Burlington Taxi Drivers Object to Porn Prohibition, City Councilors Say
It's not every day that one Burlington city councilor tweets another about porn.
But last week, Councilor Joan Shannon (D-Ward 5) fired off this titillating tweet to Councilor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (P-Ward 3):
@emmajmsvt how many taxi drivers have pleaded w u to allow them to have porn in cabs? I’m up to 5 #WTF #BTV #BTVCC
Shannon chairs the committee that’s presently rewriting Burlington’s taxi regulation, which, as written, would replace the city's zone pricing system with taxi meters and require licensed cab drivers to follow a host of other rules. Shannon tells Seven Days that numerous cabbies have asked her — in private conversations and at a recent public meeting — to strike the section that forbids them from using or possessing pornography in their taxis while on duty.
Mulvaney-Stanak, who notes that current regulations already prohibit porn, says two cabbies have asked her to change the rule, one of them in a hand-written letter that complained the ban infringed on cabbies' "rights."
With the full city council set to take up the new taxi regulations as soon as July 11, both councilors say sanctioning, or tolerating, the use of porn is out of the question.
"We’re not trying to limit their use of pornography on their own time,” says Shannon. "And we’re not trying to limit what their customers bring along with them."
Benway's Transportation, Burlington's largest taxi service, doesn’t allow its drivers to carry porn, says owner Paul Robar. But Robar's still a little uneasy with the city banning drivers from having it.
"Do I want them looking at naked stuff? No," says Robar. "But on the other hand, the city is so out there on the reaching, so who knows what they’re calling porn at this point?"
Not surprisingly, Shannon's tweet earned the city councilor some unwanted attention.
"It turns out if you tweet ‘porn,’ strange people start following you,” she says. “I got some very scantily clad followers and knocked them off."
Anthony Weiner, the councilor says, was not among them.
File photo by Jordan Silverman
I beleive some of these taxis are also liscensed as school busses. Enough said. Time for a city wide sting and clampdown.
Posted by: dale tillotson | July 06, 2011 at 03:57 PM
Most of us would be fired if we brought porn to work...enjoy your porn on your time off but I for one don't want to get into a cab with a hot on porn driver.....just as I don't want a hot on porn banker, attorney, or any other professional to meet privately with me. It's inappropriate and while at work what is expected for most of us should hold true for all of us. And I have no judgement on porn other than it's a private matter. But if I am paying a transportation fare which is indeed regulated as a licensed business I should not have to deal with a hot on porn driver. Call the Better Business Bureau and ask them! Enough said.
Posted by: Stupidity Unlimited | July 06, 2011 at 04:22 PM
Dale, aren't there already laws protecting children from people who behave inappropriately as you suggest? Redundant laws will not make our precious children any safer.
How many complaints has the city gotten about this issue?
Sure, you don't want a "hot on porn driver". Me either. The free market solves this problem. If a driver behaves inappropriately, complain to the taxi company. They'll fire the driver. If they don't, people will soon know to avoid that taxi company. If it's criminal behavior (lewd and lascivious) call the proper legal authorities.
Posted by: one_vermonter | July 06, 2011 at 04:48 PM
I'm with One-VTer here. If you get in a cab and they have porn, don't use the taxi service again, or complain to the owner and let them handle it. It's there business, they can run it as they see fit.
This is not a City Government issue. More social engineering from the progs in Burlington. Ban anything they find distastfull....
Posted by: Jcarter | July 07, 2011 at 07:01 AM
"Porn Cab" sounds like a good business model...
Posted by: Tim | July 07, 2011 at 10:22 AM
""Porn Cab" sounds like a good business model..."
I bet it would be out "green cab" in sales.
Posted by: Jcarter | July 07, 2011 at 12:54 PM
I'm curious, maybe Andy could follow up on this, but why did Shannon tweet to Mulvaney-Stanak? Did she tweet to anyone else? I'm wondering she tweeted to Kurt Wright or even Dober? Is there some sexism going on here? What is the High School, you can only tweet to your gal pals about this "offensive" stuff?
