An Open Letter To President Obama (Stopping Predatory Towing Is A Clever And Amazingly Cheap Policy Tweak)

Flickr.com Photo

Dear President Obama,

I'm sure a gazillion editorial writers all have suggestions for you, and something like this blog post is likely to get lost in the shuffle like...car keys in half-frozen Minnesota slush. But what you said today about George Washington at Valley Forge made me think, well, I have to at least TRY to make my country a little better....

I'm hoping this blog post might somehow get to one of your low-level administration officials, a congressional or senate aide, SOMEBODY who sees the sense in this assertion: Some "policy tweaks" can really help the people of the nation and its economy, but don't cost much money at all. Regulating predatory towing is one such policy tweak.

What Predatory Towing Costs The Nation

The loss of a vehicle--even temporary--keeps individuals from getting to work. It creates chaos in personal schedules, and then concentric rings of chaos which ripple into society. Somewhere, a nurse doesn't show up for work, and another nurse has to work overtime, stressed out, more prone to make mistakes. Somewhere a teacher doesn't make it to school and a substitute teacher--sincere, but less skilled and prepared--has to fill in for half of the day. The students suffer. And so forth.

(Geez, Mr. President, this really reminds me of the poem read at your inauguration, but in a negative way. Yes, "somewhere somebody patches a tire." YES, BECAUSE A TOW TRUCK DRIVER DRAGGED THE VEHICLE SEVERAL MILES WITH THE BRAKES ENGAGED, CLICK HERE. Oh, gee, turns out that particular tire problem can't be patched)

This chaos caused by the towing of vehicles might be something society could absorb, because parking rules must be enforced, and a lack of parking creates its own chaos. But here's the problem: there is overwhelming documentation that some towing companies--certainly not all--engage in abusive, predatory practices. And it has only gotten worse in the current tough economy. And, like you said...things will get worse before getting better.

The recovery rates for impounded vehicles are shocking. We're grabbing cars from poor people and selling the vehicles for scrap, or shipping the cars to Mexico for pennies on the dollar. People who have nowhere left to live but their car suddenly have nowhere left to live but under a bridge. All of this is because we don't place a high enough priority on clever, high-tech solutions. Why shouldn't Americans be notified by cell phone or Blackberry (I know you love your Blackberry, Mr. President) of an impending tow?

Why shouldn't Americans be told "move it or lose it" before having their car seized and held hostage? Or at least have regulation which requires--good grief, Mr. President--reasonably visible signage?

An Uprising Among Some Vehicle Owners

Sir, recently there have been instances of rebellion and protest around this issue. There has been violence as some vehicle owners--pushed to the absolute limit--fight back against tow truck operators.

It really doesn't have to be this way. States already have the ability to regulate towing operations in sensible ways, but many just don't. Worse, there is evidence the dirty money which comes from aggressive, predatory towing gets into city politics, as we see in places like Springfield, Massachusetts. This blog has been documenting the problem for months, in numerous states.

Some Clever Policy Tweaks Are Cheap

I'd like to compare what I'm suggesting to something which happened under the Clinton Administration. In a bipartisan effort, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was passed. It's a sensible law which allows restaurants and grocery stores to donate food to soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, etc. and be protected from liability as long as they make the donations with "normal care."

Just by casting a shield of protection from liability, this law has managed to shake loose all kinds of donations to hungry people, just like that! With the stroke of a pen. It's not only good politics, but very FRUGAL politics.

Towing regulation can happen in the same way. Just by making sure drivers aren't abused by towing operators, and don't lose their vehicles willy-nilly because of abuses, you can keep people participating in the economy and prevent many personal disasters.

Sure, when people voted for you, predatory towing was probably the last thing on their minds. But people are expecting you to be CLEVER, for your administration to pull some kind of amazing miracle from somewhere and help turn the economy around.

This suggestion small, but this will help.

Please, Mr. President, do something to help stop the economic damage and abuses to individual Americans caused by the well-documented problem of predatory towing.

P.S. If you like this idea, sir, I've got another clever policy proposal in regard to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which I call "Fortresses of Englightment."


Standard Post Addendum:

(Click here for list of various regulatory tactics. Click here for website of Compiled Logic, a company involved in solving these complex problems associated with "non-consent towing" issues)

Thumbnail Summary Of Regulatory Tactics Directed At Predatory Towing

Flickr.com Photo

This post is intended for the researcher or policy-maker seeking a road map or thumbnail summary of regulatory tactics used by cities, states and counties seeking to curtail predatory towing practices...

For simplicity, I will list the various tricks and provide a link with each example.

1.) Outlaw "patrol towing." The practice known as "patrol towing" takes place when the owner of a parking lot gives a towing company free reign to tow unauthorized vehicles, without the need to call about particular vehicles.

Unscrupulous, "bad apple" towing companies will engage in abusive behavior when given such free reign, even towing legally parked vehicles because abuses are usually difficult to prove. Some will actually station "spotters" in parked vehicles or trees to catch as many cars as possible. Because "patrol towing is so rife with abuse, some states such as California have outlawed it, click here.

2.) Outlaw or severely restrict "booting" of cars. Often, booting is more lucrative than towing vehicles. Ransoms can be demanded on the spot, but because each ransom requires a confrontation between booter and driver, violence will happen sooner or later. Cities such as Minneapolis have outlawed booting except in very small lots where tow trucks can't maneuver, click here for link.

3.) The "Let People Get Their Stuff" law, click here. This law allows people to recover items from their towed vehicles (medicine, children's photos, their wallets, for crying out loud) without having to pay to get the vehicle out of impound, for the sake of mercy and human decency.

I've actually had some difficulty nailing down whether this bill passed in Minnesota, because there was so much controversy with that particular transportation bill, and any reporting on this issue was lost in the shuffle. Even Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman was unable to answer my follow-ups about whether the bill he wrote about actually passed.

HOWEVER, a recent trip to the Minneapolis impound lot to recover my stolen van, and some questions I asked there, led me to the conclusion the law did indeed pass or, in the alternative, Minneapolis has altered its policies to "let people get their stuff." This is a great law and should be adopted nationally.

4.) Require towing companies to take checks and credit cards, not just cash. California, which has some of the most highly-developed anti-predatory towing laws in the nation, click here, is one place that outlaws "cash only."

5.) Require impound lots to be reasonable distances from the places where cars are towed. Hawaii, for example, requires this, click here. (Of course, somebody in Hawaii has found a loophole, and it's called "Sand Island.")

6.) Mandatory drop, or greatly reduced fees. If the driver gets to his/her vehicle before the tow truck leaves the lot, a greatly reduced towing fee is required, or even a "free drop." Once again, Hawaii requires this, click here, but this is a fairly common rule around the country. It prevents violence and it is reasonable that a "drop" should cost less than an impound.

7.) Regulating signage. Many traps are laid for the unwary because of unclear, confusing, missing or deliberately deceptive signage. Kansas City, Missouri has been forced to address the issue of bad signage, click here, but once again this is a very common form of towing regulation.

8.) Caps, caps, caps. Everything from the price of the tow, to the daily and HOURLY impound lot storage fee, to where tows can take place and how often, all these things can be capped and regulated. Portland has capped towing fees, click here.

9.) One-hour rule. In California, a vehicle must be illegally parked FOR AN HOUR before being towed, click here. (There are exceptions for vehicles presenting an immediate safety hazard)

10.) Outlaw kick-backs. Please note, this list is NOT in order of importance. Outlawing kickbacks is very important, and if the list were ranked, it might be at No. 1 or No. 2.

"Kickbacks" happen when the owner of a parking lot gets a cut from the various vehicles towed from that lot. Such incentives inevitably lead to abuses. Florida, for example, is a state which outlaws towing kickbacks, click here.

