Virginia markets since 2015?
Also, did you know that the District of Columbia is raising their tax on Uber and Lyft fares from 1% to 4.75%? Any fare over $5.26 will have a tax higher than Montgomery County's tax of 25 cents.
"I'm standing in front of the Montgomery County jail. Why? To make a point: Hans Riemer was arrested."
ReplyDeleteHow many people actually saw you doing this, and more importantly, realized your reason for standing there? Dumbest comment of the day, from a Retard supporting Montgomery County's biggest Retard.
"Hans Riemer's supporters threatening another candidate should be bigger news."
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you tell Bethesda Beat about it?
3:49: You only underline how correct my statement was. As you just stated, those projects - which do not include new highways, as I correctly noted - are funded in "the budget for the coming year."
ReplyDeleteWhat is not funded, is the $10 billion BRT system, which is what these funds for the disabled will be spent on.
6:42: At least one new competitor in D.C., because they were just attacked for providing service to majority black neighborhoods.
3:46: Classic Saul Alinsky. You and I both know we're talking about projects going forward, not projects already built. You don't fund construction of projects already constructed, Einstein.
7:49: A supporter of Helpless Hans Riemer again uses the R-word in 2018 - wow, what does that say about Mr. Riemer that he attracts such unenlightened supporters?
"they were just attacked for providing service to majority black neighborhoods."
ReplyDeleteWhat?
Wow, Dyer, you really are a dunce. The Via not-a-taxi service was criticized for NOT serving any of the neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that you manage to take the most basic facts, and get them diametrically wrong?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/via-offers-cheap-shared-rides--but-only-in-certain-parts-of-the-city/2018/04/05/2ff62fbc-375e-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html
I'm putting a "Retards for Robbie" sign on my lawn. I have several dozen more to give to anyone who wants them.
ReplyDelete9:10/8:30: Of course they were attacked for NOT providing service to those neighborhoods. It was a typo, which is why you ask these Saul Alinsky questions, so that you can jump on any mistake. If you weren't illiterate, you would have recognized it was a typo. The real point stands, as Via indeed is competing in D.C. (which is about to make the same dumb mistake our Council did, by taxing ride-sharing services).
ReplyDelete9:17: Do all Hans Riemer supporters call people the R-word as an insult? Good luck getting votes in enlightened Montgomery County with that type of speech.
ReplyDeleteBecause it's always easier to imagine that those who oppose you are paid puppets.
ReplyDeleteNot the kind of judgement one wants in a council member.
He's likely...influencing people to vote... FOR Riemer.
4:18: You obviously haven't looked at Riemer's campaign donations, or you would know he indeed is a "paid puppet." Tens of thousands in out-of-state money from Wall Street and from local developers.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing illegal in those campaign donations. You know it, everyone knows it. Why make incorrect insinuations?
ReplyDeleteYou have had the same, lame, talking points for years and years.
ReplyDeleteIf, there was any there there, it would be big news and you'd be famous for reporting it.
Dyer you are missing a key point. that money was to fund accessible cabs, 50 of them that were to be on the road years ago but the driver led union never got their act together because their leadership and their consultants had no idea what they were doing. Those 50 accessible cabs were part of the push to make the entire fleet accessible.
ReplyDeleteThe money is just sitting there because the cab drivers can't figure things out so you either get your act together or the money is going someplace else. Not that I agree with that but that is what is actually happening.
Uber drivers not making as much is because uber takes a higher percentage. People paying more is just like anything else, prices change.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete6:47am journalists should be skeptical of the elected officials they cover.
DeleteIf you want cheerleading of everything the Council does, you have other legacy sites that provide that.
Can you cite an example of this "cheerleading of everything the Council does" in what you call "the legacy local print media"? I note that you also have the contradictory talking point that they don't cover Bethesda specifically or Montgomery County in general at all. Which is it?
DeleteFeel free to cite examples from Bethesda Beat, The Washington Post, WTOP, WUSA, or NBC4.
The ball is in your court.
8:07am any examples of skepticism from those legacy sources?
DeleteYou really have to turn to local independent operators to see skepticism and balance.
