When the Davis City Council approved the contract with Zipcar, they city staff and council did a typically poor job of explaining the issue and the rationale to the public. The passage of this item came during a meeting in which a number of complex items were very quickly approved. The idea was the new Mayor Don Saylor is in charge, and he will make the trains run on time.
The problem that the Mayor forgot is that this is not Mussolini’s Italy and if the trains run on time in Davis, that means that you are not properly explaining to the public or council what they are approving. Already this has bitten the council in the rear on the issue of the Zipcar which has garnered criticism in Bob Dunning’s column, a critical story in the Enterprise, and now there is an attempt to right the ship with a column in the Enterprise by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza along with a fact sheet on the city website.
People are free to oppose or support this project, but I have two problems with the amount of seeming anger over a very small expenditure of non-general fund money. First, this is very small amount of money coming not from the general fund, but from developer-impact fees that go to environmental mitigation projects. Second, some of the people getting outraged have never once written a column about unfunded liabilities and pensions, and the hit the city is about to take on that front dwarfs this. I have the same problem with the focus on the Zipcar project as I do with the rationale that we need to gut commissions due to their costs.
However, I also have a problem with the fact that the program has been mischaracterized. Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of questions that needed to be answered up front and when you conduct a meeting that runs roughshod over discussion, you are going to pay for it. However, ire is disproportionate to potential damage. The purpose of this article is to look at the state of the debate. I have now generated questions and made a request for additional information and will then write a report on what my research uncovers.
Councilmember Greenwald and Swanson Offer a Critical View
Councilmember Greenwald told the Enterprise “I didn’t give it enough consideration. It was bad; I usually catch stuff like that.”
According to the Enterprise, “Greenwald said she trusted the recommendations of the city’s sustainability program staff and Climate Action Team, which identified the implementation of a citywide car-sharing program as a top goal based on years of outreach meetings with Davis citizens.”
On the other hand, Rochelle Swanson says that while she thinks there was a mistake, at this point there is no going back. She told the Enterprise, “she is comfortable with the decision to start a car-sharing program in Davis. Swanson said she is confident the community will use the vehicles, which means the city would not end up paying the $74,400 guarantee.”
A big difference in their position is that Sue Greenwald believes the Zipcar is a car rental business while Rochelle Swanson believes “the program offers a unique service to Davis residents, UCD students and visitors to the town.”
Councilmember Swanson told the Enterprise, “Swanson said she did her research by calling local car rental businesses and none of them offered what Zipcar does – convenient, 24-hour instant access to fuel-efficient cars at low hourly rates. ‘I don’t agree that this is a direct competition, especially because I made the calls and I asked the questions,’ Swanson said. ‘I wouldn’t support a program that, specifically, is exactly like something we already have in town that would undercut existing businesses.'”
The Enterprise continues, “Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza say that if car-sharing and car rentals are the same, Avis, Enterprise and Hertz would be doing it more. But the market is too small for those companies to profit.”
“But Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning declared the whole situation ‘Zipgate.’ In a series of columns, Dunning argued that Zipcar took the city for a ride and now has an unfair business advantage, being paid for by public funds,” the Enterprise reports. “‘Furthermore,’ he said, ‘Zipcar is dangerous because anyone can simply swipe a membership card, get into a vehicle and drive it – even if they are drunk.'”
However Ms. Swanson countered that those concerns are worst case scenario and there is nothing to prevent someone from renting a car while sober, getting drunk, and then getting into an accident.
“A Zipcar renter also would have to be clear-headed enough to get online, reserve a vehicle and find it in order to use it – it’s not just swiping a card, Swanson said,” the Enterprise reported. “The city’s Zipcar contract is not redundant, either, she said, since UCD’s vehicles are located on campus only. The city’s Zipcars will be parked at key locations throughout town, such as at the train station, where people arriving in Davis can easily borrow a vehicle for transportation.”
“Greenwald said the car-sharing model does have merit, but is unhappy with the Zipcar contract because the city made too many concessions. She said the city should not devote staff time, which translates to city dollars, to help Zipcar promote the program and maintain its fleet,” reported the Enterprise. “‘I think car-sharing is a bit of a misnomer because it’s not really car-sharing. It’s an easy-access rental,’ Greenwald said. ‘The concept has potential, but the question is just whether it’s appropriate to subsidize.'”
The argument in favor: Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza respond
“With 325,000-plus members, Zipcar controls more than 80 percent of the U.S. market in car- sharing,” the Councilmembers write. “Hertz, with its Connect program, entered the market last year but it offers its program only in five locations so far. Enterprise has WeCar and U-Haul has U Car Share.”
“If car-sharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more. The market is too small for them so far. Car-sharing is different because it is instant, hourly, friendlier to the environment and located near users who need short-term mobility,” they continue.
The costs here are conditioned upon usage. UC Davis brought in Zipcar in 2009, they have eight vehicles on campus and the cars are in use about 40 percent of the time. The city of Davis has roughly the same contract as UC Davis, but will begin with just four vehicles, “parked in pairs at two central locations easily accessible by foot, bike, bus or train.”
Explain the councilmembers, “If the vehicles in the city were used 30 percent of the time, the cost to the city would be $20,659 per year. With 40 percent usage, the cost to the city would be $2,746 per year, and 50 percent usage would exceed the minimum amount due and have no cost to the city.”
So already the idea that this is going to cost the city $72,000 is probably out the window.
They write, “One of the provisions in the contract was to purchase the four cars locally from Davis auto dealerships. Zipcar not only fulfilled this obligation but exceeded it by purchasing six additional cars from University Honda for use in other Northern California locations.”
There is a concern with insurance liability. The councilmembers argue, “The insurance liability provision is standard and does not cost the city any money. This provision has been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management and they conclude that it provides sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk, to the maximum extent provided by law.”
According to the city fact sheet, “Drivers are provided insurance through their Zipcar membership, not through the City. The insurance provisions have been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management, and provide sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk to the maximum extent provided by law.”
Neither of these sources, however, answers the question as to who has liability if the Zipcar causes damage in the city, which I believe was one of the concerns.
The city also is not required to perform any marketing. Nor does it pay for service or repairs to car.
“The city will not perform Zipcar’s marketing. The contract simply says there is a person to contact on marketing opportunities,” they write. “Zipcar also pays for all service and repair to the cars. The city’s only obligation is to provide an individual to ‘shuttle’ the car to its local service destination. It is estimated that each vehicle requires service once each quarter, so this provision will take four hours of staff time per quarter. The city is working with Zipcar to contract with the same UCD graduate student who performs this service for the eight campus cars.”
Is Zip Car a Truly Green Policy?
One of the things I am going to look at is research on the benefits of car-sharing. Does it reduce car usage? Does it reduce carbon emissions?
The City Fact sheet argues that it does, though they rarely cite the studies that support these facts. This is definitely something I will follow up with this week.
