Competition Needed

In Limousine Service Industry

To the Editor:

There are probably many of The Bee readership who have either experienced or observed what are called Department of Transportation/Department of Motor Vehicles “field operations” at high school proms. The ostensible purpose for these activities, where commercial limousine service operators are checked for proper permits and other regulatory requirements, is to ensure compliance with state laws. However, what is frequently not understood of such activities is that the state livery statutes, since the early initial adoption in 1933, have been intented to serve as artificial protection for larger established companies, too often at the expense of the kind of open competition which serves to protect the public interests.

The state livery statutes have as part of Connecticut General Statutes, Sec, 13b-103, a clause requiring that an applicant for a state livery permit must prove improvement in “public convenience and necessity.” What is often overlooked is that the term “public convenience and necessity” is an established legal term used primarily for proceedings of public utilities companies which are monopolies. In that instance, there can be cause for government scrutiny of public convenience and necessity.

However, limousine service companies as are observed operating in Connecticut are clearly not monopolies. If there is any doubt on that point, just look in the telephone yellow pages under limousine services. I don’t know of anyone who might try to say that limousine service companies are monopolies.

Therefore, a governmental attempt to limit limousine service with such a criteria becomes an improper intrusion in the First Amendment right of association (Griswold v State of Connecticut 381 US 479). Also, case law affirms that commercial interests are part of the First Amendment protection of association. Of additional note is that the United States is the only country in which such constitutionally-protected rights are granted by the people as opposed to coming from the largese of government.

I have been raising this issue in Connecticut for several years for which, on June 20, 2001, I saw a result in a partial amendment of the state livery statutes to specifically address this point. Unfortunately, that amendment for House Bill 5914 saw the limited favorable impact to again go to larger established companies seeking merely to expand the approved number of vehicles. Therefore, the adoption of the bill was for me a moral victory in the sense that the legislature responded directly (albeit selectively) to the very issue which I been raising.

However, unlike a similar April action by the State of Pennsylvania to fully eliminate a “public demand” clause, it remains that the Connecticut response was only partial. For those students and parents who observe high prices for limousine services for high school proms and/or limited availability of services to meet their interests (in comparison with out-of-state services which are often available to service their interests at competitive prices) and/or the inconvenience of the DOT/DMV field operations, the practical effects of what I present here should be clear.

I present this information in the public interest and welcome all reasonable comments.

Ethan Book, Jr.

President New England Limousine Service

Fairfield                                   September 13, 2001