Mayor Bloomberg Battles Fleet Owners Over NYC 'Taxi of Tomorrow' 278
An anonymous reader writes "In April, Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that the Nissan NV200 minivan had won a citywide competition to replace the current cab model, the Ford Crown Victoria, in a phased-in period of five years. Cab owners sued, pointing out that New York City law requires that hybrid electric models be available for immediate use for cab medallion owners; that excludes the current Nissan NV200, with its 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder engine rated at a combined 24 mpg. The NV200 also has poor accessibility for wheelchair users. After a state judge blocked the mayor's plan, Bloomberg allegedly told the CEO of Taxi Club Management at a private club, 'Come January 1st, when I am out of office, I am going to destroy your f--king industry.' Tim Fernholz of Quartz speculates that Bloomberg (a billionaire) may be planning to launch a cab-hailing service like Uber, which was just allowed back onto the streets of New York, with significant limitations."
Note to self... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't piss off the rich guy.
Bloomberg is a spoiled brat (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a man with so much obscene money than he has a right to, and thinks he can buy what he wants if he can't get it any other way. First it's gun control, then it's a police state, and now it's his own taxi monopoly (along with whatever kickback he and his cronies are getting from this backroom deal). Bloomberg is a plague on society, a grown man who is prone to throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way, and enough money in his pocket to crush anyone that stands in his way.
I can't wait until the feds get enough hair on their balls to take him down. Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime.
Re:Note to self... (Score:4, Insightful)
No no, not a cab hailing service... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously Bloomberg is going to fund the installation of a Personal Rapid Transit [wikipedia.org] system with 100% coverage of the metro area, plus extensions to commuter parking lots upstate and in New Jersey. PRT proponents rejoice! Bloomberg will prove once and for all that PRT works!
Or...
Bloomberg is an entitled asshole rich kid who can vent whenever he wants because he's too rich for anybody around him to tell him to STFU [kym-cdn.com].
Gee. I wonder which is more likely...
Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that apply equally to the Koch brothers and their NRA connected group ALEC?
Yes, the Feds should go after the Kochs because "Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime."
How does that shoe feel now that it's on your foot? Uncomfortable?
Just to make thing crystal clear, you are as dumb as you sound.
Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait until the feds get enough hair on their balls to take him down. Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime.
The entire problem with Bloomberg isn't just that he's really bad at solving problems, it's because there's too much government power and he just happens to be the one wielding it at the moment.
Wishing for revenge from more government power is just the kind of thinking that perpetuates the system that makes Bloomberg a problem.
Re:Unqualified for office (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase is "crony capitalism". To be vociferously distinguished from "free-market capitalism", which it subverts.
Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Bloomberg actually HAS broken the law, he headed up an illegal gun-running operation (he called it an undercover sting, but as far as I am aware you really can't form up a private law enforcement club and wantonly break laws just because you say it's OK to do). Never been charged or arrested, never will.
What laws have the Kochs demonstrably violated?
Why does this problem exist in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why there appears to be some monolithic entity designating the specific model of taxi cab for the entire city. Shouldn't each taxi company/cab owner be able to choose what car(s)/van(s) they want to use? Besides designating a paint scheme and setting some requirements (display of medallion, cleanliness of cab, etc) the city should butt out. It sounds to me like there is a lot of shady dealings & backdoor hand shaking going on.
Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan? (Score:2, Insightful)
At the slow speed you will be going stuck in traffic in NYC, aerodynamics aren't going to save you much in fuel economy. That being the case, from a traffic optimization standpoint, you want to minimize the wheelbase/footprint of the vehicle. A van is actually more compact in terms of road space occupied for the same amount of internal volume.
Re:Ambivalent (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it weighs 3200 pounds, so that 4 cylinder probably has to suck down all the gas it can get just to get the thing moving. Plus it will probably die early carrying around that much weight. Not something you would want for a taxi. Also, for being all that heavy, they don't have a lot of interior room. I sure wouldn't want to give up a Crown Vic for one of these things, even though the Crown Vic obviously sucks down much more gas. Oh, wait, not it doesn't. It sucks down only 4 more tablespoons of gas per mile than the anemic four cylinder in the Nissan in the city and gets the same mileage as the NV200 on the highway.
Re:Note to self... (Score:0, Insightful)
He wants to dictate what everyone does, and will stop at NOTHING to do it.