The city’s argument for the program appears twofold. First, it basically argues that Zipcar is has operated a successful car-share program, that it has worked at UC Davis, and the fact that it has worked at UC Davis will give an immediate boost to the program in Davis since those members can use the Zipcars in Davis as well.
Second, they cite national studies that shows that each shared car removes 15 personally-owned vehicles off the road. That is good, but how does that by itself reduce driving? They go on to argue, Zip members report saving an average of $600 a month compared to car ownership. That money is typically returned back into the local community. Furthermore, studies also show that Zipcar members increase use of alternate forms of transportation, such as walking and biking. They also show an increase in transit ridership among car share members. Finally, studies show car-share members drive 40 percent fewer miles after joining a car-share program.
Again, I would like to see that research. UC Davis started apparently with four cars and quickly expanded to 8. They appear to have 500 members which produce a 40% usage of the vehicles. That would mean that the city would appear to need around 250 to 300 additional members to break even with the same usage rate as the university.
Moreover, there is a safeguard within program. The city has only agreed to a two-year pilot program with opt-out clauses. After 12 months, the City can elect to opt out of the contract or reduce the number of vehicles if utilization does not yield 50% or more of the quarterly fee per vehicle. In such event, the City may reduce or eliminate vehicles with 60 days’ notice.
Both the councilmembers and the city fact sheet argue that this arose in response to community support for the idea of car-sharing.
“The City of Davis Climate Action Team concluded that spending money to start up a car-share program in Davis would be one of the best uses of funds to achieve reduction in carbon emissions. So we are using dedicated funds to do what our Climate Action Team said was a high-priority carbon-reduction initiative,” they write.
They continue, “A car-sharing program will help to curb traffic and parking congestion by reducing the number of cars needed by households, thereby encouraging commuters to rent a car for a whole day excursion and to use public transit, bike or walk for at least part of their trips.”
“Sharing vehicles also can free up parking spaces because several drivers will use the same space multiple times rather than multiple cars using separate spaces. According to a report by the National Academy of Science, every shared car removes five to 15 vehicles from the road,” they continue.
“The global trend is for increasing use of mass transit because of the high cost of gas and auto expenses in a recession. We are moving to self-service and an age that is focusing on access versus ownership, examining our expenses and looking where we can save money. We are reimagining urban cityscapes by offering personal transportation as a service, not a product,” Mr. Souza and Mr. Krovoza write.
“A member of a car-sharing network in one city is a member in another city or country. We live in an era where people can buy music by the song. Car-sharing allows you to drive a car by the hour and the city to get the most green for the buck,” they write. “Car-share programs support longer-term car rental companies. Car-sharing is designed to offer convenience for day-to-day needs, while car rental offers a variety of cars for longer-term use and trips. The addition of car-sharing in Davis will help residents avoid needing to own a car or more cars in their household.”
Dunning Throws Fire On The Argument
My problem with Dunning is that he likes to focus on these mini-“scandals” and never focuses on the 800-pound gorilla in the room. He can rile people up on a project that will cost $72,000 but he never bothers to write on a problem that could bring down the entire city financial system.
At its very worst, the city would be out about $74,400 from the developer impact fund if this program totally and completely flopped. But that ignores the fact that the Zipcar has operated a successful program not only at UC Davis, but at a number of other university communities. They cite Santa Cruz, Ann Arbor, Champaign-Urbana, among others. Why would it fail in Davis, where many people utilize bikes as their primary mode of transportation? It would be nice if some of those bike riders could get rid of their cars because they would be able to rent a zip car short term to do their car-needing errands.
Bob Dunning took up the issue, arguing that the contract creates an unfair playing field that threats the viability of existing businesses. The problem with that argument is that no other Davis business offers a car-share program. As the councilmembers again write, “If car-sharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more. The market is too small for them so far. Car-sharing is different because it is instant, hourly, friendlier to the environment and located near users who need short-term mobility.”
So by comparing a car rental to car-sharing, he is already comparing apples and oranges. While apples and oranges are both fruit and car rental and car-sharing are two modes of transportation, the similarities end there.
Moreover, he then compares the rental car rates with the rates for the car-share, ignoring the fact that car-sharing is for short-term usage, not a full weekend like a rental car. If you need a car for a full-weekend, rent from one of the big rental car companies. If you need a car for an hour or part of an hour, then Zipcar is fast and convenient.
On September 11 he also argued that the city is on the hook for accidents covering great bodily injury or death.
Writes Dunning, “The folks at Zipcar certainly think that’s the case or they wouldn’t have demanded the contract state that the ‘City will maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, will have Zipcar named as an additional insured under such policy and will provide Zipcar with a certificate evidencing such insurance.'”
He continues, “the ‘City will also carry any required Worker’s Compensation, Disability or other insurance on behalf of its employees providing maintenance services to Zipcar hereunder.'”
Writes Dunning, “In other words, not only are we responsible for doing all the dirty work Zipcar should be doing for itself, we’re also responsible for the health and welfare of the employees doing the work.”
But would that not be the case for any employee who is on the job and gets injured on the job? If they use the city-owned Gem cars, would we not have similar liability?
According to the city, “The insurance liability provisions are standard and do not cost the city any money. Drivers are provided insurance through their Zipcar membership, not through the City. The insurance provisions have been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management and provide sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk to the maximum extent provided by law.”
So who is right? Did Bob Dunning do any additional research to determine who would have liability should there be an accident? It does not appear to be the case. We can look into this issue as well.
Again, I am not saying that people should like this program, but we at least need to be dealing with correct facts.
Mr. Dunning spends the rest of that column comparing Zipcar to Avis, even though Avis does not provide the same range of services.
In a later column, he goes on to write, “A LEGAL THICKET – one prominent local attorney suggests that Avis might have a strong legal case against the city and goes so far as to suggest that the Zipcar contract sounds like an illegal giveaway of city funds – ‘I wish I could have city employees staff my business for free,’ he writes, ‘and sweep the walks out front, too – that would certainly put a zip in my step.'”
Sounds like that local attorney did not understand the difference between the services that Zipcar provides, versus Avis. There is no way that Avis would be able to sue the city. Again, they do not provide the same types of services.
I also found this repeated comment interesting, “John at dcn.org calls the whole Zipcar fiasco ‘maladroit idiocy,’ Ken at ucdavis.edu says he’s so ticked off about the contract that he now realizes he has ‘no confidence in Council and staff to make grown-up decisions.'”
Imagine if John at dcn.org actually understood what will happen in five years with unfunded liabilities and pensions, but then Mr. Dunning does not write about such things, so John is probably in the dark about it.