11.) A towing "commission" or "authority." Though I have only a limited amount of faith in this tactic, many jurisdictions have such entities, such as Falls Church, Virginia, click here. The problem with such commissions seems to be "political horse-trading" which takes place prior to their creation. In throwing a bone to powerful towing interests, these commissions are created as relatively toothless entities.

12.) Sting operations directed at predatory towing. Asheville, North Carolina may have saved its reputation as a worthwhile "destination city" by using this tactic, click here.

13.) "Humane and merciful" short towing. Some cities such as Montreal and Madison, Wisconsin deal with snow emergencies by towing non-compliant cars to places where parking is legal instead of impounding the cars, click here, (Montreal) and here (Madison). In Albany, New York, police were actually running plate numbers and BANGING ON THE DOORS OF HOMES to avoid towing citizens, click here.

Cars subjected to "humane and merciful" short tows are apparently still given a ticket and charged for the short tow, but the charges are still much less than being impounded.

14.) Tows must be documented. In California, before a car can be impounded it must be photographed to show how it was non-compliant, and (apparently) the condition of the car prior to being towed, click here.

15.) System transparency, jurisdictions sharing info, modern rather than archaic information systems.

It is essential for jurisdictions to share information with each other so cars can be located in the system, especially stolen cars. Police, insurance companies, owners and tow truck drivers all need to be able to track vehicles. (Police sometimes solve obtain clues to crimes this way, though this is something of an added bonus)

Increasingly, attempts are being made to link as many jurisdictions as possible and create a kind of national network. Here's a recent article in the much-respected "Police Chief Magazine," click here, which talks about those efforts. The author of the article, Ron Smith, works for a company called Compiled Logic of Houston, Texas which helps jurisdictions cost-effectively manage their towing information systems.

16.) Raising consciousness, fighting back against abuses. If you are subjected to predatory towing, don't be silent. Contact this blog through the comments function or by email (hoff_john@yahoo.com) Find the company which mistreated you online, and write a scathing review. File a complaint with your state attorney general, consumer affairs division. Write to your city, county and state authorities.

Rip Off Report Dot Com is a particularly good place to make the record. When somebody Googles the name of the towing company, the "rip off report" will come up, as well.

WRITE TO YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN and reference this blog, and ask for renewed federal regulatory action to stop predatory towing but--and this is really important--require jurisdictions to share information and create a seamless national web of information to locate missing cars. Nationally, it is estimated 25 percent of impounded cars are not claimed. This is something we can't afford!

Use this blog to educate yourself about predatory towing patterns and solutions by going through these posts and reading up. I'm just one guy with a blog. I drive really crummy cars. There's only so much I can do, but because of small efforts like this, public consciousness about predatory towing is growing and it will surely have national consequences. Already, there have been protests and uprisings, click here. Political candidates have been elected partially because of these issues, click here.

This is a modern civil rights movement; your right to the freedom, property ownership and pursuit of happiness represented by your precious, beloved car. There is plenty of opportunity to play a role in this movement; even a small role represented by a few emails, photographs, or online comments.

We are Americans, and Americans love their cars. When somebody kidnaps your car and holds it ransom on flimsy pretenses, why, that's just un-American!

It's time for Americans to fight back against abusive and predatory towing.

A Summary Of Anti-Predatory Towing Law In California

Flickr.com Photo

This is certainly not legal advice, but I recently turned up a thumbnail summary of the law in California, and so--as part of my effort to be a one-stop-shop in regard to predatory and abusive towing issues, including laws to protect against that sort of thing, I'm going to reproduce the "thumbnail summary" of the law for those who may be searching for a clewwwwwwwwww in California....

This summary comes from Consumer Connection, a publication of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. It is, therefore, public and government information which can be promulgated verbatim.

This is apparently the law which banned "patrol towing" in California, something activist Sean Cruz is always urging for the State of Oregon, click here.

The Law's Preamble. Or Not.

"Tow truck drivers risk their lives every day to..."

OK, forget that part. If you want to read pro-tow propaganda, you can check out this blog, click here. I'll skip to the good part:

Patrol Towing Is The Devil

The worst cases of predatory towing involve "patrol" or "satellite" towing. That's when a tow truck driver, on a tip from a spotter, tows away a car illegally parked on private property, such as a no-parking area of a shopping mall or apartment complex. If that happens, the car owner has to pay the cost of towing, storage, and other fees to get the car back.

A new law, Assembly Bill 2210 (Goldberg, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2006) protects consumers against the worst of illegal towing. Under AB 2210, if you spot a tow truck driver taking your car, and the tow truck is still on private property, the driver must release your car to you unconditionally.

Fines For Tow Truck Drivers

A tow truck operator who violates this law is subject to a civil misdemeanor, a fine of $2,500, and/or three months in jail. Also, consumers who can prove they have been charged illegal or excessive towing or storage fees are entitled to recover four times the amount of those fees in small claims court.

Below is a summary of the changes in the law under AB 2210. Remember these guidelines apply only to tows from private property.

One-Hour Rule

A vehicle must be parked for one full hour before being towed unless it is parked in a manner that interferes with an entrance or exit, is within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, or in a fire lane. The curb of a fire line must be painted red and be clearly labeled "NO PARKING FIRE LANE."

Unconditional Release

If a vehicle owner encounters a tower removing his or her vehicle but the truck is not yet on a public road, the owner may demand the immediate and unconditional release of the vehicle. The law does not require the owner to provide a driver's license.

Reasonable Release Fee (Or, So Much For "Unconditional Release")

If the tower releases a vehicle that has been illegally parked, the tower is entitled to no more than one-half of his normal towing fee. Local law enforcement can tell you what the normal towing fee is in your area.

Ten-Mile Limit

A tower cannot take your vehicle to a storage lot that is more than ten miles from where it was parked.

Clearly-Posted Warning

A tower must have written consent from the property owner or his agent, who must have waited one hour before calling for the tow. Also, a sign not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size should be displayed in plain view at all entrances to the property.

Valid Towing Permit (Photos, Records, No Kick-Backs)

The tower must have a valid motor carrier permit, shall make records and photographs of each tow available for law enforcement, and shall not share profits from towing with property owners who call for a vehicle removal.

Credit Cards OK

The tower must accept credit cards in payment for towing and storage fees, which must be reasonable.

Compliance Within 24 Hours Equals One Day Maximum Storage Charge

If the appropriate fees are paid within the initial 24 hours of storage and the storage facility fails to comply or is not open during normal business hours, then only one day's storage fee may be charged.

Reasonable Gate Fee

The gate fee, or maximum hourly charge for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours, shall be one half the hourly tow rate charged for initially towing the vehicle, or less.

Penalty For Excessive Charges

A person who charges a vehicle owner a towing service or storage charge at an excessive rate is liable to the vehicle owner for four times the amount charged.

If You Have A Complaint

You should contact your local law enforcement and the Better Business Bureau--

(OK, let me break in right now and say that's just LAME)

You may also check the driver's reposessor's license on DCA's Bureau of Security and Investigative Services or by calling 800-952-5210. Civil claims against a tower should be filed in the Small Claims Court. The Department of Consumer Affairs also publishes a Guide to Using the Small Claims Court.

Weaknesses In The Law

The biggest weakness is there is no oversight arm apparent. The advice to "contact local law enforcement and the Better Business Bureau" is worthless. Honestly, I've never had any luck with the Better Business Bureau. There needs to be a bureau to complain about the ineffectiveness of the Better Business Bureau.

In regard to the "one hour rule," how will this stuff be PROVEN? This rule presents an opportunity for somebody to try to catch predatory towing companies in the act, but little more. Proving the vehicle sat somewhere for less than an hour is going to be quite difficult.

