Gotta agree with Representative Zalewski. There's no reason for taunting or harassing on this or any other issue. Besides, this issue isn't over, and taunting the sponsor isn't the most intelligent thing to do if you happen to be on the other side of the issue.
Update: Per the Illinois Observer, Representative Zalewski, a very serious and hard-working legislator, may be looking into an override of the Governor's veto.
The Illinois taxi industry was expecting an amendatory veto of the legislation proposing state regulations on ridesharing services. They received a full-boat veto instead. Why? The Governor is embracing local control. From the Governor's veto message:
The principle of home rule is an important one. In ratifying the current Illinois Constitution in 1970, the people of our State endorsed home rule for units of local government. This transformational approach to reallocating the balance of power towards local government and away from the State is perhaps the most significant innovation of the Constitution of 1970. Under Article VII, any home rule unit of government is authorized to: “exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt.” Illinois Constitution of 1970, Article VII, Section 6 (a).
Notably, the City of Chicago, as a home rule municipality, has already enacted an ordinance, scheduled to take effect on August 26, 2014, that addresses many of the same concerns that this bill is designed to address.
Other units of local government may also wish to adopt consumer protections and other regulations to ensure a level playing field for all market participants. Such other units of local government may – or may not – follow the approach that the City of Chicago will adopt.
Given how new the technology is and that the City of Chicago’s new ordinance has not yet even taken effect, it would be premature – and perhaps counterproductive – to enact a rigid statewide regulatory model at this time. It would be more prudent to carefully monitor the City of Chicago's experience and the success and challenges it faces in enforcing its new ordinance. Similarly, lawmakers and the general public will also benefit from observing the experiences of other units of government that adopt their own innovative approaches to regulating mobile device-enabling ridesharing.
A statewide regulatory framework should only be considered when it is clear that it is not possible to address the problem at the local level. At this point, there is not yet enough evidence to make a judgment about the effectiveness of local ordinances in dealing with the challenges of ridesharing technologies.Governor Quinn also expressed concern that the bill would "stifle innovation," but he's all-in with the local control argument here. And he's right. In an earlier post I contended that there certainly is a need for some regulatory supervision of the emerging ridesharing industry. Some of the regulations contained within HB 4075 make sense. But there's no compelling reason why the state needs to be the regulator. Let the locals regulate the the ridesharing services that operate within their boundaries. The state should be attending to other matters.
The total veto removes this issue from the gubernatorial campaign since both candidates share the same position. Bruce Rauner won't be able to hit Quinn on "stifling competition," and it's unlikely that the taxi industry will throw in with Rauner because he supported a veto. That said, it will be interesting to see what the taxi industry does with its campaign war chest. Does the industry start spending in legislative races to attempt an override? The legislation was approved with veto-proof majorities in each chamber, but the bill has become pretty highly politicized. Some of those votes may peel off.
No comments:
Post a Comment