Not finished, Mr. Dunning in his September 14 column writes, “Let’s take Zipcar first – forget the unfair competition angle and the liability angle and the fact that city employees will be doing all of Zipcar’s dirty work and concentrate instead on the claim that Zipcar actually will reduce the number of cars on Davis streets – the theory being that the availability of a Zipcar will somehow convince untold numbers of Davisites to forego buying a new car – it’s silly, of course, but that’s the line members of the Davis City Council – who clearly didn’t read this contract from start to finish – are passing out.”
So we are going to look into this claim, but there would appear to be some research that suggests that this is correct. Does Mr. Dunning read through that research? Maybe, but he certainly does not indicate whether he has or is not. So is he merely speculating here?
It is not like Davis is the first community to implement Zipcar. So there should be an established body of evidence.
Conclusion and Commentary
Bottom line, for me there are still some issues that need to be examined. I will be attempting to do that research this week. My two key questions at this point are first, whether and under what conditions the city would have liability in the event of an accident. I tend to believe that this is more of a standard clause and that the individuals would be responsible for their own accidents, just as an individual in a rental car would.
Second, I would like to see the research on both car usage and GHG reductions. If the program really reduces car usage, then it is a relatively small price to pay, and if it is successful the price will be almost zero.
You do not have to like this program. I am not sure exactly if this will work the way the city hopes, but it is a pilot project, at a fairly low cost, with an opt-out.
However, the amount of anger about this simple program is disproportionate to its impact on our city finances. Could we do a better program with this money to reduce car usage? Maybe. And maybe this was not the best place to start.
But this gets back to my original point, when you do not fully vet a project, you are asking for a world of trouble and the council majority better understand that in the future. They have now had to do additional work to educate the community, when an hour discussion might have resolved all of the problems and questions before they even started. We need facts and I will attempt to look for them. I can say this, council did not do its job of informing the public about the facts on this case and that is a huge failure that can never be rectified or justified. However, that by itself does not mean this is a flawed program. We need to get more information before we comfortably come to that conclusion.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am afraid I lean towards Dunning’s views on this:
1. Although the zipcar concept is different than a traditional rental car company its not apples and oranges, more like peaches and nectarines. And I think it is legitimate to ask why we are subsidizing one business at the potential expense of another. The green claims seem unsubstantiated to say the least–is this the best we can do with environmental mitigation money? Can’t we do better? Even if its not general fund money its still money that could be used elsewhere.
2. Who will use the zipcar? Students seem like the obvious market but they are already served (at least UC Davis students who are the vast majority of our students in Davis)? Currently the zipcars are available 60% of the time (if they are only used 40% of the time) and only a few hundred uever use this service out of a total UCD student population of 32,000 (according to US News) plus thousands more faculty and staff that I assume are eligible. How is this a success?
Put another way approximately one percent of eligible people now use the program and the cars lie unused the majority of the time–and we want to expand the capacity? Does this make sense?
David is correct that there are far more important issues that Dunning and our City Council could focus on. But is that a reason to support the zipcar? I am more concerned with CC members who spend their time promoting these and other similar concepts while our fiscal situation deteriorates.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see innovative ideas in Davis (and I suspect Dunning would not). I just don’t see zip cars and reverse angle parking as particularly good or innovative and folks are spening an enormous amount of time and ink on these ideas.
Another example of a public-private partnership, where the public pays for the profits made by the corporation and investor shareholders and the CEO and manager salaries and benefits.
I still need someone to explain how it is “greener” for Zipcar to rent someone a car than for Enterprise to rent them a car.
David G., I agree that the City’s compensation and retirement policies are a much bigger problem, and that the Zipcar contract pales in comparison. No question about that. However, what I find most concerning about the Zipcar contract is not the magnitude of the economic cost to the City, but the idea of City employees essentially working for a private enterprise while the City pays their time, insurance and benefits, and the City insuring the profitability of the enterprise. It’s wrong on so many levels.
Dr. Wu: [quote]Put another way approximately one percent of eligible people now use the program and the cars lie unused the majority of the time–and we want to expand the capacity? Does this make sense? [/quote]
Right. If Zipcar expects the program to be successful off campus, why do they need the City to ensure their profitability? Does UCD ensure the profitability of the program on campus?
I go past the Zipcar parking in front of the ARC on campus a couple times per week. There are usually at least two of them sitting there unused.
Here are 3 very good studies:
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Carsharing and Co2 (6.23.2010).pdf
[url][/url]
“When vehicle purchases avoided are considered in conjunction with vehicles shed, these estimates suggest that for the existing membership base of mid-2009, carsharing has removed between 90,000 to 130,000 vehicles from the road. Given the number of vehicles deployed, this implies a removal of 9 to 13 personal cars for each carsharing vehicle. This is estimate consistent with previous carsharing literature.”
NORTH AMERICAN CARSHARING: A TEN-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1245
“One of carsharing’s most notable impacts on transportation is reduced vehicle ownership. Carsharing removes between 4.6 to 20 cars per shared-use vehicle from the transportation network (11-25). Variance reflected in this metric is due largely to methodological differences.
For example, Lane’s (2005) research on PhillyCarShare (20) distinguishes between cars “removed by members who gave up a car” and “cars removed by members who decided not to acquire a vehicle,” while others do not (11-18, 21-24). Based on the most current studies and member survey results released by U.S. and Canadian carsharing organizations, 15 to 32% of carsharing members sold their personal vehicles, and between 25 and 71% of members avoided an auto purchase due to carsharing (11-25). The considerable variation in forfeited vehicle percentages is likely due to a stated intention bias, location-specific differences, and business model.
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds:
http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?type=MO&id=767312%5Burl%5D%5B/url%5D
“Impacts on vehicle ownership have been a relatively simple area to explore in methodological terms and have been the subject of a large number of studies. Typically, the impact is calculated as follows: % members who give up a car3* members per car-sharing vehicle – 1 = vehicles reduced As shown in Exhibit 4-4, an average of 21% of members give up a vehicle after joining a car-sharing program. This figure is similar both in North America (21%) and Europe (22%). Fewer studies provide data on vehicle: member ratios. However, assuming a ratio of 1:27 (an assumption discussed later in this chapter), this equates to each car-sharing vehicle replacing five to six privately owned vehicles, or a net reduction of four or five. Some studies credit a reduction in vehicle ownership for members who state they avoided buying a car as a result of joining the car-sharing program. While this is certainly the case for many members, this form of survey question is more speculative and is likely to overstate the overall impacts. On average, 34% of members state that they avoid buying a car, with figures as high as 77% (Exhibit 4-4).
In contrast, one study that used a control group methodology suggests that
just 4% of members avoided purchasing a vehicle (Cervero & Tsai, 2003).
This is calculated as the difference between the number of members and
non-member controls who purchased a vehicle (Exhibit 4-5). This control
group methodology is subject to several limitations and may not be representative, and may therefore understate this figure, 4 but it does suggest that the true value lies somewhere in between.”