Posted by: Jcarter | July 07, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I can answer that, I think. Emma chairs the city's Taxi Licensing Board, which has taken lead in rewriting the regs around taxi licensing. Shannon chairs the City Council committee that gets first crack at those draft regulations. So each plays a crucial early role in shaping the regs that will go to the city council.
Of course, that's only my best guess. I didn't actually ask Joan.
Posted by: Andy Bromage | July 07, 2011 at 01:02 PM
That's a logical explanation.
Posted by: Jcarter | July 07, 2011 at 01:46 PM
I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of this issue, though it certainly seems like a hard one to crack.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | July 07, 2011 at 03:28 PM
I'm sorry. I owe everyone in this thread money now.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | July 07, 2011 at 03:29 PM
They should ban porn at City Council meetings too.
We really don't want any porn at those meetings. They should be doing their jobs, not looking at porn.
Posted by: One_Vermonter | July 07, 2011 at 03:31 PM
I think it's funny that JCarter calls this social engineering from the Progs, when the article says a ban is already on the books and does not say when it went into effect. I guess if you have a hobbyhorse, any issue gives you an excuse to take it out for a trot.
Posted by: Mull-it | July 07, 2011 at 04:21 PM
Andy - Please get your facts straight before you post this type of piece let alone comment on it. "Emma chairs the city's Taxi Licensing Board." Emma is not even on the board any longer nor was she even the Chair.
jcarter - I'm sure it was the fact that women feel more comfortable talking about certain issues with other women; it's human nature, not sexism.
That said, it is a problem and has been for quite some time. IF the owners would regulate then it wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by: just_sayin | July 07, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Just_Sayin --
You say that this is a problem and has been for a long time. What do you mean by this? What is the problem?
Are BTV's hacks posting inappropriate photos on their dash boards? Or are they providing racy magazines for customers?
I agree that exposing a customer to pornography is inappropriate. If you've observed this behavior, have you ever called the taxi company to complain? Has what you witnessed been bad enough that it could be considered "lewd and lascivious" by the Burlington PD?
I didn't realize that this was actually happening in BTV cabs. It would surprise me to learn that a passenger would get no satisfaction from the cab company or the BPD.
Thanks,
OV
Posted by: One_Vermonter | July 07, 2011 at 07:15 PM
"jcarter - I'm sure it was the fact that women feel more comfortable talking about certain issues with other women; it's human nature, not sexism"
–noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
Like say, talking ONLY to other women when a city issue should be addressed with all city officials. Either way, I don't want to get into a semantics issue, just seems when you are debating ordinances concerning such a request, that should be brought up to the council, not "tweeted" to your BFF.
as for
"I think it's funny that JCarter calls this social engineering from the Progs, when the article says a ban is already on the books and does not say when it went into effect."
Maybe sometime within the last 30 years?
Posted by: Jcarter | July 08, 2011 at 06:56 AM
Wait. How do we know our tow trucks are free from the scourge of porn?
Posted by: Tim | July 08, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Whenever I'm walking by City Hall Park there is a crappy blue truck parked right there on Main with a whole pile of it. Not sure who that is but they love their porn, that's for sure.
Posted by: Jcarter | July 08, 2011 at 10:17 AM
To: jcarter
Is it your belief that the Progressives are responsible for every ordinance adopted by the city council over the last 30 years?
If so, that would certainly be news to Progressive councilors who have never had a majority of seats on the council.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | July 10, 2011 at 03:25 PM
Doug,
If I thought that I would have stated that.
It's very easy to debate when you are providing both sides huh?
Posted by: Jcarter | July 10, 2011 at 07:41 PM
To: jcarter
It's quite clear what you said.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | July 11, 2011 at 09:12 AM
1. Whether or not the Progs have had a full majority on the Council in the last 30 years, since 1981 the Mayor has been a Prog (or "Independent" as Bernie euphemistically called himself) with the brief 2-year exception of Brownell in the mid-90s. Go ahead, Mr. Hoffer, say it if you dare: the Progs haven't controlled Burlington for the last 30 years.
