Chronicle covers $AFEclear loophole

Image credit: Pixabay

In typical Chronicle fashion, today we get some local “olds”:

The city will try to revoke the permits of 30 wrecker drivers licensed under the Safe Clear mandatory towing ordinance after discovering that they have criminal records but will have to strengthen the ordinance to do so, officials said this week.

The city licenses about 250 drivers under the program, which gives 11 towing companies exclusive contracts to tow cars from freeways.

City Councilman Michael Berry said a summary of the 30 drivers’ backgrounds by Houston police discovered crimes such as forgeries and drug offenses. Berry said he did not see any “hard-core violent offenders” or sex offenders on the list.

KPRC-2 covered this story last Tuesday, and we posted on it then.

One thing of interest is that the KPRC story said this:

Sources told Local 2 that a preliminary check uncovered drivers with criminal convictions, including a serial rapist and those with a history of other violent crimes. It also found a large number of drivers with convictions for DWI, drugs, fraud and theft, officials said.

And Councilman Berry says he didn’t “see any ‘hardcore violent offenders’ or sex offenders on the list.”

Hmmmm.

But to the Chronicle‘s credit, the reporter did include this important point:

In touting the ordinance, Mayor Bill White has said that by requiring background checks of contract drivers, it would help keep criminals in tow trucks from preying on stranded motorists.

He did not disclose until this week that the ordinance doesn’t have the teeth to do that.

White said he recently became aware of a 1994 federal law designed to deregulate the interstate trucking industry that inadvertently weakened the power of cities to regulate the towing industry. Because of this law, White said the city needs an ordinance giving it power to deny permits to tow-truck drivers who don’t pass criminal background checks.

It’s not clear what “recently became aware of” means. Did the mayor become aware of the loophole last week or last month? I would argue that implementing such a devastatingly heavy-handed program, when some very important facts were not considered or known, doesn’t put the mayor or his advisors in a very good light. How many other far-reaching programs (eminent domain, red light cameras, tasers, smoking ban) is the mayor undertaking where he doesn’t have all the facts before him?


(Old) Forum Comments (1)

About Anne Linehan 2323 Articles
Anne Linehan is a co-founder of blogHOUSTON.