The law also says the towing companies must accept credit cards. It doesn't say "all major credit cards." An obvious loophole.

The law doesn't require towing companies to be open 24 hours. Other jurisdictions require this. California needs to catch up.

However, all in all, you're a lot better being in California than in the abusive predatory towing playground of Oregon, for example.

Oregon Continues To Be A "Predatory Towing Theme Park" Filled With Abused Citizens

Flickr.com Photo

There is no end to the predatory towing abuses in Oregon, which recently included a domestic violence victim "re-victimized" by the infamous "Retriever Towing" outfit. Fortunately...

...Oregon has Sean Cruz, who stays on top of these issues and constantly brings up the need to ban "patrol towing" in Oregon, like California and Washington State have already banned the practice. Sean's recent blog post, click here, included a bunch of URLs with information about the ongoing saga with Retriever Towing.

(I've encouraged Sean to use "live links" with his blog, a practice which requires only a slight bit of technical know-how)

Here are some highlights from Sean's material which I'd like to highlight:

* According to an article in the Oregonian, click here, there was a "predatory towing uprising" incident, which included an angry crowd and an attempt to set fire to the tow truck, with the vehicle owner under arrest. My blog has been attempting to document these uprisings, like the one in at Abbey Court in Carrboro, North Carolina, which seems to have been the Lexington and Concord of this widening rebellion.

This type of citizen-led "direct action" seems to be picking up steam at the same time the public becomes more enlightened about the concept of "predatory and abusive towing" through efforts like those of Sean Cruz and Towing Utopia.

I do not advocate violence. I certainly do advocate protest.

* Sean Cruz wrote about another incident, reported by KATU, in which a driver for Sergeant's "tow jacked" the car of a woman in labor, click here for article.

The comments section of this article is quite notable, with some individuals actually emailing the company in question and then posting the response on the comments thread. This is a great example of the sub-blogosphere in action, and actually adding useful information to public discourse...for a change.

* Sean Cruz points out "the 2007 Oregon Legislature, under the leadership of Senator Avel Gordly, imposed regulations on patrol towing that have yet to be fully implemented, particularly by local governments."

Towing Utopia says: WAKE UP, LOCAL OREGON GOVERNMENTS! REGULATE PATROL TOWING!!!!

* Cruz points out two truck drivers must provide "their prospective victims" with a printed rate sheet so there is "no confusion about the amount of ransom demanded." If this isn't happening, folks in Oregon need to notify the Oregon Attorney General's Office.

* In wording very similar to the "manifest" of this very blog, Sean points out "the towers demands are often confiscatory in effect. Loss of vehicle is a penalty far beyond what is just for the 'offense' that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle owner."

Indeed. That is why citizens should be going into court and suing to have whole bodies of state towing laws overturned on constitutional grounds, whether state or local. YES, there is a time and a place for non-consent towing. But it must be regulated and transparent, with emerging technology used across the spectrum of the "towing life cycle" to make sure nobody needs to say "Dude, where's my car?" and not have an answer for days.

Note: the photo above is of a tow truck driver in Oregon, but is for illustration purposes only. No implication is intended that the driver was engaged in abusive towing practices.

Towing Laws In The State Of Hawaii

Flickr.com Photo

With a little more digging, I was able to turn up the particular non-consent towing law in Hawaii, which is HRS 290-11, click here for a link.

The law has some major strengths and some fatal weaknesses...

...and, in my opinion, here they are:

STRENGTH: Caps charges at $65 for a tow, $75 with a dolly, plus caps mileage and storage fees.

WEAKNESS: The law doesn't account for a situation where a towing company sets up shop on distant "Sand Island," possibly for the purpose of maximizing mileage fees. There needs to be a "mileage cap."

STRENGTH: Mandatory free drop after hooking if vehicle owner arrives on the scene. No doubt the law's biggest strength, and a model for other states, cities and counties to follow. (It does have an exception for hookups in an above or below ground, multilevel facility, which is still only a $30 drop fee)

WEAKNESS: No penalty outlined for violating this section of the law.

STRENGTH: Fifteen days after being towed, the legal owner and registered owner shall be notified in writing by registered or certified mail. Hey, at least some kind of written notification is required.

WEAKNESS: Fifteen days? Are you KIDDING me? If people don't come and fetch their car after 3 days, there is clearly a problem. Furthermore, this law is more archaic every day. Notification by phone and email should be required, too.

STRENGTH: Judgment and lawyer fees for excess charges. Not bad.

WEAKNESS: Who is going to hire a lawyer over a few hundred bucks in towing overcharges? The law should mandate much more severe fines and penalties.

STRENGTH: Before disposing of a vehicle after 30 days, notice is required in a newspaper of general circulation in the state. You can call this a strength because SOMETHING is required, but, come on!

WEAKNESS: Legal notice in a NEWSPAPER? Increasingly, this is an utterly archaic form of communication. All legal notices should be published on the internet.

STRENGTH: Towing companies must "accommodate payment" by cash, credit card OR (note the word "or") automated teller machine located on the premises.

WEAKNESS: Yeah, I'm sure they'll be raking in some major fees off that automated teller machine. This is a huge loophole for abuse.

STRENGTH: There is an opportunity for counties to adopt their own ordinances regulating towing operations.

WEAKNESS: What is going to make the counties do THAT except numerous abuses by towing companies?

WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS: The law does not require towing data to be electronically accessible to owners, police, towing companies, insurance companies, and all others with a stake in the fate of the vehicle. Instead, it relies on archaic notification mechanisms like CERTIFIED LETTERS and notification in (how quaint!) the legal notices of a newspaper. This law needs to be reformed before predatory towing cuts deeply into Hawaii's all-important tourism industry.

Predatory Towing Victims Sue City Of Chicago...

Flickr.com Photo

And it's about time, I say.

Reporter Pam Zekman of CBS appears to have a strong interest in predatory towing issues, and she has spurred reform of Chicago's filth-filled sewer of corrupt towing practices. She's been mentioned on this blog before, click here. Now Zekman's most recent article continues to dish up the dirt, click here.

It turns out corrupt Chicago cops were on the take for years...

...allegedly, and took bribes in return for "vouching" for towing companies. This practice is against police department policy, even if the towing companies are GOOD, but in this case the companies shook people down for outrageous amounts of inflated fees. According to Zekman's article, police internal affairs and FBI knew about what was happening for YEARS.

So why did the police allow citizens to keep getting taken to the cleaners, just to catch a few crooked cops?

I might point out very similar questions were asked in the Boyton Beach, California matter, click here, where investigators kept racking up felony charges...but, in the meantime, citizens were being illegally towed. Why was that allowed to continue? And do the folks in Boynton Beach have a lawsuit similar to these citizens of Chicago?

In any case, Pam Zekman is my hero. Well, my heroine.

Keep up the great work, Ms. Zekman.

Tallahassee Sets Its Sights On Predatory Towing

Flickr.com Photo

Hillsborough County, Florida, is contemplating a law to crack down on predatory towing companies, according to this article, (click here) and the sensible proposal has caught the attention of state legislators who represent Hillsborough County...

Word is NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS about "patrol towing" in front of restaurants and bars has sparked the proposal, and the proposed bill would allow the county's Transportation Commission to "go after these guys and take their license away," alleviating a tremendous enforcement burden on the Tampa Police Department and the sheriff's office.

Hopefully, the Transportation Commission would be open to some other ideas...like transparency in the towing process, with vehicle data available on the internet. Once the big, ugly problem of aggressive "patrol towing" is licked, one begins to see a plethora of smaller issues associated with towing, issues which also need solving.