[url][/url]
I’m still making up my mind about this, but I think the evidence favors the program. Consider the 40% usage: one the one hand, yes, this means the cars sit there, parked, 60% of the time. On the other hand, what percentage of the time does your car site unused? Suppose you drive to work. The car then sits in the lot all day till you drive home. What is that, 3% usage? In that light, 40% seems incredibly high.
My concern is that Davis does not really have a population dense enough to support the Zipcars. For most people, if they have to walk 45 minutes to get to a car, they just won’t do it.
“Currently operating at a handful of depots at UC Santa Cruz and at a lone annex downtown, the program won funding from the local air district to add more cars and pickup points in the city.”
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_15564482
“For example, for the four cars that will be located downtown, a contract with the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce (in partnership with getDowntown)”
http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/03/09/column-mm-does-zipcar/
Although the University, city of Champaign and Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District have been released from financially backing Zipcar in Champaign, the service is expected to continue its growth in the Champaign-Urbana area….
http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/2010/05/03/zipcar-loses-financial-backing-but-use-predicted-to-increase
Note that in the latter case, the usage exceeded the minimum so the backing institutions were released from their obligation.
It seems that there might be other funding sources for this project.
Council member Souza:
Thank you for providing studies to support your position. However, upon perusing them I am still left with a few questions.
First, most of the cities studied only looked at large cities or metropolitan areas. Here is a quote from one source you cited (from SJSU):
“This project will examine car sharing programs in existence or under consideration in several U.S. cities, including San Francisco; San Diego; Portland; Seattle; Philadelphia; Evanston; Washington, DC; the Boston Metropolitan Area; and Arlington, VA.”
Davis is far smaller than most of these cities and Evanston and Arlington are next to very large cities.
Indeed the most comprehensive study you cited, from the Federal Transportation Administration, concludes that car sharing is much more difficult in smaller cities:
“The picture in smaller communities is mixed. While car-sharing can be found in places such as Aspen, Colorado and Whistler, British Columbia, operators in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Traverse City, Michigan have been forced to close. Operators have also had limited success with expanding to suburban markets near Seattle and San Francisco.”
Please keep in mind that UC Davis already has car sharing so there is also a danger of cannibalizing the zip car program on campus.
I think car sharing is a great idea in larger cities and some subsidy may make sense there, but not in Davis.
Lets try and focus on our strengths.
Bob Dunning gets it right again , this guy knows how to report a story , thanks Bob for being the voice of wisdom !
[quote]”A big difference in their position is that Sue Greenwald believes the Zipcar is a car rental business while Rochelle Swanson believes ‘the program offers a unique service to Davis residents, UCD students and visitors to the town’.”[/quote] [u]Sue is correct in her observation[/u]. Here is what Wikipedia calls it: “Zipcar is a for-profit, membership-based car sharing company providing automobile rental to its members, billable by the hour or day.” David, you claim a myth and a mischaracterization, but I notice you didn’t attempt to label it something else yourself.
That Joe and Stephen (and you) are “…attempting to situate the Zipcar not within the realm of car rentals, but within the realm of car-sharing…” wastes everybody’s time. What’s the difference? This tactic’s only purpose is to portray those who disagree with the council’s action as misinformed, stupid or both.
[u]Rochelle is incorrect in her observation.[/u] Not only is Zipcar service not unique (by definition), it’s a service [u]already offered[/u] to Davis residents, students and visitors through the existing UCD contract.
David, you often expand a situation into considerations of the “bigger picture.” This discussion–not really “anger” yet–wouldn’t be happening if Zipcar wasn’t one just more example of the new council’s accepting poorly conceived, inadequately considered and wasteful projects that are pushed though without the public even knowing they’re being considered.
Some of these examples probably wouldn’t exist if council members had better opportunity to consider and to discuss issues [u]before[/u] they vote to approve projects that don’t fit here. But, don’t plan on that happening until Mayor Don leaves the building.
Other than the one family mentioned in the Enterprise article, can anybody name one other person or family that has said that they will sell their car once ZipCar is available in downtown Davis?
How about the Souza household? Or the Saylor household? No?….I didn’t think so.
And let’s stop calling it carsharing. It’s a City-subsidized (and partially City-operated) commercial auto rental program.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but if someone has to go to the store, what difference does it make in amount of GHG emissions if they use their own car or a Zipcar to make the trip?
Secondly, students who often don’t have cars are only utilizing Zipcars 40% of the time. It takes 50% utilization to break even. That means that even if the Davis program could meet the UCD percentage of use, which is not likely since almost everyone living in Davis that is a non-student owns their own car already, then the program will cost Davis money – at a time of economic austerity.
A drop in the bucket here and a drop in the bucket there in funds for smaller projects like Zipcar adds up, and in aggregate is money not available for more worthwhile projects. What I do believe is the sort of project like Zipcar is massive time and effort spent on a non-issue to avoid addressing the bigger issues of finance reform that are going unaddressed.
At least one car company has already noted they rent by the hour for a two hour minimum at approximately the same rate as Zipcar – so Zipcar is essentially in direct competition with at least one car rental company in town.
There was essentially no public process in making this decision to go forward with Zipcars. In consequence, Bob Dunning and others have had a field day making fun of the entire idea because many questions are left unanswered, it looks like a bad deal for the city, it may damage three rental car businesses already in town, and will most likely result in costing the city money. I’m not getting the upside here for the city…
I remember sitting in the City Council chamber the evening this was approved, and just scratching my head in consternation as to why this was passed with no proper vetting of the issues. Just because an idea appears to be politically/environmentally correct, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
The last question I would ask is how many of the City Council members who voted for this project are now going to give up their cars in favor of using Zipcars and make sure they take fewer trips to ensure they reduce their GHG emissions? Seems to me they ought to be willing to put their money where their mouths are…
[quote]It seems that there might be other funding sources for this project. [/quote]
How about just funding it the same way other car rental agencies are funded?
Zipcar stands to make the profit (or not); let them risk their own money.
The City only stands to lose. At best, the City makes no payments to ZipCar (although I predict we will), but still pays for staff time and donates the exclusive use of scarce parking spaces without compensation.
[quote]”Council member Souza: Thank you for providing studies to support your position. However, upon perusing them I am still left with a few questions.”[/quote] You’ll still have most of them next week or next year, Dr. Wu. The councilman (and others) obviously has arrived at his position by considering global considerations without regard for local considerations.
That’s why we keep getting repeats of the same old general references about the benefits of “car sharing.” And we’ve gotten no responses to the repeated questions and concerns about the specific Davis issues of service duplication, contract elements and funding priorities.
“The last question I would ask is how many of the City Council members who voted for this project are now going to give up their cars in favor of using Zipcars and make sure they take fewer trips to ensure they reduce their GHG emissions? Seems to me they ought to be willing to put their money where their mouths are…”
Comeon Elaine, you must know by now that politicians tell you how “you” have to live, it doesn’t apply to them. The perfect example is Al Gore who lives in a huge way oversized energy consuming house and travels the world in private jets. Do as I tell you not as I do.