10:33 AM - Moving the goalposts. Can you cite an example of "cheerleading everything the Council does"?
ReplyDelete11:52 AM You base that on anonymous attacks from people angry that Dyer has skeptical coverage of their favorite local politicians and their crazy plans such as desecrating a cemetery for a parking garage?
ReplyDelete6:16: Actually, using the disabled and elderly was "part of the push" to subsidize Barwood Cab at the expense of Uber and its passengers, and deter the expansion of existing and future ride-sharing services like Uber.
ReplyDeleteYour point that those accessible cabs "were to be on the road years ago" is just one part of the subsidy - the cab companies like Barwood were supposed to pay for those, not Uber riders.
Did we need those accessible cabs, or not? If we did, why would the Council leave the whole matter to cabdrivers, as you suggest is the case?
Indeed, prices change when government slaps a tax on a service. That's not a market force, however, just socialism. Uber drivers are making less because so many greedy jurisdictions were furious that they were beating the cab companies they control through political patronage. Cabs [used to] equal power and money for elected officials from coast to coast. Uber disrupted that corrupt system, and now We the People are being punished for making smart transportation choices, instead of using the old Soviet-style cab system.
Robert, do you have any documentation of your claim that "Uber drivers are making less?"
ReplyDelete"Socialism" - what retards say when you ask them to pay for public goods and services.
ReplyDeleteRobert Dyer said: "I majored in Latin American history and studied urban planning in Latin America, both highly-relevant experience in a diverse and poorly-planned County."
ReplyDeleteWell, if you actually have studied urban planning in Latin America, you will know that there are several very successful examples of Bus Rapid Transit there (as well as in many other cities across the world):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems
-Buenos Aires metropolitan area, Argentina
-La Paz, Bolivia
-Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Curitiba and 9 other cities in Brazil
-Santiago and Concepcion, Chile
-Bogota, Medellin, Cali and 4 other cities in Colombia
-Quito and Guayaquil in Ecuador
-Lima and 2 other cities in Peru
-Caracas and 4 other cities in Venezuela
-Guatemala City, Guatemala
-Mexico City and 8 other cities in Mexico
The obvious question is, why haven't Uber and Lyft implemented accessible cab services on their own?
ReplyDelete5:50: None of those cities are analogous to Montgomery County.
ReplyDeleteSo which cities in Latin America that you studied are "highly relevant" to the situation in Montgomery County?
ReplyDelete"They failed to create an independent transit authority twice, which would have had unlimited power to tax and spend with no oversight by any elected official."
ReplyDeleteThis of course is complete bullshit. But don't let that stop you from posting it 20 more times.
9:51: Many in terms of general planning principles, but not in terms of BRT.
ReplyDelete9:57: You're the BS artist - all of the bold type quote there is right in the text of the bill. It specifically stated there was no approval of budgets, debts, etc. by the Council - by no elected official, for that matter. It specifically allowed the ITA to raise taxes and carry debt, with no caps on either.
@ 9:51 PM - "So which cities in Latin America that you studied are 'highly relevant' to the situation in Montgomery County?
ReplyDeleteDyer @ 2:56 AM - "Many in terms of general planning principles, but not in terms of BRT."
So why don't you name just one? #DodgingDyer
Answering the actual question asked is not part of Dyer's m.o.
ReplyDelete"an independent transit authority...which would have had unlimited power to tax"
ReplyDeleteNope.
The Council would have had sole authority to establish any taxes related to the agency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/leggett-seeks-montgomery-transit-authority-for-bus-lanes-other-projects/2015/01/26/e5f19ec6-a591-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.334ca41ccc1c
4:18: From my perspective, a planned city like Brasilia has lessons we can apply to Montgomery County.
ReplyDelete4:41: Total BS. The whole point of the ITA was INDEPENDENT taxing, spending and debt authority. Hence why it was called Independent, dumbass.
Council was explicitly cut out of budget review authority by the original text of the legislation. Link to that, not to an irrelevant Post article.
