NY Daily News: City Council tries again to cap Uber and other ride-hailing services

By Dan Rivoli and Jillian Jorgensen

 

The City Council will once again explore capping the number of vehicles driving for Uber and similar app-based taxi services in New York City streets — beginning with a yearlong ban on issuing new licenses for most for-hire cars.

The move comes three years after a similar effort to limit the ride-hailing apps in the name of congestion. It was pushed by Mayor de Blasio, viewed skeptically in the Council and failed in the summer of 2015 in the face of aggressive push back from Uber.

But calls for restrictions on the companies have grown in recent months, as studies have borne out that the cars — often driving without passengers — have indeed increased congestion. Perhaps more stark has been the reckoning of the services’ impact on the city’s old-fashioned taxi and livery industry, and on drivers who spent their entire fortunes or mortgaged their homes to buy taxi medallions, only to see them plummet in price. Six struggling drivers have killed themselves this year.

Council Speaker Corey Johnson (D-Manhattan) said the Council’s package of bills aimed to create fairness between the various kinds of taxis in the city, to support drivers who work for all those kinds of taxis, to combat congestion and increase accessibility for the disabled.

"We aren't taking away any service that is currently being offered to New Yorkers,” he said. "We are pausing the issuance of new licenses in an industry that has been allowed to proliferate without an appropriate check."

But Uber, as it did in 2015, promptly mobilized against the effort — rolling out a seven-figure television ad buy targeting the bills, in addition to ads on social media and elsewhere. That’s on top of a prior ad buy of more than $1 million for a campaign dubbed “Uber’s There.”

And the company will directly reach out to its millions of New York users by email, it said, a strategy that paid dividends three years ago.

“The New York City Council has proposed a series of bills that could make Uber more expensive and less reliable throughout the five boroughs — severely impacting those who rely on Uber when public transit isn’t an option,” the e-mail, shared with the News, will read.

The message includes a link allowing riders to “tweet to the City Council.” Sure enough, tweets started appearing online — some using the exact same language and the hashtag #DontStrandNYC.

The direct outreach went even further: Uber appears to be reaching out to New Yorkers by phone about the legislation, according to one source who received a call. The caller even tried to connect the source directly to their City Council member’s office, though the source noted the caller had the wrong district.

Lyft also pushed back against the cuts, arguing the city was fighting not for small-time medallion owners but “corporate” ones and misplacing blame for congestion.

“I think to put the blame squarely on ridesharing companies for that misses the point - there’s many studies that show ridesharing is not the cause of increased congestion,” Lyft communications director Adrian Durbin said.

Durbin, like his counterparts at Uber, argued the cap would make drivers head to the most lucrative area — Manhattan’s central business district, which would hurt outer borough riders and worsen congestion.

And the yearlong ban means the service will be unable to replace any driver who departs, he said.

But the bill does allow for the TLC to add new licenses if they don’t believe it will impact traffic — and it contains a carve-out allowing new licenses for wheelchair accessible cars.

"If any of these companies, like Uber, want to put a new wheelchair accessible vehicle on the road, they can do that,” Johnson said.

Medallion owners cheered the effort.

“In the last few years, Uber and other ride share companies have congested Manhattan streets, deprived passengers in wheelchairs from receiving meaningful service and decimated the lives of immigrant taxi drivers and their families,” the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade said in a statement.

The board said the legislation was overdue but a “meaningful start” and urged the Council to pass them quickly.

De Blasio has long offered support for a cap on the services, and has repeatedly returned to the idea in discussing the driver suicides.

“As far as I can see this proposed legislation is addressing some really serious issues in a smart way, and I look forward to looking at it and I think the Council is trying to do something important here,” he said Friday.

While the last attempt to cap Uber went down in flames in the Council amid opposition, Johnson said that after drivers died by suicide, people have recognized it’s time to action.

"We are really just doing what we think is the right thing to do,” he said. “If that means that they're going to launch ads and campaign, I think it's our duty as elected officials to explain why we're doing this and to be able to explain that to the public on why we think this is a good public policy decision."

The bill to bar new licenses for a year is sponsored by Councilman Stephen Levin (D-Brooklyn).

"There's been an average 2,000 new vehicles added to the streets every single month,” Levin said. “At this point, it's pretty well-saturated, if not over saturated."

Council staff characterized the bill as a pause, not a cap — but the pause is intended to allow for a study of the impact of those vehicles and, after the study, to allow the TLC to cap new licenses if necessary. The TLC would also be able to set a “vehicle utilization standard” for the industry, aimed at regulating how often the cars are plying the city streets empty.

Another bill, sponsored by Councilman Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx) — who has been showered in taxi industry donations and leads a new committee on the subject — would require a new license for companies handling more than 10,000 trips a day. That would apply to the big names in ride-sharing, like Uber, Lyft, Via and Juno. The cost would be set by the TLC. Other bills from Diaz Sr. would waive license fees for wheelchair-accessible cars, and lower fines on livery drivers caught picking up street hails.