2. Instead of accusing Carter of making a possibly false accusation, why doesn't our favorite Auditor candidate/blogger simply resolve the issue by finding out when the alleged porn-in-cab ban was put in place and find out which Councilors voted for it? Or was it an executive order from the mayor at the time?
3. If I get in the back seat of a cab and the driver has a Playboy magazine sitting next to him in the front seat, is that my business? Is it my right to be offended? What if I don't ever know it's there?
4. Taxi passengers shouldn't be subjected to taxi-driver porn, but I seem to remember at least one article by Hackie where the fares were going at it in his back seat on the way to the destination. Should cab drivers be subjected to seeing sex acts by their fares? Does the driver have the right to force the fares out of the cab onto the street wherever they are because he/she has the right not to see them having sex in his/her back seat?
5. And, hey, what about right-wing or left-wing talk radio in the cab? Do I as a passenger have to listen to that? It violates my rights. As would gangsta rap. Forget about the porn ban. Let's regulate what music and talk the drivers can and cannot listen to on the radio of their cabs.
6. And, hey, have you seen the offensive clothing that some of those cabbies are wearing? Sheesh!
I think the whole area of passenger rights vs. cabdriver rights should be investigated by the Auditor and the next legislative session should be devoted entirely to the issue of sex and porn and radio-choices in Vermont cabs. It appears to be a huge, huge issue.
Posted by: Mordey | July 11, 2011 at 05:36 PM
Mr. Mordey
The mayor gets to sign ordinances when adopted by the city council. He does not get to vote.
The city council has never been controlled by Progressives. The good works of the last 30 years (and the not-so-good) are a result of alliances between members of the various parties resulting in majority votes.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | July 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Right Doug, because the Mayor has never had any sway whatsoever over what occurs in the City....
Just like Obama can't write laws, nor could Dubya...
Just like Shumlin and Douglas... yup sure does suck to be the guy in charge... always hoping the legislative body is going to send you something you actually want.
Posted by: Jcarter | July 12, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Am I missing something here, but are we talking about having like physical porn present in the cab? Why not just access the porn on their smartphone...?
Posted by: Chris Lei | July 12, 2011 at 01:14 PM
For goodness sake. I never said the mayor has no influence or power. But just like presidents, mayors sometimes struggle with legislative bodies that are dominated by the opposition. Go back and check the record of legislative activity when one or both houses of Congress were controlled by the president's opponents.
The idea that the Progressives have had their way for 30 years is simply not true. All successful legislation required alliances and compromise. That's what's so fascinating about the process AND so frustrating.
On the other hand, look what some Progressives championed but never achieved because they did NOT have legislative majorities (e.g., replacement of the property tax with a tax based on ability to pay; rent control; etc.).
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | July 12, 2011 at 03:41 PM
How much power the Progs did or did not have over the past thirty years will be a question for the history books in the relatively near future. Specifically, the chapter entitled "how to bankrupt a city in one easy step."
Posted by: Jimmy | July 12, 2011 at 04:24 PM
"But just like presidents, mayors sometimes struggle with legislative bodies that are dominated by the opposition."
And exactly when in the last 30 years has the Burlington City Council been "dominated" by the opposition, Mr. Hoffer?
And you're still arguing for argument's sake over a hypothetical issue when the actual issue could be easily answered if Hoffer really wanted to: under whose Administration was the existing no-porn-in-cabs regulation enacted, and which Councilors voted for it and which against? Seems like Hoffer would rather argue defensively over whether or not Progs were ever really in charge of Burlington than actually find out who enacted the no-porn-in-cabs regulation that Mulvaney-Stanak (a Prog, by the way) claims is already on the books.
Posted by: mordey | July 12, 2011 at 07:50 PM
"Is it your belief that the Progressives are responsible for every ordinance adopted by the city council over the last 30 years?"
"It's quite clear what you said."
"For goodness sake. I never said the mayor has no influence or power. "
Doug, you are bit too hypocritical for my taste. And, Mordey has it right, now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Jcarter | July 12, 2011 at 08:44 PM