next following sentence you proceeded to show that you don t understand the concept of the waiting list or the issue with it. such as the people waiting 15, 20 years and sluging it out the of this time at very low-income and having to work hard shift where s there is nobody there. they finally are ready to get their medallion and it s not going to be worth it for them to buy it. you are telling them that okay, at least you have the opportunity to buy it if you are on the list. it makes no sense. everybody on the list gets a medallion i mean the medallions don t get sold to anybody who is not on the list and the people at the top of the list, it s not worth it for them to buy it most of the time because they are too old. they are been doing this for 20, 30 years already. so you need to to explore this a little further. and then as i said before, barry toronto shared some of the emails with me, that he obtained through the public records act. and i was appalled at the disresp
that you have that you have enough informing have looked at it enough and in the next following sentence you proceeded to show that you don t understand the concept of the waiting list or the issue with it. such as the people waiting 15, 20 years and sluging it out the of this time at very low-income and having to work hard shift where s there is nobody there. they finally are ready to get their medallion and it s not going to be worth it for them to buy it. you are telling them that okay, at least you have the opportunity to buy it if you are on the list. it makes no sense. everybody on the list gets a medallion i mean the medallions don t get sold to anybody who is not on the list and the people at the top of the list, it s not worth it for them to buy it most of the time because they are too old. they are been doing this for 20, 30 years already. so you need to to explore this a little further. and then as i said before, barry toronto shared some of the emails with me,
those medallions. they are too old to do anything else. that is the one concrete you are doing and it s the public. the public. the public good. that is fine with me. i would like to see you return to actual transparency. in the meantime, it looks like ned ford has never left. thank you very much. next speaker. [ reading speakers names ]. mark gruberg, thank you again. to follow-up on ed s remarks, blinded by self-interest, i think you just focused like a laser beam on your own financial self-interest as an agency. and you are just not getting the picture. i sent you a letter last week, about the driver fund. you know, a lot is said here in public comment and maybe you missed some of it. i hope you weren t missing what i was saying at the last meeting that what you did was it absolutely gut the drivers fund, take virtually every penny out of the drivers fund for the next possibly 20 or 30 years and appropriate that money for yourself, because instead of 15% and 5%, it s
few years the taxes only existed two years. less than two years. i know that some may feel that the work was i ignored. please know that the board and staff appreciated and benefited by the work. thank you, mr. paul ryan. thank you. next speaker. [ reading speakers names ]. mr. lawrence. ladies and gentlemen of audience and commissioners, thank you for letting me speak once again. very briefly, i would like to bring up an issue that i think one of the i m not sure which one of you brought it up. but anyway, the issue of sharing a cab, like in washington, d.c.. i picked up a man from washington, d.c. last week and he said since january they recognized the gridlock problem and instituted one extra dollar per passenger and one extra dollar per bag. washington, d.c. has recognized the problem with taking one cab per passenger, because that is what they do at ffo. there is a shortage of cabs at peak time, because every one person getting in one cab. they share cabs. you h
quite frankly, the industry feels that the taxi advisory council is something of a distraction, go play in your sandbox and we ll do what we want. a good example of that, there was a unanimous vote that had a new medallion holder buying a medallion for $250,000 should not pay a 20% fee, that was appropriate for someone who got a medallion under prop k and guess what happened? the plan that you put out here said we re going to charge a 30% fee. yes, you lowered it down to 30%, but i want to tell you that the tami council voted unanimously it was not appropriate for someone buying a medallion for several thousands of dollars. lastly, i want to talk about the serious issue of these other on-demand services that are now proliferating in the city. we must do something about it. there is going to be crimes and there is going to be assaults when we don t know who is picking up the public. thank you. thank you. next speaker. peter witt. ed haley. mark gruburg. i m sorry, mr.