The bill aimed at driver pay, sponsored by Councilman Brad Lander (D-Brooklyn) would require the TLC to set a minimum payment for drivers and would also allow them to study whether to should set a minimum fare.
 

Copyright 2018 New York Daily News.  All rights reserved. 

U.S. News & World Report: New Bankruptcy Rules Proposed for Student Debtors

By Courtney Nagle

Student loans are a hefty burden for many Americans.

There are around 44 million borrowers with student debt, according to a 2017 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Outstanding student debt sits at about $1.4 trillion, with nearly 11 percent of debt that was 90 days or more delinquent or in default at the end of March 2018, according to the most recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. So the burden is common ground for many people, to say the least.

In recent years, it's been almost impossible to get a court to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.  However, while difficult, student loans have been discharged in bankruptcy before. When loans are discharged, it means the borrower is no longer legally required to repay them.

The HIGHER ED Act, H.R. 5549, introduced by Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon in April, would make significant changes to bankruptcy rules regarding student loans and may provide relief for some borrowers. The proposed legislation would broaden the definition of "undue hardship," the standard used to determine if a debt is eligible for discharge.

To date, Congress hasn't defined undue hardship and has left it to courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. But momentum is building with the Trump administration and in Congress to define undue hardship for student loan borrowers.

Earlier this year, the Department of Education issued a request for public comment to collect data and feedback on whether there's a need to modify how undue-hardship claims by student loan borrowers in bankruptcy are evaluated. The Education Department has expressed concerns that the undue hardship standard in its present form is discouraging borrowers from filing for bankruptcy.

Evidence that supports the concern can be found in a study by Jason Iuliano at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Iuliano found that nearly 40 percent of borrowers who include their student loans in their bankruptcy filing ended up with some or all their student debt discharged, but only 0.1 percent of people who filed for bankruptcy attempted to discharge their student loans. The study suggests that many student loan borrowers who are filing for bankruptcy often don't attempt a student loan discharge since it's challenging to meet the requirements used by most circuit courts.

According to the National Consumer Law Center, all federal courts of appeal except the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have adopted what's known as the Brunner test to define undue hardship. It's based on three factors students must prove:

1. Would you be able to maintain a minimal standard of living if you had to repay the loan?
2. Are the financial difficulties you face temporary, or are they expected to continue for several years?
3. Have you made efforts to keep up with your student loan payments before filing for bankruptcy?

Borrowers must be able to prove the student debt is making it impossible to support themselves and their family and their financial situation is not expected to improve for several years.

The Department of Education is currently re-evaluating these criteria and developing guidance on determining when a student is experiencing undue hardship. It's also looking at whether to change the weights of each factor and make student loan discharges more accessible for borrowers who need relief.

There are arguments for both sides of this issue. Opponents fear that making discharge easier could put student loan programs in jeopardy and that people will game the system and run up debts with no intention to repay. But consumer advocates support the change, saying there are a lack of options for struggling student loan borrowers.

These advocates hope that by changing the definition of undue hardship, more qualified student loan borrowers will be able to get debt relief when filing bankruptcy by being able to include their student loans. Whether this change will take place or not is still unclear.

For borrowers who are struggling to make their payments and headed into default, here are a few tips to consider with the current rules.

Review the Education Department's guidance on bankruptcy. The Department of Education developed guidance for borrowers in 2015 on whether they would be likely to qualify for a student loan discharge through bankruptcy. The guidance provides hypothetical examples of several scenarios where it would be likely. It's important to do your research and use all of your resources.

Talk to your lender. Federal student loans come with income-driven repayment plans, deferment or forbearance, and sometimes loan forgiveness. If you are struggling to figure out if there's a good option for you other than bankruptcy, the Student Loan Ranger recommends reaching out to your servicer, lender or a nonprofit credit counselor.  They can evaluate your specific situation and explain what options you have. There may even be a hardship program you don't know about.

Copyright 2018 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.  All rights reserved.

New York Daily News: Taxi drivers rally for new City Council regulations

By Dan Rivoli

City taxi drivers’ patience meter is running out.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance rallied outside City Hall on Tuesday as cabbies said they want new regulations to boost wages and the values of yellow taxi medallions.

The driver group has advocated for a cap on for-hire cars and to make the meter fare the minimum rate industry wide and give app drivers 80% of trip fare.

The city Taxi & Limousine Commission, meanwhile, proposed a minimum wage standard so app drivers could make $17.22 an hour.

But the taxi drivers group opposed that, arguing that price would be a ceiling.

Bhairavi Desai, director of the alliance, said the focus should be on City Council regulations.

“There’s finally momentum in the City of New York to properly regulate this Wall Street darling,” Desai said, referencing Uber. “We don’t want the Taxi & Limousine Commission to play interference with our momentum.”

TLC spokeswoman Rebecca Harshbarger said the agency is working with the City Council and the industry to address drivers' economic challenges.