Let’s not forget to give credit to Sue and Rochelle for the way they’ve reconsidered the Zipcar snookering of the council. Note that the other three refuse to admit any second thoughts and keep repeating the same stale rationale?
Is this another example of how some refuse to ask for directions in spite of repeatedly driving in the wrong direction? I’m wondering is this bodes well for the Council, much like the Supreme Court has bene enhanced for future considerations?
In the interest of accuracy — the op-ed piece referenced in this post stated: “According to a report by the National Academy of Science, every shared car removes five to 15 vehicles from the road”.
However, the major National Academy of Sciences report on the topic (TCR report 108) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_108.pdf actually said the following:[quote]However, quantification of outcomes, such as changes in vehicle ownership and travel, still pose difficult challenges for car-sharing operators, as discussed below. Many partner organizations interviewed for this study believe that car-sharing is a “soft measure,” the impact of which will never be comprehensively quantified. Page 236 [/quote] and [quote]Most partners, however, are skeptical that car-sharing is a large enough phenomenon for any changes at this scale to be measurable, and there are
no examples as yet of success with measures at such a broad scale. WMATA, for example, believes that the ridership gain from car-sharing will be too
small to measure directly. Swedish Medical Center in Seattle suggests that
while car-sharing helps to reduce barriers to transit use and carpooling, it is difficult to quantify the effect. Page 244
[/quote]
There are commercially successful bike rentals currently in operation in cities throughout the world.
Why hasn’t this been considered?
[quote]If car-sharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more.[/quote]The logic of this escapes me. Selling peanut butter in 20 gallon cans in a store that requires an annual membership fee is still retail – even if few retailers have adopted this particular business model.
In fact, even the courts have formally designated Zipcar as a car rental company.
In the recent Minto v. Zipcar decision, Law.com reports:[quote]The plaintiff argued Zipcar didn’t qualify (as a car rental company) based largely on its own advertising, in which it goes to great lengths to distinguish itself from car rental companies, using such tag lines as “Car rental is so last century,” and “You could rent a car (but that would be silly).”[/quote]
But Supreme Court Justice Roger N. Rosengarten found: [quote]”This bargain — use of a car in exchange for a fee — appears little different from [‘traditional’] companies, notwithstanding Zipcar’s marketing statements that contrast it with those companies,” Rosengarten wrote in Minto v. Zipcar New York, 15401/09. “The Court finds that Zipcar is in ‘the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles’ as those words are traditionally and plainly understood.”[/quote]
The judge who formally declared Zipcar to be a car rental company is a New York State Supreme Court judge.
[quote]If car-sharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more.[/quote]
Uh…no. If “car-sharing” were as profitable as “traditional” car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Hual would be doing it more. But they’re not, and it’s not because they haven’t heard of it. (Of course, if they could snooker a city council into providing free space, free advertising, free staff time to do their work for them, and guarantee their profit on top of that, maybe they would.)
David Greenwald wrote:
“So by comparing a car rental to car-sharing, he is already comparing apples and oranges. While apples and oranges are both fruit and car rental and car-sharing are two modes of transportation, the similarities end there.”
David Greenwald Wrote:
“I also found this repeated comment interesting, “John at dcn.org calls the whole Zipcar fiasco ‘maladroit idiocy,’ Ken at ucdavis.edu says he’s so ticked off about the contract that he now realizes he has ‘no confidence in Council and staff to make grown-up decisions.'”
Imagine if John at dcn.org actually understood what will happen in five years with unfunded liabilities and pensions, but then Mr. Dunning does not write about such things, so John is probably in the dark about it.”
____________
Talk about comparing Apples to Oranges.
The sharing of vehicles sounds like a good idea, but I would like to see a different approach in Davis. Davis is a bike town but that has carrying capacity limitations. A fleet of shared electric golf cart type vehicles would be a better approach and would not infringe on the rental car business. The focus should be on sharing vehicles for short trips within the community – encouraging local shopping, reducing noise and reducing emissions
Just Saying:
” This discussion…wouldn’t be happening if Zipcar wasn’t one just more example of the new council’s accepting poorly conceived, inadequately considered and wasteful projects that are pushed though without the public even knowing they’re being considered”
Yep I agree 100%.
A modest proposal:
Since the funding for zipcars is based, at least as I understand it, on environmnetal remediation, could we use some of these funds to set up a competition for environmental projects (that actually would remediate) or for studies that could/would lead to direct and local remediation in the future?
We have an incredible amount of brainpower in this town. Unfortunately, our Council is not taking advantage of it.
David, if you don’t approve of the description “maladroit idiocy,” please select better terms from the following all-inclusive list:
a. clumsy
b. inept
c. gauche
d. unskillful
e. awkward
f. bungling
g. clumsy
h. ham-handed
i. inexpert
j. unreflective
k. mindless
l. hasty
m. all of the above
Now we can add “cherry-picking” to the descriptions. I’ll bet Sue wishes the council had been given time to look at this proposal instead of being forced to vote based on some promotional piece that looks like it was drafted by Zipcar’s PR department.
It’s apparent the council relied on a host of misleading claims in its rush to approve this scheme. And the worst thing is that it’s part of a pattern that’s destined to continue at least for four more months.
“It’s apparent the council relied on a host of misleading claims in its rush to approve this scheme. And the worst thing is that it’s part of a pattern that’s destined to continue at least for four more months.”
Maybe much longer, it beginning to look like Joe and Rochelle are going to fill Saylor’s shoes, width, length, style and all. So much for a new beginning.
justsaying:
I assume zip car’s PR dept had a hand in this somewhere. Am I too cynical? Further, although the studies are independant of zipcar, they do not appear to say what has been claimed by zip car’s proponents as the quotes from my blog and Sue’s blog above indicate.
That is the problem. My guess is that some council members or staff decided that this was a good idea after being bamboozled by zip car.
A liitle skepticism is always a good thing especially when handing out big chunks of money to subsidize a private business. (Please don’t reply and say $20-$70k is a drop in the bucket and not general; fund revenue. Its real money to most of us and money that could have been spent elsewhere.)
Apart from the waste of money this doesn’t make Davis look innovative, it makes us look like an easy target.
[quote]”Under [u]almost the same[/u] contractual provisions…” by Joe Krovoza, Stephen Souza, Kemble K. Pope and Danny Tomasell, [u]Davis Voice[/u] (9/18/00) and [u]Davis Enterprise[/u] (9/19/00).
“The city of Davis has [u]roughly the same[/u] contract as UC Davis…” by David, here (today).[/quote] Either way, this oft-repeated claim needs your verification.
Although concerns have been raised about many of the contract provisions, one is key to understanding whether this statement is true or not. (If true, the claim offers some reassurance because UCD has a stable of attorneys diligently looking out for its interests.)
