Editorial: Legislature's sneaky taxi insurance hike another case study in bad policy making

Friday, Sept. 29, 2017 -- Add a last-minute law increasing insurance costs for taxicabs to the ever-growing list of bad public policy case studies that the N.C. Legislature has created for business and public management schools around the nation to study.

Posted 9:00 a.m. Sep 29, 2017 — Updated 1:24 p.m. Sep 29, 2017

CBC Editorial: Friday, Sept. 29, 2017; Editorial # 8217

The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company

Hardly a week goes by that there isn’t another revelation of subterfuge -- slipped inside some legislation, with no warning, little debate and even less research -- by the clique that runs the North Carolina General Assembly.

It can be big: Cutting $10 million from the state Department of Justice without talking to anyone in the agency about it; Declaring a moratorium on wind energy development without discussing with anyone – particularly the industry and communities impacted; Revealing the details and motivations behind radical revisions to state judicial districts developed without any contact with district attorneys, judges or courts administrators.

It can be not-so-big.

The latest example: A last-minute provision slipped into an un-related bill that so dramatically increases insurance costs for taxicabs that many say it will force drivers and companies out of business. This was done by Sen. Harry Brown, a Jacksonville car dealer, chairman of the powerful appropriations committee and the Senate’s majority leader.

So, add this to the ever-growing list of bad public policy case studies that this legislature has created for business and public management schools around the nation to study.

Brown claims he came up with this taxi legislation all on his own. Now, Brown isn’t your ordinary legislator with tons of time on his hands. He’s one of the top guys in charge of putting together the state’s $23 billion budget – making sure the state’s schools and universities, parks and public facilities, health programs, economic development, highways and environment are all taken care of.

And he’s just sitting around thinking about how much insurance there should be for taxicabs? If that’s true, he wasn’t thinking too deeply – particularly about the ramifications and impacts.

While there’s a very significant hike in the insurance costs for those with taxicab permits, there’s not related increase for Uber or Lyft drivers – who perform the identical service.

The state Insurance Department wasn’t asked about the proposal before it became law, said Colin Day, the agency’s assistant director of public information.

“I didn’t have a single legislator say they didn’t think that was more than fair,” Brown said last week.

Did he ask any of them, and when? Did he ask any cabbies? After the bill was instantly passed?

There are MANY very reasonable questions here – that should have been raised, discussed and resolved BEFORE the law was passed:

Who REALLY was behind the “need” to increase liability coverage for taxicabs?
What was the rush to insert this into an unrelated bill during the closing hours of the legislative session?
What was the need for the big increase?
Why are drivers for Uber and Lyft exempt when they provide an identical service and their riders face identical risks?
Why wasn’t this discussed in House and Senate committees, where the public could have learned about the proposals and even offered their views and advice?
Why wasn’t this discussed with those most affected – the taxi drivers and operators?
Why wasn’t this proposal discussed with the state Insurance Department?

We’re just getting started here, but you get the idea.

State Rep. Mark Brody from Union County, whose unrelated bill dealing with Department of Transportation plans to acquire property was where the taxi amendment landed, shrugged off the whole thing as no big deal. Any problems could be tweaked later, he said.

That’s a pretty low standard for legislative leaders who contend they have been running the General Assembly in a more business-like manner.

Unfortunately for North Carolina’s citizens, it’s more likely lawmakers are stocking graduate school shelves with more case studies on dysfunctional organizations. It is malfeasance. There is no concern for the lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers and even less concern for the North Carolina citizens affected by the legislative nonsense.

November 2018 cannot come soon enough.

Suggest A Correction