Beyond the City of Tampa, there is the rest of Florida to consider. I don't know if anybody outside of Orlando was paying attention to the ugly situation in that city, but links to a number of articles about that situation were collected on this blog. Clearly, Florida's problem is bigger than Tampa or, for that matter, Tampa as well as Orlando.

The blog of Sean Cruz in Portland, Oregon cries out against the practice of "patrol towing," which is actually against the law in both Washington State and Oregon, according to Cruz. Maybe the State of Florida will soon follow suit. I hope so.

Predatory Towing Reform May Happen In Rexburg, Idaho

Flickr.com Photo, BYU Rexburg, Idaho

It only took a decade of complaints from victimized students, most of them from BYU-Idaho. What is the lesson in this? Well,...

If reform takes a decade, better start complaining RIGHT NOW.

According to this article, the proposed ordinance in Rexburg, Idaho aims to address towing concerns at a particular apartment complex, where tow trucks have ranged freely, snatching cars. Now, a representative from the apartment complex will have to be on-site, no more "patrol towing." And there will be an appeals board, too.

It sounds like a good model, especially for what sounds like a rather small town situation. I hope some sympathetic people get on the board. Indeed, students who were victimized should make a point of "packing the board," if at all possible.

This is my first post about Idaho, and it's a great way to put that state on the "Towing Utopia" road map!

San Marcos, Texas Aims For Reform Of Predatory Towing...Or Do They?

Flickr.com photo

Some months back, I blogged about the situation in San Marcos, Texas, where predatory towing was giving the town a "black mark" in the public eye...

I recently tried to follow up and see what San Marcos had done about its predatory towing. The answer: probably made it worse while supposedly making it better.

First of all, on September 5...after sitting on this issue through most of the summer, it appears...San Marcos "revised" the towing fees. Yeah, they "revised" the fees all right: UPWARD.

Current word, according to this article, is San Marcos will address the abusive towing practices at a "future meeting." Reform--such as NOT TOWING PEOPLE'S CARS ALL THE WAY TO AUSTIN, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD--seems pretty doubtful.

For now, it is probably advisable to avoid this city, which has such tourist destinations as the popular San Marcos Outlet Mall, pictured above.

Old Fashioned Grassroots Activism Led To "Abusive Towing Uprising" (Post Number One)

The Abbey Court Abusive Towing Uprising,
Anonymous Photographer

The uprising in Carrboro, North Carolina against towing abuses at Abbey Court didn't just spring up spontaneously. It turns out there has been a long campaign to organize the tenants, and fighting towing abuses is only part of the struggle...

Some of the organized tenants have their own website, click here for a link. I emailed one of the organizers, and he seemed pretty cool about sharing the photos on the site.

The photo in this post shows tenants gathered to fight abusive towing. It was this gathering which led to intervention by the mayor and a movement for reform.

It doesn't look very glamorous, does it. It looks gritty, hard, and a bit depressing...and yet there is hope, because people are organized and fighting back.

One suspects revolutions are only glamorous in the retelling.

Empty Booting Threats In Minneapolis

Photo by John Hoff

Not so long ago, Minneapolis "banned the boot" except in very small parking lots, and what a great day that was.

However, it appears nobody told the booters to change their signs. This sign is in the infamous McDonalds parking lot in Dinkytown, where so much overly-zealous booting took place prior to the much needed reform. This is a very large parking lot, so it doesn't fall into the class of lots where booting is still allowed.

Call me a purist, but I don't think you should be allowed to post a sign threatening to do something you can't legally do. (Obvious joke signs being an obvious exception) And no, the "& or" doesn't make it acceptable.

Consider: "I'm going to arrest and/or beat you within an inch of your life."

(Do not click "Read More")

Florida Towing Statute (Revealed And Ripped)

Flickr.com photo

Continuing my ambitious project to put the towing statutes for all fifty states on this website, along with my critiques, here is the statute for Florida with my critiques at the bottom...

Quoting Florida Statutes, Property, Section 715.07 Vehicles or vessels parked on private property; towing

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Vehicle" means any mobile item which normally uses wheels, whether motorized or not.

(b) "Vessel" means every description of watercraft, barge, and airboat used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, other than a seaplane or a "documented vessel" as defined in s. 327.02(8).

(2) The owner or lessee of real property, or any person authorized by the owner or lessee, which person may be the designated representative of the condominium association if the real property is a condominium, may cause any vehicle or vessel parked on such property without her or his permission to be removed by a person regularly engaged in the business of towing vehicles or vessels, without liability for the costs of removal, transportation, or storage or damages caused by such removal, transportation, or storage, under any of the following circumstances:

(a) The towing or removal of any vehicle or vessel from private property without the consent of the registered owner or other legally authorized person in control of that vehicle or vessel is subject to strict compliance with the following conditions and restrictions:

1.a. Any towed or removed vehicle or vessel must be stored at a site within a 10-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of 500,000 population or more, and within a 15-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of less than 500,000 population. That site must be open for the purpose of redemption of vehicles on any day that the person or firm towing such vehicle or vessel is open for towing purposes, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and, when closed, shall have prominently posted a sign indicating a telephone number where the operator of the site can be reached at all times. Upon receipt of a telephoned request to open the site to redeem a vehicle or vessel, the operator shall return to the site within 1 hour or she or he will be in violation of this section.
b. If no towing business providing such service is located within the area of towing limitations set forth in sub-subparagraph a., the following limitations apply: any towed or removed vehicle or vessel must be stored at a site within a 20-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of 500,000 population or more, and within a 30-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of less than 500,000 population.

2. The person or firm towing or removing the vehicle or vessel shall, within 30 minutes after completion of such towing or removal, notify the municipal police department or, in an unincorporated area, the sheriff, of such towing or removal, the storage site, the time the vehicle or vessel was towed or removed, and the make, model, color, and license plate number of the vehicle or description and registration number of the vessel and shall obtain the name of the person at that department to whom such information was reported and note that name on the trip record.

3. A person in the process of towing or removing a vehicle or vessel from the premises or parking lot in which the vehicle or vessel is not lawfully parked must stop when a person seeks the return of the vehicle or vessel. The vehicle or vessel must be returned upon the payment of a reasonable service fee of not more than one-half of the posted rate for the towing or removal service as provided in subparagraph 6. The vehicle or vessel may be towed or removed if, after a reasonable opportunity, the owner or legally authorized person in control of the vehicle or vessel is unable to pay the service fee. If the vehicle or vessel is redeemed, a detailed signed receipt must be given to the person redeeming the vehicle or vessel.

4. A person may not pay or accept money or other valuable consideration for the privilege of towing or removing vehicles or vessels from a particular location.
5. Except for property appurtenant to and obviously a part of a single-family residence, and except for instances when notice is personally given to the owner or other legally authorized person in control of the vehicle or vessel that the area in which that vehicle or vessel is parked is reserved or otherwise unavailable for unauthorized vehicles or vessels and that the vehicle or vessel is subject to being removed at the owner's or operator's expense, any property owner or lessee, or person authorized by the property owner or lessee, prior to towing or removing any vehicle or vessel from private property without the consent of the owner or other legally authorized person in control of that vehicle or vessel, must post a notice meeting the following requirements:

a. The notice must be prominently placed at each driveway access or curb cut allowing vehicular access to the property, within 5 feet from the public right-of-way line. If there are no curbs or access barriers, the signs must be posted not less than one sign for each 25 feet of lot frontage.

b. The notice must clearly indicate, in not less than 2-inch high, light-reflective letters on a contrasting background, that unauthorized vehicles will be towed away at the owner's expense. The words "tow-away zone" must be included on the sign in not less than 4-inch high letters.

c. The notice must also provide the name and current telephone number of the person or firm towing or removing the vehicles or vessels.

d. The sign structure containing the required notices must be permanently installed with the words "tow-away zone" not less than 3 feet and not more than 6 feet above ground level and must be continuously maintained on the property for not less than 24 hours prior to the towing or removal of any vehicles or vessels.

e. The local government may require permitting and inspection of these signs prior to any towing or removal of vehicles or vessels being authorized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My critiques: First of all, I bet the geographic restrictions on where a vehicle can be towed are constantly bent, and citizens should not assume, but double check. Quite a messy, ugly situation could materialize when a county of less than 500,000 suddenly breaks the 500k mark, but you can bet the impound lots won't suddenly move. (Note there is an exception to the rule within the statute, as well)

The requirement about when to keep the site open, the posting of the phone number, the requirement to return in an hour...all these things could give citizens an opportunity to fight, but they'd probably have to document everything with a video camera or it would be one of those "he said, she said" things if the time came to present evidence.