Since I’ve only seen the City’s contract, I’m asking Joe, Stephen, Kemble, Danny and David to verify the critical provision. Does the University’s contract obligate UCD to pay the same per-vehicle subsidy based on the same usage percentages as the City’s contract calls for? (if not, the two contracts barely could be called similar, let alone “almost the same.”)
I’m sorry David, some of your pieces in the past have been brilliant but this piece makes Dunning in this case appear like the investigative reporter and you seem like an apologist for the establishment, this case being the city who blanked us over.
DPD: “He can rile people up on a project that will cost $72,000 but he never bothers to write on a problem that could bring down the entire city financial system.”
let me see if I can understand this: you are saying that 72,000 down the drain is okay because the city is in trouble for a lot more than that? do you know how stupid that sounds!
72,000 in addition to over 1 million in unfunded liability. am I missing something?
DPD: “So by comparing a car rental to car-sharing, he is already comparing apples and oranges.”
wrong. you are splitting hairs because you cannot argue dunning’s basic point, that Avis and Enterprise offer programs where they allow customers to pay for car usage in a similar manner to the ones offered by zipcar nice try though.
Dunning: “Let’s take Zipcar first – forget the unfair competition angle and the liability angle and the fact that city employees will be doing all of Zipcar’s dirty work and concentrate instead on the claim that Zipcar actually will reduce the number of cars on Davis streets – the theory being that the availability of a Zipcar will somehow convince untold numbers of Davisites to forego buying a new car – it’s silly, of course, but that’s the line members of the Davis City Council – who clearly didn’t read this contract from start to finish – are passing out.”
DPD: So we are going to look into this claim, but there would appear to be some research that suggests that this is correct. Does Mr. Dunning read through that research? Maybe, but he certainly does not indicate whether he has or is not. So is he merely speculating here?
Sorry David, but this paragraph doesn’t address anything that dunning just said in the above paragraph. You still have as yet to answer these basic charges that dunning makes.
“If the program really reduces car usage, then it is a relatively small price to pay, and if it is successful the price will be almost zero.” let me see if I can understand this one. people get involved in a car sharing program where they never drive? lol!! please David, stop writing on Zipcar. you are making yourself sound as rediculous as you sound when arguing about pot smoking.
[quote]”If carsharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more. The market is too small for them so far.”
versus
“Nearly three years ago, Roger Yu noted on this site that Hertz and Enterprise were jumping into the burgeoning hourly rental sector. Since that time, both programs have greatly expanded.”[/quote] Contradictory, you say? Oh, the irony–the authors of the first observation linked it directly from the first sentence (in the op-ed version provided to another Davis blog on Saturday) to the [u]USA Today[/u] 2/4/00 column titled: “Is car sharing or an hourly rental the solution for your next trip?” http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/mcgee/2010-02-01-car-sharing_N.htm
It appears that the Fervid Four didn’t even glance at their “supporting” article.
After somewhat humorously observing “that customers and vendors alike tend not to call it renting a car. They call it car sharing,” the [u]USA Today[/u] columnist went on to describe the “upsides…downsides” of the two approaches.
Again, how does it serve Davis to to have our leaders select only the data and opinions that uphold their stand on a given proposal, then promote the council’s action by pretending everything out there supports their personal view? Like you said, David, “Separating Fact from Myth”…one outrageous claim at a time.
David Greenwald says: “However, I also have a problem with the fact that the program has been mischaracterized”. Then he proceeds to quote the City’s fact sheet as saying: [quote]”The city will not perform Zipcar’s marketing. The contract simply says there is a person to contact on marketing opportunities… Zipcar also pays for all service and repair to the cars. The city’s only obligation is to provide an individual to ‘shuttle’ the car to its local service destination. It is estimated that each vehicle requires service once each quarter, so this provision will take four hours of staff time per quarter.” [/quote]However, the contract itself is not so clear. Under marketing, the contract states:
[quote]City shall designate a marketing coordinator to coordinate the marketing and promotion of the Zipcar service to residents of the City. City shall aggressively promote the Zipcar service as mutually agreed by the parties and shall use Zipcar’s standard marketing materials and collateral provided by Zipcar. — City of David/Zip Car Contract [/quote] Now, this is pretty ambiguous. If Zipcar feels we have not “aggressively” promoted Zipcar, the contract specifies that any disagreements will be settled in Massachusetts courts.
In terms of maintenance, the city “estimates” that cars will “only” have to transported by City Staff 4 times a year. But the contract actually says: [quote]City shall assign an employee to transport the vehicles for maintenance (including but not limited to oil changes, tire rotations, and other services as may be required from time to time) to locations designated by Zipcar’s Fleet Manager…..City’s employee will coordinate all cleaning and maintenance activities with Zipcar’s Fleet Manager[/quote]I see ambiguity here as well. What does “coordinate” all cleaning mean? Is the car only cleaned 4 times a year? Again, any disagreements concerning these contractual terms would have to be settled in Massachusetts courts, under Massachusetts law.
Another little item in the contract that doesn’t show up on the city fact shee:[quote]City will provide highly visible, dedicated and reserved parking locations for each zipcar Vehicle provided under Schedule A at no charge to Zipcar and shall post at such location’s Zipcar signage and Tow Away noticed provided by Zipcar. … In addition, at Zipcar’s request, City agrees to provide additional, highly visible, dedicated and reserved parking location(s) for Zipcar Vehicles, at no charge to Zipcar, to enable zipcar to meet the demand for Zipcar Vehicles. Such additional parking locations shall be mutually agreed to by the parties and shall be provided within ten days of Zipcar’s request. [/quote] This sounds to me as if we have agreed to provide, free of charge, any additional prime parking spaces that Zipcar demands — and make them available within 10 days.
And if we don’t like it, we’ll have to settle it in Massachusetts.
I’ll address the 400 pound elephant..
I’m getting sick to death of how cutting carbon emissions is the overriding concern here. I swear to god you would destroy the entire city budget if you thought it would take 1 car off the road. your priorities are backward, and so are sue’s.
Sue , but your wiseness voted for this contract , now the heat in the kitchen is getting hot , thanks for spending $ 75,000.00 dollars . Please do your homework from now on !
“Sue , but your wiseness voted for this contract , now the heat in the kitchen is getting hot , thanks for spending $ 75,000.00 dollars . Please do your homework from now on !”
Ecspecially when it comes time to negotiate the next Firemen’s contract, right Avatar?
Avatar: We have a provision that allows us to bring back votes for reconsideration at the meeting immediately following the meeting in which the vote was taken. I made the motion for reconsideration in a timely fashion.
[quote]My problem with Dunning is that he likes to focus on these mini-“scandals” and never focuses on the 800-pound gorilla in the room. He can rile people up on a project that will cost $72,000 but he never bothers to write on a problem that could bring down the entire city financial system.[/quote] Unlike this blog, David? Like what about the one time in ten long years ten years that I was uncharacteristically short-tempered enough to use an ill-chosen word when discussing the council vote on our $4 million a year cafeteria cash-out provision, and you posted the ill-chosen word dialogue on u-tube where you feature it to this very day?