The ITA would have had no taxing authority on its own - only the Council could have set any taxes dedicated to it. You can repeat this lie as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteActually, using the disabled and elderly was "part of the push" to subsidize Barwood Cab at the expense of Uber and its passengers, and deter the expansion of existing and future ride-sharing services like Uber.
ReplyDeleteYour point that those accessible cabs "were to be on the road years ago" is just one part of the subsidy - the cab companies like Barwood were supposed to pay for those, not Uber riders.
Did we need those accessible cabs, or not? If we did, why would the Council leave the whole matter to cabdrivers, as you suggest is the case?
Dyer, do you know how many accessible rides the cabs provide in the county? including the subsidized programs? no, you do not, do you know that uber doesn't provide accessible transportation and this was what the idea was about, to provide that service that uber decided to neglect?
the 50 licenses were to go to 50 individual drivers, not fleets, they never put them on the road, they were to be subsidized instead of going to barwood who would then rent them but of course you knew that but you didn't
barwood was bleeding a slow death since 2006 and only 1 time did barwood have a chance to sell the licenses at a price that could help them but now those are worthless and barwood is gone and all the stuff that was sold is only going to kill the next company that purchased it.
the only way barwood was bringing in any money was the sale of their licenses but they couldn't sell them for peanuts after their first round of selling them. the uber fee did nothing for barwood, if anything it solidified their demise.
Since there is some concern about transportation options for the elderly and the disabled, I figured I'd point everyone to the Transportation Network Directory which is "a comprehensive listing of public, private and non-profit transportation in the Washington Metropolitan Region, State of Maryland, and beyond that can be used by everyone in the community with an emphasis on people with disabilities and older adults." It was put together by (I believe) HHS and MCDOT and is quite thorough.
ReplyDeleteTransportation Network Directory
I hope this helps!
@8:06 - You're very welcome!
ReplyDelete@9:09 - Re: BRT, agreed! One of the great things about the MoCo planned BRT is the level boarding, which will make it easier for people in wheelchairs or with mobility issues to board, and will also make the boarding process quicker. I'm a self-admitted transit nerd, and I'm REALLY excited about BRT in the County.
(Also, I tried the Express bus on the Pike when it launched, and its really nice! It doesn't work for my daily commute, but I know the NIH people have been using it.)
Robert, have you been to Brasilia?
ReplyDeleteI thought you'd like this picture of the bus terminal there. We could build one just like that at the Westbard Purple Line station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia#/media/File:Rodovi%C3%A1ria_do_Plano_Piloto.jpg
Have you been to any other cities in Latin America?
"Recently, they tried and failed to have their allies in Annapolis give them "quick-take" land seizure authority, which would have allowed them to seize homes and businesses"
ReplyDeleteNope. That bill was intended for very small takings such as for building bus shelters.
11:30: You seem to have ongoing problems reading the text of actual legislation. There was no limitation on what could be seized along corridors in the text of the bill.
ReplyDelete6:45: I was responding to the commenter who claimed that the money was never used because the "cabdrivers union" couldn't get their act together. He said it, not me. As I said, while Uber should provide accessible service, they were not obligated by law to do so.
ReplyDeleteUsing the Uber tax to provide accessible cabs that Barwood would otherwise have had to pay for was indeed a subsidy, as was creating an Uber-style app for Barwood at taxpayers' expense.
5:25: Anyone can verify I am correct by reading the actual text of the ITA bill, which definitively gave unlimited taxing authority to the ITA. That's why it's an ITA, Einstein - independent.
ReplyDeleteThe ITA as such would have no taxing authority. All taxes earmarked to it would be levied by the County.
ReplyDelete"You seem to have ongoing problems reading the text of actual legislation."
ReplyDeleteExample #4,165 of "What Dyer claims about his readers actually applies to himself."
9:37: The text of the bill allows the ITA unlimited taxing, spending and debt authority. Period.
ReplyDelete10:02: Where am I wrong in the actual text of the original ITA bill, chump? Not an interpretation, but the actual text?
Dyer, Barwood wasn't and couldn't add any additional cabs to their fleet when this law passed. so there is no way the money could have gone to them.
ReplyDeleteThe ITA would have had no authority to levy taxes. Only the Council can do that.
ReplyDelete