"Reasonable opportunity" to redeem the vehicle is not defined in the statute, so one wonders if it might be defined by case law. My experience in Minnesota tells me the case law can be pretty sparse when it comes to towing.

Note there are NO KICKBACKS ALLOWED. Oh, gee, I wonder how many different ways THAT law gets violated every single day.

Note that the signage requirements are VERY PARTICULAR, and there is certainly an opportunity to fight a tow based on those requirements if--once again--one can document the situation and avoid "he said, she said."

Ohio Takes A Stand Against Abusive Towing

Flickr.com photo

Here is more evidence of a nation waking up to the all-too-common abuses of the towing industry. Spurred by the death of 22-year-old Danielle Knapp--a motorist who was passing by a tow truck and was killed by a 20-pound pulley crashing through her windshield--the Ohio Insurance Institute has started a website...

...to raise awareness about unsafe, abusive, unregulated practices in the Ohio towing industry. The website discusses some legislation under consideration in Ohio, suggests ways people can contact public officials, and includes horror stories taken from complaints filed with the state attorney general's office, including this one:

In February 2006, a young man was in a two-car accident in Columbus, Ohio. The police officer at the scene of the accident called one of the preferred towing companies and the accident victim asked the tow truck driver for an estimate of what it would cost to tow his car to a particular body shop less than a mile away. He was quoted $90-$140.

Once the car was on the truck's hook, however, the driver received a call from the towing office that the tow would cost $300. When the accident victim told the tow truck operator that he didn't want the tow, the tow truck operator would not release the car and said, "The car is hooked now, I can impound it if I want."

Unfortunately, the website doesn't have a lot of content and doesn't appear to get updated very often.

But is Ohio waking up? Oh, yes, eyes are opening in the Buckeye State.

Attorney John Bisnar Fights Predatory Towing In Orange County, California

Attorney John Bisnar, California

Despite a state law prohibiting predatory towing practices, some California towing companies still engage in abusive non-consent towing. But Attorney John Bisnar stands in their way and, recently, took a case for free on behalf of a guy named Jason Taylor.

Bisnar was kind enough to touch base with www.towingutopia.com by email...

...when I asked for permission to republish some material referencing him.

Bisnar said he is not trying to promote himself as an attorney to victims of predatory towing because there is "absolutely no money" in the cases. Bisnar said he took the Taylor case because "towing companies that use these tactics [mild expletive] me off and I just hate to see some guy like Taylor who is doing everything he can to fight back get bullied."

Bisnar added the following intriguing observation: "I am relatively sure there is an organized crime element to many of these tow companies. I based my opinion on how they operate, the people involved, the multiple ownerships of towing companies by the same general group of people all making a good amount of cash transactions."

Here is the article from Centre Daily which described Bisnar's legal fight on behalf of John Taylor.

"Predatory towing company in Orange County still extorts consumers," says Attorney John Bisnar

June 17, 2008

LOS ANGELES--For the past several years, newspapers such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times have reported the abusive practices of predatory towing companies in California, particularly Orange County. According to numerous news reports, these companies have towed cars with young children in them; deliberately rammed and damaged vehicles and then extorted money from their owners for "damage" caused to their tow trucks and, in one case, caused the death of a desperate car owner who ran alongside a tow truck driver pleading for his car.

Because of these incidents, bill AB2210 was passed, becoming law in January 2007. According to the lawsuit, this new law didn't stop Beach Cities Towing Services from abusing Jason Taylor.

On Sunday, September 2, 2007, Jason Taylor had parked two vehicles in front of his condominium complex. One of the vehicles was legally parked, waiting for a parking permit from his homeowners association, and the other vehicle was temporarily parked while Taylor went inside his home.

When Taylor arrived about 10 minutes later, two tow trucks from Beach Cities had arrived. Although Taylor stated one [vehicle] was legally parked and he would move the other, the two truck drivers still towed both vehicles, ultimately charging Taylor $560 to remove them.

Taylor successfully sued in small claims court, receiving a judgment in his favor for $560 on April 17, 2007. However, on May 12, 2008, Beach Cities requested a new trial. The case was heard before Judge Margaret Anderson on June 13, 2008 in Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2007-00035167-SC-SC-HLH.

Taylor won his case again, with the help of personal injury law firm Bisnar Chase. The court awarded Taylor $2,500, fining Beach Cities the maximum amount; $560 to cover his previous judgment and $150 in attorney's fees.

"I knew the law was on my side and the judge agreed," said Taylor. "It often seems like little guys like me can't get a break. Well, this time one little guy certainly did.

About Bisnar Chase

Bisnar Chase is a California personal injury law firm that represents people who have been very seriously injured or lost a family member because of an accident, a defective product or negligence. They have won a wide variety of challenging personal injury cases ranging from auto, construction, pool and on-the-job accidents, dog attacks, governmental agency negligence to defective products made by Fortune 500 companies.

For more information, visit www.bestattorney.com and www.californiainjuryblog.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should also note that Bisnar Chase has its own blog. Yes, lawyers who are bloggers. What an amazing world we live in! Naturally, they blogged about the Taylor case.

Despite the fact relatively minor incidents like the Taylor case are not worth the time of an attorney, except for fulfilling pro bono hours and the good feeling involved, Bisnar Chase is gathering information about the larger pattern abusive towing in California. Maybe some kind of further needed reform will come out of this effort. I hope so.

Here is a link to the portion of their website where they are asking for predatory towing horror stories.

TOWING UTOPIA EXCLUSIVE: Juicy Report On Booting Abuses In Minneapolis

Flickr.com photo

Somebody who can remain anonymous provided me the juicy 9-page staff report which documents outrageous abuses by "booters" in Minneapolis. This is the document which caused the City Council to UNANIMOUSLY ban booting by private entities...

The report pulls no punches, rather like some of the booted individuals themselves. The tendency of towers/booters to systematically prey on college students is outlined pretty well in discussion about incidents in "Dinkytown."

I hope this document might be enlightening to policy makers in other cities when it comes to common patterns of booting abuse. Without further ado, here it is.

Public Safety & Regulatory Services Committee
Title 13, Chapter 320 Vehicle Immobilization
Staff Report
May 21, 2008

History:

The vehicle immobilization ordinance, more commonly known as booting, was first introduced to the Public Safety & Regulatory Services Committee on April 20, 1994. At this time one company was booting vehicles in Minneapolis. Without a booting license, the city was unable to regulate this industry. The city had to create a license category or ban the practice. Booting was authorized in other cities to address issues such as scofflaws, DUIs, and/or child support. Chapter 320, Vehicle Immobilization, was added to the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances.

From 1994 to 1997, five (5) booting companies applied for licenses. In September 1997 only one company, Gopher Towing, was still in business. Records are not available regarding the operation of these companies.