How many articles did you devote to that slip, when you could have been discussing the council majority’s failure to reform the $4 million cafeteria cash out, which was the issue that had upset me?
Perhaps this criticism of Dunning is a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Please don’t edit this comment, in that it is truthful, polite, germane to your post.
Most rental car companies clean their cars after every return. It seems very unlikley that the zip car will be cleaned only four times a year, when srviced. Who is responsible for something as mundane as washing these cars?
On the issue of cutting carbon emissions–the rub here is that, as so many have pointed out, there is no guarantee than any emissions would be cut. This sounds like bad economics and bad ecology. The City has mitigation funds that can somehow be used to better our environment, locally or globally (or both). Lets use them wisely and not chase after some half-baked idea. And why is Sue being castigated for at least having the courage to change her mind? I’m worried about the CC members who still like this project.
Do we have access to the contract?
How does it differ from the UCD contract ?
Did Harriet bless it before signing it? Seems there would have been questions she could/should have raised.
Did Katherine Hess have anything to do with this ?
Sue G said:[quote]How many articles did you devote to that slip, when you could have been discussing the council majority’s failure to reform the $4 million cafeteria cash out, which was the issue that had upset me?[/quote]She’s got a point, David G. We should be much more concerned about Council governance and decisions than their behavior towards one another. In that case, the Vanguard coverage had the effect of helping to obscure the very issue that you and I agree is so much more important.
just saying: “”If carsharing were the same as car rental, Hertz, Enterprise, Avis and U-Haul would be doing it more. The market is too small for them so far.”
versus
“Nearly three years ago, Roger Yu noted on this site that Hertz and Enterprise were jumping into the burgeoning hourly rental sector. Since that time, both programs have greatly expanded.”
Contradictory, you say? Oh, the irony–the authors of the first observation linked it directly from the first sentence (in the op-ed version provided to another Davis blog on Saturday) to the USA Today 2/4/00 column titled: “Is car sharing or an hourly rental the solution for your next trip?” http://www.usatoday.com/travel…ring_N.htm
It appears that the Fervid Four didn’t even glance at their “supporting” article.
After somewhat humorously observing “that customers and vendors alike tend not to call it renting a car. They call it car sharing,” the USA Today columnist went on to describe the “upsides…downsides” of the two approaches.
Again, how does it serve Davis to to have our leaders select only the data and opinions that uphold their stand on a given proposal, then promote the council’s action by pretending everything out there supports their personal view? Like you said, David, “Separating Fact from Myth”…one outrageous claim at a time.”
Oh this is a gem! Good catch just saying!!
No comment pro or con about Zipcar, but as to the City providing free parking for car rental companies, here’s a point of reference. A couple of weeks ago I visited the donut shop on East Covell, and found that Claremont Drive was completely parked with Avis rental cars. That was at 5:30 AM, and I try to park on Claremont because of ease of access and egress. I estimate they had 15 cars parked on public streets, which blocked access to the retail businesses they adjoin.
To Sue Greenwald: good catch on the nebulous terms of the K. Egads, whatever did the city inadvertantly get themselves into? Did Harriet Steiner even read this K before it was signed? If not, why not?
And yes, Sue, I remember very well that you made a timely motion for reconsideration. Would that the rest of the CC has listened to your concerns. As I understand it, now we are stuck with this mess for no less than two years, no?
Musser: “I’m getting sick to death of how cutting carbon emissions is the overriding concern here. I swear to god you would destroy the entire city budget if you thought it would take 1 car off the road. your priorities are backward, and so are sue’s.”
I’m just not seeing how this is going to take any cars off the road. Are Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Kemble Pope et al going to give up their cars in favor of Zipcars? And what if they did give up their cars in favor of only using Zipcars? Does that guarantee they will change their driving habits one iota and make fewer trips around town? The GHG emissions from one trip to the grocery store in a Zipcar = the GHG emissions from one trip to the grocery store in your own car. Bicycle-sharing or car-pooling would make far more sense in terms of reducing GHG emissions.
SODA, excellent questions that have yet to be answered. P.S.–It’s difficult to find the contract on the city website because several default searches report “0 Results” since it doesn’t include pdf documents. But, it’s there at: http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100727/10 Zipcar.pdf
Again, Sue, you are being much too generous in your critique. Where you see ambiguity, I see very clear conditions on the city–all favoring Zipcar. And, recently, we’re reading something really different–telling us to believe the authors’ patently obvious revisionism and not to believe our lying eyes.
Supporters may [u]wish[/u] their contract says what they think it should say, but it doesn’t. It’s too late to change it, and it’s not right tell us it means something different than what’s written down and signed.
David, I’m not sure what good your investigation will do at this point. We’ve repeatedly been told that it’s a done deal, no way to go back now. And speaking of Dunning, it’s surprising the staff and council didn’t take the time to get their ducks in a row as soon as he started making fun of this scheme. It looks as though they accelerated instead, without checking out the details…until now it’s too late for anything to make any difference.
But, if you’re spending your time on this, please check on the biggest unanswered question. Why did the council decide this approach is better for Davis than simply providing the dedicated parking to support the existing UCD program? That would have given us all of the claimed benefits with none of the attendant costs, commitments and liability.
Today’s Silly Talk, part 1
[u]Fervent Foursome Silly Talk[/u]: “The city will not be performing Zipcar’s marketing for them. The contract simply says that there is a person to contact on marketing opportunities.”
[u]Actual Contract Language[/u]: “City shall designate a marketing coordinator to coordinate the marketing and promotion of the Zipcar service to residents of the City. City shall aggressively promote the Zipcar service as mutually agreed by the parties and shall use Zipcar’s standard marketing materials and collateral provided by Zipcar. City may create co-branded marketing materials at City’s expense upon mutual written agreement of the parties, subject to City’s compliance with Zipcar’s co-branding guidelines and Zipcar’s review and approval prior to
dissemination…In addition, (the) City shall install and fill…Zipcar’s standard signage and
collateral/postcard drop boxes.”
[u]FF Silly Talk[/u]: “The insurance liability provision is standard and does not cost the city any money. This provision has been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management and they conclude that it provides sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk, to the maximum extent provided by law.”
[u]Actual Contract Language[/u]: “City will maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, will have Zipcar named as an additional insured under such policy and will provide Zipcar with a certificate evidencing such insurance.”
Let us all know where we can find the company that issues these free million-dollar-single-limit policies that allow free additional insureds; Sounds like a heck of a deal! Why would Harriet conclude that this is a provision that “provides sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk to maximum (legal) extent” rather than a provision that lists city responsibilities? (Did this contract really get her full attention at a time she was locating a new firm notorious for lack of oversight in their municipal work? I’ll bet she also wishes she could have a Mulligan on this project.)
