They do not do it overtly, but, even to the most Brilliant of Rocket Scientists, it is obvious that they have been trying to eliminate the owner-operators, slowly-but-surely.
It used to be that if you turned in your licence plates because your car had to come off the street for whatever reason, you could get them back. They put an end to that. More than a few drivers came back from a summer in Ghana, Nigeria, Persia, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan to find out that they could not get their H-plates back and go back to work.
Most of the drivers, here, live in the suburbs. As the cabs must have D.C. licence plates, the D.C. Government would issue them, even though the driver had an address in Maryland or Virginia suburbs. Before 1992, the driver who lived in the suburbs had to have a D.C. Driver's Licence in addition to that from his home state. The Feds put a stop to that in 1992 with the one licence per person policy. What happened was that D.C. decided that it would not issue registrations to drivers who did not live in the District of Columbia. D.C. decided that it would do this by attrition. If you had a valid D.C. plate, you could keep it until the registration expired. At that time, D.C. would not renew it. Drivers who lived in the suburbs panicked. The D.C. Government offered several "helpful" suggestions:
1. Put private car plates on it from your home state. D.C. would issue a special licence card to show the police and hack inspectors. D.C. suddenly decided that this was not a good course of action. They were correct. It would create an enforcement nightmare. About one dozen or so cabs took this route before D.C. put a stop to it. Those twelve or so drivers were whittled down to five. Finally, D.C. told those five that they could not operate with their one Maryland and four Virginia plates. D.C. refused to give them H-plates, so they had to pull their cars from the street and rent.
2. Put the name of your cab company on the title and registration. As the cab company, by law, had a D.C. address, it could have a plate issued to it. This was allright for a couple of years, until D.C. passed an age limitation on the vehicles and began a programme to phase out the older vehicles. Now, in order to replace the superannuated vehicles, the driver (the true owner) must get his company to release interest in the vehicle. Some of these companies are balking, outright. Others are insisting that the drivers pay them either a one-time exorbitant fee or sign a contract that entitles the company to payment over a long term. Further, some of these companies are about to be put out of business due to their failure to meet a government imposed quota on accessible vehicles. The quota is based on the number of company-owned vehicles. All of those vehicles that have both company and driver name on the title/registration count as company vehicles. Thus, there are more problems for those drivers. Those drivers appealed to the Taxicab Commission for relief. The Commission's response was that it was not obliged to help drivers who were circumventing the law, even though the method of curcumvention was suggested by the D.C. Government.
3. Finally, the City Council decided that those owners who lived in the suburbs and who had plates could renew them for an extra fee. It did not allow those who had given up their plates to get them back. Most of the drivers who had put their company's name on the registration/title as co-owners did not get the company name off when they had the opportunity. It was too easy to leave it as it was. Now, those who did not take the bother are about to be put out of business. A few drivers did get their company's name off the title/registration once the City Council passed the provision for the extra fee, but most did not bother. Until three years back, the companies would readily agree to get their names from the titles. Now, they are balking.