Since 2000, a number of new licenses have been issued to booting companies. In 2000, booting companies could not park in a lot and monitor activity. They could only respond to a call for service by the owner of the parking lot. Booting companies found it easier, and certainly more profitable, to park in a lot, monitor it themselves, and boot vehicles.

Thus the term “Predatory Practices” was used to identify the behavior of the booting industry both in Minneapolis and throughout the United States. Other complaints included non-existent or improper signs, booting without proper authorization, charging unauthorized fees, intimidating behavior, and threatening to tow a vehicle if the customer did not pay immediately. All of these complaints still occur today.

In 2005, complaints were so numerous that the 2nd Precinct Community Response Team (CRT) conducted surveillance at several parking lots. They found booters parked inside the lots, booting vehicles, and then seeking written authorized by the business owners after the fact. All of these behaviors were in violation of the code of ordinances.

When approached by the police, employees of the booting companies stated they had no knowledge or training regarding rules of operation. The following week a second employee of a particular company was found duplicating the same practices. He told police he knew the first employee had been warned about patrolling the lot and that it was a violation of ordinance. The police issued a Motor Vehicle Tampering citation. The profit margin far exceeds the fines associated with violations.

Later that year Council Member Paul Zerby made a recommendation to ban booting in Minneapolis. Instead of banning booting, staff was directed to create a Task Force to meet with the booting industry, revise the ordinance to eliminate the predatory practices, and develop stringent requirements aimed at eliminating illegal booting practices. Members of this Task Force included business owners and a consumer representative. It was assumed that the number of complaints would then decrease. In April, 2005, numerous changes were made to the code of ordinances. Additionally, training was provided to all booting companies regarding the new requirements.

Enforcement:

The intended results of the 2005 ordinance amendments have fallen short of their mark. 52 citations have been issued to the six booting companies, totaling $24,950 in fines. Over 300 complaints have been made. Every citation appealed has been reviewed by an Administrative Hearing Officer and upheld in favor of the city. Listed below is a summary of violations the six licensed companies have accrued since 2005.

Clampdown: (August, 2003 – September, 2007) This company received 16 administrative citations totaling $11,600 and after a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) hearing was directed to reimburse $2000 in TAC fees and reimburse charges to all vehicles booted from October 1, 2005 to February 10, 2006. In March, 2006, additional violations occurred and their license was suspended for 30 days. In September 2006, License and Consumer Services’ recommendation to deny renewal of Clampdown’s license was approved by the city council.

Force Management: (July, 2000 to present) Nine (9) administrative citations totaling $5,800 in fines have been issued. They received a written warning and five administrative citations for not posting a sign stating that a parking lot “is currently under surveillance and offenders will be booted immediately” and not removing the sign when they left the lot. They have also been cited for booting vehicles without proper authorization, booting a handicap vehicle without proper authorization, overcharging, and given a warning that is was illegal to boot for a traffic violation. The activities of this company generate more complaints than any other booting company. In one case, Force Management appealed a citation and it was determined at the hearing that the boot was illegal. The client sent a request for reimbursement to the company.

Force management’s attorney responded that the matter was fully adjudicated by an administrative hearing officer and since no refund was ordered, none was due. Even though the vehicle was booted illegally, Force Management will not issue a refund. The Licenses Division cannot enforce reimbursement of fees. The booted party’s only option for reimbursement is to take Force Management to small claims court, diminishing the principles of the Administrative Hearing process established by the city.

Limited Space: (December, 2006 to present) Three administrative citations totaling $600 in fines have been paid by this company. The owner is former employee of Clampdown and the license was issued with five conditions. In addition to conditions related to complying will the ordinance, no employee may have any involvement with the past owner or any former employees of Clampdown.

The former owner of Clampdown contacted the Licenses Division to discuss an agreement he had with his former employee, the current owner of Limited Space. He stated they had a partnership agreement in which he was to get 50% of Limited Space’s booting revenue. The nature of the call was to complain that his former employee was violating this agreement. The caller submitted a Business Deposit Account Application dated February 21, 2007. Both their names and signatures were listed on this document clearly in violation of the license conditions.

Parking Solutions Inc: (September, 2003 – September, 2007) This company received eight administrative citations totaling $2,150 in fines and the city received numerous complaints. They paid their last fine of $750 in a NSF check. This money has never been collected and the company is no longer in business.

Star Phoenix: (May, 2005 – September, 2006) In their year and a half in business, this company received eleven administrative citations totaling $3,000 in fines to the city. Their violations included illegal signs while monitoring lots, sitting outside parking lots watching for vehicles, incorrect information of forms, failure to include the city’s phone on their form for customers to file complaints, and submitting false monthly booting logs. They did not submit an application to renew their license.

Wrecker Services: (June, 2000 – Present) Three administrative citations totaling $600 have been issued to this company. This was based on a single incident and the city has not had any further issues with Wrecker Services. Wrecker Services’ primary business is towing and rarely uses boots to address parking violations.

Case History:

Examples of illegal booting activities in Minneapolis are noteworthy, varied, and repetitive. In one situation the booter blocked a moving vehicle with another vehicle in order to install a boot. On anther occurrence the booter did not have a vehicle available to block the vehicle so a co-worker stood behind vehicle to prevent it from moving before the boot was secured. Other examples include the following:

A booting company was directed by the business owner repeatedly not to boot vehicles on Sundays or after 9:00 pm. when the business was closed. Since April 2007, 95 vehicles have been booted during these hours and the booting company has collected $9,500.

A former employee of a booting company reported to a License Inspector that he was reminded at least 2 dozen times to tell customers that the credit card machine was broken and they would have to pay by cash. He also reported that his company was instructed by the District Manager of the parking lot to give customers a ten minute grace period before booting their vehicles. No one should receive a boot if they parked in the lot less than ten minutes.

To this, the booting company instructed him to make sure the ten minute window was recorded on the paperwork, regardless of how long the vehicle was in the lot. The employee described that if a vehicle arrived at 8:00 p.m. and the driver returned at 8:05 p.m. with a boot on their vehicle, the paperwork indicated that the boot was not placed on the vehicle until 8:10 p.m.

A third example occurred in April, 2006 when Force Management booted an unmarked Airport police vehicle with a sign in the window stating “Airport Police on Official Business.” The officers asked if they could talk to the property manager who ordered the removal of the boot. The booting manager told the police officers that the property manager had no authority so the officers paid the fee to remove the boot. After investigating this situation, the booting manager reported to the License Inspector that he offered to remove the boot but since they had paid their fee there was nothing he could do to reimburse their money.

Complaints are received in many forms and it is not uncommon to have police involvement. In one incident, a customer went to the cash machine only to find it was broken. He then went to a cash machine across the street. When he came back to go to the video store, he saw a boot on his vehicle and called the police. The officer said it was reasonable for him to go to the other cash machine. At that point the individual was becoming hostile and the police officer ordered the boot to be removed. After it was removed the officer left the lot.

Twenty minutes later the officer was called backed to the same location due to customer trouble. The same individual’s vehicle was booted when the individual went into the video store, an authorized business. The employee of the booting company called his supervisor and was told that the police had no right to order removal of a boot and he directed his employee to reboot the vehicle immediately. The officer ordered the boot to be removed a second time and the police confiscated the boot and property inventoried it.

Another type of example frequently initiated by a complaint began with a verbal commitment from PSI to the License Inspector on September 12, 2006. PSI stated that they would send a refund the week of September 18, 2006. On November 21, 2006 PSI reported that they sent the check out on November 20, 2006. The check had still not been sent on January 24, 2007 so the License Inspector told PSI to send the check to the Licenses Division. PSI agreed. On January 29, 2007 PSI sent the License Inspector an email stating “I have sent you a check.” As of February 20, 2007 neither the Licenses Division nor the client had received the check. The check was finally received. This is not uncommon for the License Inspector to invest numerous hours and a client to wait six months or more before refunds are finally made for illegal booting practices.