The rally followed the release of an over-$1 million Uber ad highlighting its service in the outer boroughs.

“As policymakers contemplate new industry regulations, they must ensure that people who have been ignored by yellow taxi and underserved by mass transit aren’t punished,” Uber spokeswoman Alix Anfang said.

Councilman Barry Grodenchik, who has taxi drivers in his Queens district, said there’s a new sense of urgency from Council Speaker Corey Johnson to add new regulations to the industry, in light of six taxi driver suicides.

“I want it done sooner, rather than later,” Grodenchik said. “My district can’t wait and I don’t think that there’s dilly-dallying going on. It's a very complicated situation.”

“The Council is deeply concerned with the emotional, mental, and financial pain drivers in this industry are currently experiencing and remains committed to finding a legislative solution,” Jacob Tugendrajch, a spokesman for Johnson, said. “The Council continues to work on legislation that would protect drivers, increase fairness and combat congestion.”

Inder Parmar, an Uber driver since 2013 who has cousins and neighbors who drive yellow cabs, backs efforts in the City Council to set a standard fare across the industry.

“Patience is running out,” Parmar said. “City Council, I have a request to them to act on it as soon as possible. This way, we do not see any other driver committing suicide.”

Copyright 2018 New York Daily News.

June 2018 TLC medallion sales

The June 2018 New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) sales results have been released to the public. And as is our practice, provided below are James Shenwick’s comments about those sales results.

1. The volume of transfers rose from May. In June, there were 41 taxi medallion sales.

2. 36 of the 41 sales were foreclosure sales, which means that the medallion owner defaulted on the bank loan and the banks were foreclosing to obtain possession of the medallion. We disregard these transfers in our analysis of the data, because we believe that they are outliers and not indicative of the true value of the medallion, which is a sale between a buyer and a seller under no pressure to sell (fair market value).  Another transfer was due to a partnership split, which also does not reflect fair market value and which we have also excluded from our analysis.

3. However the large volume of foreclosure sales (approximately 88%) is in our opinion evidence of the continued weakness in the taxi medallion market.

4. The four regular sales ranged from a low of $172,000 (one medallion), another at $175,000, another at $180,000 and a high of $200,000.

5.  Accordingly, the median value of a medallion in June was $177,500.

Please continue to read our blog to see what happens to medallion pricing in the future. Any individuals or businesses with questions about taxi medallion valuations or workouts should contact Jim Shenwick at (212) 541-6224 or via email at jshenwick@gmail.com.

Another success story for an individual with too much debt!

An individual who incurred excessive debt due to a failed business and divorce came to us for a consultation.  He was concerned not only with the amount of debt he had, but also about how that debt would impact his credit rating and ability to borrow money in the future.   We asked him to prepare the following information for the initial consultation: (1) the amount of money he owed creditors, including any pending lawsuits; (2) the property or assets that he owned; and (3) an after tax monthly budget, starting with the amount of money he made each month after taxes less his ordinary and necessary living and work expenses.

His initial consultation took about an hour, and we discussed how he should deal with the debt from the failed business and divorce. His choices were either workouts with creditors or a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.  After reviewing the information supplied by the client, we agreed that workouts with creditors was a better way to proceed then a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

He made a list of all his creditors, and after reviewing his budget, determined how much of his monthly cash flow he could dedicate to paying his creditors. He contacted each of his creditors, and with advice from James Shenwick, he was able to enter into workouts with all of them.

These workouts generally involve either a single payment of a discounted lump sum to the creditor or payments of money over time against the monies due to the creditor (installment payments). The timeline for these payments to creditors ranged from six months to 18 months.

Another factor that must be considered in doing workouts with creditors (also known as out-of-court settlements) is the issue of  “relief of indebtedness income” under § 108 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).  Section 108 of the IRC provides that if an individual borrows money and does not fully repay a creditor, then he or she is enriched by the amount of debt not repaid to the creditor, which is considered taxable income. In round numbers, the IRC provides that if an individual borrows $100,000 and repays $50,000, then he or she must report $50,000 of income to the IRS and pay tax on that income. Generally, institutional creditors like credit card companies will report this relief of indebtedness income to the IRS via a 1099-R.

This client’s story continues with more good news! After repaying his creditors, he was concerned about his credit score (FICO score) and his ability to borrow money in the future to buy real estate or to lease or buy a car.  He obtained a credit report from Credit Karma, and upon review, we noticed several errors. Using a federal and state law known as The Fair Credit Reporting Act, he retained us to contact those creditors and the credit reporting agencies to correct the errors. It took some time and effort, but in approximately three months we were able to correct those errors, and the good news is that he reported to us that he applied for and obtained a new credit card, which showed that he was now creditworthy!  He was very excited about this news and thrilled to have reduced his debt and maintained his ability to obtain credit. Individuals with similar issues should contact Jim Shenwick at (212) 541-6224 or jshenwick@gmail.com for a consultation regarding their options for dealing with debt. Jim