You're implying that's a bad thing.
The people need to be dictated. They are not capable of governing themselves.
If you give people power, they do mentally defective things like owning guns.
The rights of the public should be severely limited. They should NOT be allowed to do what they want, since the public isn't capable of determining what is good for themselves. Strong government needs to dictate to people what is good for them instead.
Bloomberg is a true hero because he helps to limit the power of the public and individual rights. We liberals encourage his power, which helps fight the freedom-loving libertarianism threat to this country.
Most Americans support strong-government socialism anyways, and think libertarianism is a silly, low-IQ idea anyways that children think is smart.
Eventually people get over the idea of libertarianism and individual freedom, in exchange for a stronger government authority and power.
Re:Note to self... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it depressing that the word "fascist" is being used without irony for someone who passed a law about soda cup size. Have we forgotten, perhaps, what genuine fascists are like? It's the political equivalent of someone with a runny nose complaining that they have flu...
Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascism is about more than just authoritarian laws. Fascism is a difficult creature to define, but definitions usually involve- Corporate Syndicalism, veneration of the State (i.e. ultra-Nationalism), distrust of democracy, and a dislike of free-market capitalism. You can usually throw in eugenics and racial supremacy too, although it's debatable whether this is integral to fascism or whether it is just a function of ultra-Nationalism.
I'm not American and so not exposed to much news on the subject of Michael Bloomberg, but a quick scan of his Wikipedia entry doesn't hint at any policies that would fall into that "fascism" camp. It mostly seems like he's prone to passing "nanny state" laws, and has also been involved with some corruption allegations (something or other about gun-running). That doesn't make him a pleasant guy, but it also doesn't make him a fascist. Until he starts arguing about deporting immigrants and dissolving Wall Street, I don't think you can really put him in that philosophical bucket.
Re:Note to self... (Score:2, Insightful)
You were the third person to use the comparison in this thread (see tmosley and NoNonAlphaCharsHere). Apparently soda-cup-size laws are an emotive topic in the states.
There's something wrong when people use the word "fascist" to refer to someone who's political ideology appears to be nannyish meddling and self-aggrandisement, while movements with genuine elements of fascism (such as the Tea Party- although it depends which part of the movement you're looking at) get passed off as "conservative" (another much abused phrase).
Re:Note to self... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy tiger. It's a complicated subject. Complicated by the fact that a) the Tea Party movement is disunited on many policy points, and b) fascism itself has always been poorly defined. But taking those two things into account, there is still much overlap.
Let's start with the easy bit. Ultra-nationalism for one. Anti-immigration for two. Those two on their own do not fascism make, but they're a start.
Foreign policy is the first tricky area. Arguably there are two camps- the Ron Paul school of thought and the Sarah Palin school of thought. The Ron Paul one is very much non-fascist- the idea that militarism is an extension of Big Government and should be resisted. The Palin one is about spreading American ideology through power projection (look up "American Exceptionalism" for a broader discussion). A fairly key part of fascism is based around the eradication of rival ideologies through force of arms in order to promote unity- the basic ideological justification for Nazi Germany's invasions.
By far the trickiest talking point is around the concept of "small government" itself. There are two basic schools of thought on this; there's free market anarchism, espoused to a greater or lesser extent by Paulite school of Tea Partyism. This, again, is definitely not fascist- fascism historically disliked that concept as being against the societal good. However the politics to come out of the likes of the Koch brothers is more akin to Corporate Syndicalism- the idea that society should be run by and for the experts in each societal sector, with only a veneer of criminal law to keep the syndicates on the party line. That was a key (arguably THE key) to 20th century fascism (especially Italian fascism).
Fascism historically defined itself as an "anti-communist" movement. Part of this also manifested as an anti-intellectual standpoint (that is, distrust of academia and the "intellectual class", as opposed to being "anti-intelligence" or anything broader), as well as a complete loathing of the trade union labour movement. All three of these are met by the Tea Party- "socialist" is still seen as something practically demonic by Tea Party critics, unions are considered anathema (this is related to the Corporate Syndicalism outlined above), and a rejection of scientific institutions (especially around climate studies) as being politicised and left-wing-biased all fit this template.
It's not a perfect fit, and you need to be selective as to what parts you're looking at (as I stated originally), but the similarities are far easier to spot there than it is in soda-cup laws or taxicab vehicle choices.