Finally the following is a chronology of an actual case.

April 8, 2006: Parking Solutions Inc (PSI) boots a vehicle and requires payment of $99.75 for the boot to be removed. The individual told the PSI representative that he didn’t think they had a right to boot his car. PSI tells him to make a written request for return of his money. The individual requests a refund in writing.

May 6, 2006: PSI responds by refusing to return any money and suggests that the individual sue them in conciliation court.

May 22, 2006: The individual files a conciliation court action against PSI. PSI is served with notice that a hearing will be held on July 31, 2006.

July 31, 2006: The individual appears at the conciliation court hearing. PSI does not appear. The judge asks the individual to present his case. He does so and is awarded judgment in the amount of the immobilization fee plus costs. The individual emails PSI that same day asking to be paid. PSI responds stating that they will pay.

August 2006: No payment

September 6, 2006: PSI still has not paid the individual. The individual enters judgment in Hennepin County District Court. PSI is served with notice of entry of judgment.

September 18, 2006: Payment still not made. Individual obtains a writ of execution from Hennepin County Court and serves it on the CC Club, the business on whose behalf PSI provided the booting service. The individual also obtains an Order for Disclosure from the District Court which requires PSI to disclose the location of its assets.

October 11, 2006: Still not paid by PSI, the individual obtains an Order to Show Cause signed by Judge Patricia Belois. The Order to Show cause requires 1) PSI show up in
District Court on November 1, 2006 and 2) explain why they failed to provide the information directed by the Order for Disclosure or a bench warrant will be issued for the arrest of PSI’s CEO. That same day the individual talks to the owner on the telephone. The owner says he will pay the judgment. Payment in the amount of $250 which included costs and interest caused by the delay is made by PSI.

Booting Analysis:

There are several reasons documenting that booting practices, the impact of booting on the availability and turnover of parking, and our responsibility and ability to provide consumer protection are ill matched for the city of Minneapolis.

1. Time Delay: Based on booting industry information, 78% of people who park in retail lots are only there for 12 minutes or less. If a vehicle is immobilized, it will remain in the parking spot for a minimum of 15 additional minutes and more likely 45 minutes as people try to figure out 1) why their vehicle was booted 2) study the signs 3) talk with the booter and 4) arrange to get financing so the boot will be removed and 5) actual removal of the boot. All of this occurs in the original parking spot. Booting a vehicle contributes to the shortage of short-term parking in private lots by prolonging the time it takes for the vehicle to leave the lot and free up the spot for another customer.

2. Alternatives: There are alternatives to booting which address both the need for turnover and accountability. Vehicles could be towed. This option is most effective for violators who park for extended periods. If the majority of vehicles leave a parking lot within 12 minutes, authorized or not, turnover among parking spaces will occur prior to the arrival of a tow truck. The majority of vehicles are booted from Free Lots which do not charge a fee. These owners are not concerned with lost revenue as parking turnover is necessary for successful business operations.

3. Predatory practices: The types of complaints and violations outlined in this report are representative of the booting practices in Minneapolis for the last 14 years. Repeated citations, fines, and suspensions have not impacted the city’s ability to hold booting companies accountable to our ordinances. Additionally, as a regulatory agency, we have no authority to enforce judgments against companies, thereby diluting our ability to meet our consumer protection responsibility.

4. City Resources: The city issues approximately 9,000 licenses annually. Nine (9) of these are vehicle immobilization licenses. Several complaints are filed each week and numerous violations have been verified against nine (9) companies. The current commitment of License Inspectors assigned to enforcing regulations has not proved effective to achieve compliance in the industry. There is an inordinate amount of time chasing complaints for such a small number of licenses.

5. Demographics: In October and December of 2006, License Inspectors studied all the vehicles booted by two companies in a two month period. 520 vehicles were booted for a total of $52,000. 35% of the individuals whose vehicles were booted were Minneapolis residents. 50% were non-Minneapolis residents who live in Minnesota. 15% of the individuals were not from Minnesota. In a single lot in Dinkytown, 65% of the individuals booted lived outside of Minneapolis. Booting does not exist in any other Minnesota city with the exception of St. Paul which does virtually none.

Between June 1, 2006 and August 18, 2006 one booting company immobilized 51% of their total vehicles in a single lot in southeast Minneapolis. From August 19, 2006 through the end of September, 94% of the vehicles immobilized by this company resulted from this lot, This lot is located near the University of Minnesota and the influx of new college students, and their families, presents an opportunity in mid-August and early September.

6. Safety issues: Due to the confrontational nature of the business, violence occurs. Here are a couple of excerpts from Minneapolis police reports:

a. June 2005 - When person found that their vehicle had been booted, they became enraged and threatened the booter. They then smashed out the booter’s driver side window and left the area.

b. December 2005 - As soon as the boot was removed booted party spit in booters face and pushed him. As booter confronted booted party he was grabbed by the face. The booter maced the booted party.

c. January 2006 - Booter had just colleted the money from the pay box at the parking lot he was monitoring. As he opened his vehicle door he was pushed to the ground and taken in a strong arm hold. The robbery included $1000 and a civilian model taser.

d. February 2006 - Booter called police because he was threatened with a gun. Booter stated that he was afraid for his life because two males were yelling at him. Suspect was arrested with a Glock .40 caliber handgun and 10 rounds of ammunition.

e. February 2006 - Booted party started yelling at booter and said “I know your face and I’ll be back tomorrow and I’ll kill you.” Booted party attempted to get into the booter’s vehicle and kneed the front passenger door. Booter got out of his vehicle and said he would mace the booted party. Booter said the booted party came within inches of him saying “You’re not gonna mace me. I’ll kick your ass.” Booter stated that he was in fear for his safety and called police. Booted party left the area.

f. April 2006 - Booter and booted party started swearing at each other. Booter then maced booted party. A fight broke out and booted party had booter in headlock when police arrived.

g. March 2006 - Booter was taking a boot off a vehicle. As he released it, the booted party drove away driving over the booter’s foot and leg. Booted party fled the scene. Booter was treated by paramedics. Booted party was booked for felony hit and run and criminal vehicular operation.

h. August 2006 - When person came back and found their vehicle booted, they went over to the booter’s vehicle and poured a large cola over the booter’s head and his car seat.

i. August 2006 - Booted party tried to pull the boot off and was going to drive away with the boot on. The booter parked his vehicle behind the booted party to block it and went to tighten the boot. At that time the booted party punched the booter in the mouth. When booter went to get his taser, booted party left the area and called police.

j. August, 2007: License Inspector conducted surveillance of booting procedures. Called 911 for a squad when he watched a booted party grab the booter by the neck, lift him off the ground, and started chocking him.

Industry Position

Literature from a booting company in Chicago, IL (Chicago Parking Management, Inc, 2007) and Clampdown in Minneapolis have developed brochures used for marketing their services. These companies make the following claims to promote and justify their business practices.

a. Many lot owners and management firms are troubled with towing customer’s cars. However, without enforcing the parking fees, customers will take advantage of parking.

The fact that almost all the lots where booting has occurred in Minneapolis are free lots dissolves this platform.

b. Immobilization companies state that towing vehicles would be less effective. Since 78% of retail lot violators illegally park for twelve minutes or less, parkers have time to park illegally and exit before a tow truck arrives.

Neither towing nor booting are not effective for short-term parkers. Illegal parkers will get away but the turnover of parking spots is preserved without intervention.

3. The vehicle is not moved which automatically increases the city’s liability when a mistake is made by the tow company.

The Licenses Division has not received a complaint about a vehicle towed in error. Additionally, complaints filed about tow companies have been resolved in two or less telephone calls.

4. The violator pays the booting company right away and does not have to travel to get to the impound lot to claim their vehicle.

There is not immediate response when a vehicle is booted. A 45 minute time period before a vehicle is safe to drive does not represent a standard of convenience for customers.

Secondly, the practice in the industry stating that the credit card machines were broken and only cash would be accepted puts individuals at risk and is difficult to regulate. If a tow is justified, an inconvenience results for the individual. However, it is arguable that this provides a greater protection to consumers.

5. The income generated from booting parking violators is used to offset the cost of lot maintenance and repair.

In the past, there was nothing prohibiting booting companies from offering property owners a percentage of the booting fee. The 2005 ordinance amendments have prohibited this practice. There is no evidence that this practice has ceased, but there is no documented evidence that it is still occurring. If this premise is true, remuneration is occurring in Minneapolis.

6. Unauthorized cars tie up spaces in parking lots during the lag time waiting for a tow truck. Paying customers cannot get to businesses.

A booted vehicle remains unauthorized in a lot until the boot is removed. This has the same impact on paying customers.

Best Practices

On July 24, 2005 a bill was passed in the state of Washington with a vote from the house of 94 to 0 and 46 to 0 in the Senate.

One year later the state of Washington abolished the practice of booting. That bill stated the following:

“Immobilize” is defined as the use of a locking wheel boot that, when attached to the wheel of a vehicle, prevents the vehicle from moving without damage to the tire to which the locking wheel boot is attached. Property owners are prohibited from immobilizing any vehicle not owned by them; however, the state or any unit of local government is exempt from this prohibition. A violation of this act is a gross misdemeanor.” They also added a penalty provision to the bill – up to $5,000 fine and/or one year confinement for a violation.

Other private property booting regulations of 19 cities similar to Minneapolis include the following:

Five (5) other cities allow booting:

1. Atlanta, Georgia - $50 boot removal fee.
2. Chicago, Illinois - $115 boot removal fee. Private and municipal companies authorized to boot in specific wards.
3. Denver, Colorado – Boot removal fee is the same as a parking meter violation.
4. Madison, Wisconsin - Maximum $50 boot removal fee. The booted party may either pay the removal fee or sign a deferral agreement in which the person agrees to pay the removal fee to the parking enforcer or contest the booting.
5. Miami, Florida - Maximum $85 boot removal fee. The city receives a $25 administrative fee for each vehicle booted.
6. Minneapolis: Booting fee is 75% of the Impound/Towing fee. Current cap is $103.50.

Nine (9) cities had no information in their ordinance which indicates that it is not allowed:

1. Biloxi, Mississippi, 2. Dallas, Texas, 3. Houston, Texas, 4. Indianapolis, Indiana,
5. Kansas City, Missouri, 6. Knoxville, Tennessee, 7. Omaha, Nebraska, 8. St. Louis, Missouri, 9. San Francisco, California

Five (5) cities only allow city officials to boot for parking violations:

1. Cincinnati, Ohio, 2. Detroit, Michigan, 3. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 4. Reno, Nevada,
5. White Plains, New York.

Recommendation:

Based on the information outlined in this report, the Licensing Division recommends that Title 13 Chapter 320 be amended to prohibit vehicle immobilization on private property in the city of Minneapolis and failure to adhere to this is defined as a criminal violation.

Booting Outlawed! A New Day Dawns In Minneapolis

Flickr.com photo

Right when it seems there is no progress, and hardly anybody is paying attention, surprising change happens right out of the blue. Car booting has been outlawed in Minneapolis! Woo hoo!!!!!!! It's enough to...

...make "Angle Grinder Man" jump right out of his skintight superhero costume and dance in the streets for joy.

And, as you might suspect, this blog did play a minor role. The documented "booting horror stories" certainly made their way around and, when the time came to write the story in Minnesota Daily, I was in touch with the reporter and recommended one of my blog contributors as a good source of a "booting horror story."

Here is how things appear to have gone down, in thumbnail summary, according to the fine Minnesota Daily article by Anna Ewart.

The City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to ban the practice of booting (with limited exceptions for lots too small for a tow truck to maneuver) as of midnight, Saturday, June 14.

Booting had been allowed since 1994, but the city council documented several "predatory practices," such as booting without adequate signage and without proper authorization. Some used "intimidating behavior" to shake down drivers for fees paid on the spot, threatening the drivers with towing.

Booting companies had received 52 citations in 3 years, with fines totaling approximately $25,000. Minneapolis is one of the few cities which allow booting, and had a higher-than-average cap at $103.50. Complaints were especially bad in the University area, where students were soft, easy targets.

The owner of a Gopher Towing, Gene Buell, said he stopped booting when unethical practices began popping up in Minneapolis, including kickbacks to the owners of lots. This practice was outlawed in 2005, but the city's report said it "might have continued anyway."

Gee, maybe I need to get my hands on this juicy city report and publish it verbatim.

However, I'm actually more worried about St. Paul than Minneapolis. Yes, indeed, it is dawn in Minneapolis but it continues to be midnight in St. Paul. With the light rail set to eliminate so much parking along University Avenue in St. Paul, something "darker than midnight" is on the horizon, a horrible tow truck feeding frenzy, like circling sharks picking off shipwreck survivors.

Tennessee Regulates Car Booting...Finally?

Flickr.com photo

I am not sure how critical I am allowed to be of Tennessee because...

I do not have facts and figures on how many states regulate "booting" at all. My sense is, however, Tennessee is pretty late in the game. Better late than never, though, unless it's money in a parking meter.

In that case, you're just out of luck.

Anyway, here is a link to the article, which is also reproduced below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Car "boot" rules win approval by state

Legislation will let cities regulate fees charged by private parking lots

NASHVILLE - Reports of motorists in Gatlinburg being charged up to $200 to free a "booted" car have led to passage of legislation that will let cities regulate the fees charged by private parking lot operators using the devices.

The bill passed the House 94-0 Monday night and now goes to Gov. Phil Bredesen for his expected signature. It had been unanimously approved by the Senate earlier.

The wheel immobilizers, or "boots," are affixed to vehicles to block them from being moved when the vehicle has been left in a parking lot too long, in an improper area or without a required payment. The vehicle remains immobilized until the motorist pays a fee.

Some private parking lot operators have developed a reputation of "being aggressive, egregious and really going after people hard" with the devices, said Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, House sponsor of the measure.

There has been an "enormous amount of complaints" from motorists forced to pay huge fees to have boots taken off cars, he said, and the Gatlinburg City Council unanimously passed a resolution asking for passage of the bill.

Some cities use boots on cars that have been illegally parked or found to have a high number of parking violations. Cities typically charge $25 to $40 to remove a boot, but private businesses with parking lots have reportedly been charging $150 or even $200, backers of the measure said.

McCord said he had heard "not a single complaint" against enactment of the bill, while "a lot of people are very much in favor of it."

The only House floor debate on the measure came when Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, questioned whether the measure would block the use of boots, which can be cheaper to a motorist than having a car towed.

McCord replied that this would not be the case, noting that governments already can regulate the towing industry. The bill merely puts boots in the same posture, he said.

As initially introduced, the bill would have applied only to Gatlinburg. But it was amended to apply statewide, giving all municipalities the right to establish maximum fees - if they wish - that may be charged by parking lot operators for unlocking the devices.
The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Raymond Finney, R-Maryville.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Towing Utopia says: Senator Raymond Finney hasn't gotten enough credit for this. I'm going to send Finney an email to see if I can solicit more information.