[u]FF Silly Talk[/u]: “It is also worth mentioning that carshare programs support longer-term car rental companies.”
[u]Logical Person Question[/u]: How’s that? With free dedicated parking spaces and more on 10 days notice in the future? Protection from financial failure? Insurance coverage? Cash subsidies to keep their profit levels higher than they earn? I don’t think so!
Maybe you could provide some specifics before announcing that this Silly Talk is “worth mentioning.” In fact, the contract’s first provision is an exclusivity agreement that prohibits City program support of other car rental companies: “City agrees that Zipcar shall be the only car sharing service promoted and used by City.” A claim needs to be true before it’s “worth mentioning.”
Today’s Silly Talk, part 2
[u]FF Silly Talk[/u]: “That process was very public, with lots of input.” “Both the councilmembers and the city fact sheet argue that this arose in response to community support for the idea of car-sharing.”
[u]Enterprise and Vanguard[/u]: Just try to find ANYTHING about Zipcars (or for car sharing for that matter) before July 2010 when the contract already was drafted!
Community involvement, public input and due diligence can’t really happen if you don’t think about them until after a proposal is added the council agenda. If public notification is limited to insider and special interest groups’ email lists, the council should expect to get some group-think recommendations.
[u]FF Silly Talk[/u]: “The developer funds were deposited specifically for general environmental mitigation obligations and are not currently set aside or allocated for another purpose (and are not from the city’s general fund) (and have been sitting untouched for so long)….The Climate Action Team concluded that spending money to start up a carshare program in Davis could be one of the best uses of funds to achieve reduction in carbon emissions.”
[u]Logical Person[/u]: It’s really tiresome to hear this concept over and over–just because funds come from a dedicated source doesn’t excuse lax decisionmaking. In all this time, couldn’t the City have solicited and prioritized a list of worthwhile and qualified “environmental mitigation” projects?
[u]DGSilly Talk[/u]: “Dunning Throws Fire On The Argument….he likes to focus on these mini-“scandals” and never focuses on the 800-pound gorilla in the room….he is already comparing apples and oranges….does Mr. Dunning read through that research?”
[u]Logical Person[/u]: It would be good to stop making these discussions all about you and all about Dunning. It doesn’t help your readers determine what makes sense and what doesn’t.
[u]FF Silly Talk[/u]: “We are reimagining urban cityscapes by offering personal transportation as a service not a product,,,,The global trend is for increasing use of mass transit because of the high cost of gas and auto expenses in a recession. We are moving to self service and an age that is focusing on access versus ownership, examining our expenses and looking where we can save money….There will be synergy with the success of the UC Davis program.”
[u]Logical Person[/u]: Nothing specific, just basic silly talk. This meaningless gobbledegook tries to pass as facts but is designed to obfuscate.
SODA, this blog doesn’t like certain URLs. It drops out the % symbol, and therefore can’t link to the page. http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100727/10 Zipcar.pdf
I give up, sorry.
Yes, the city URL’s are a problem. I haven’t found a way to configure some of them so this site will read them.
Try this
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/packet.cfm?agenda=F700BDA4-1143-EEBD-B0A6D73D35C7E7B3[/url]
and then scroll down to item 10, Zipcar, a pdf file.
To use long links simply do this: link ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100727/10Zipcar.pdf[/url])
which is:
[ url=http://blah.blah.blah ]anchor[ /url]
just take out the spaces so it will work
After reading through this blog and looking at papers Mr. Souza cites, I find nothing that I like about zip car.
Why did the CC support this? I see no vested interest.
I can only conclude that someone on the Council (Krovoza?) concluded it was a good idea and convinced others to support it. Saylor pushed this through with his typical lack of concern for community input and now we’re stuck with zipcar. I originally thought this idea was just “silly talk”, but now its clear that the zip car affair is emblematic of so many things that are wrong with this Council.
Now I hear that the contract requires the City to have general liability insurance–this would seem to imply that we are indeed potentially on the hook if there is a lawsuit and $20k or $70k could turn into much much more.
Thanks City Council for all your hard work on our behalf. We can all sleep better knowing you are looking out for us. (Wait a minute I’m posting this in the middle of the night!)
[quote]At its very worst, the city would be out about $74,400 from the developer impact fund if this program totally and completely flopped.[/quote]
At the very worst someone using a zipcar is involved in an accident and someone sues the City. Our million dollar liability insurance is insufficient and the City is on the hook for millions more.
I have no idea how likely this scenario is but unfortunately I have no confidence that our City does either.
I am looking into that issue Dr. Wu, but I don’t believe the city could be sued if someone using a zipcar were involved in an accident.
Lets charge Zipcar rental fees for use of the parking spaces. The other car rental agencies have to pay rent.
David:
I hope you have a crackerjack legal staff on hand.
Since it sounds like the City is required to maintain the car (does this include routine cleaning/washing).
What if the City failed to maintain the car (e.g., the brakes) and as a result of this failure the zipcar got into an accident (e.g. the brakes failed) and the zip car ran over a pregnant woman with a high six figure income.
Unfortunately for us the woman and baby survived but they were both brain damaged (she later tries to run for City Council but that is another story).
I am not a lawyer but it sounds like negligence on the part of the City of Davis. I assume the City would be liable since the failure to properly maintain the vehicle would be negligence (even assuming we did take the vehicle in for routine servicing to Hanlees, generating sales tax dollars that would be used to pay for the sweetheart loan we gave them).
I’m not a lawyer and perhaps someone will shoot holes in this scenario, but how do we know there are not other contingencies that we haven’t thought of.
The fact that the City is required to maintain general liability insurance should be a huge red flag folks.
BTW the driver runs over the woman while backing up into reverse angle parking
Dr. Wu, I have to believe the Council didn’t really look into all the possible ramifications of this deal when they rushed it through. If they had floated it a little longer and let the public have more of a say we could’ve sidestepped alot of these issues.
[quote]I am looking into that issue Dr. Wu, but I don’t believe the city could be sued if someone using a zipcar were involved in an accident. — David Greenwald[/quote]Dr. Wu has it exactly right, David. You will never get a definitive answer, because the liability of entities involved in renting easy-access cars parked permanently near bars has not yet been tested.
In fact, it was only a few months ago that Zipcar was determined to be included under the liability exemptions of rental car companies.
BUT…this exemption does not cover situations where negligence is involved. With a standard rental car company, people typically rent from a living, breathing person. If they are noticeably drunk when they show up, they are not given a car.
With Zipcar, an individual can make a reservation with their mobile phone only minutes before getting into the car parked by the bar (according to Zipcar). Hence, the reservation requirement would NOT be a significant barrier to most intoxicated individuals. I don’t believe that the responsibilities of rental car agencies in such circumstances have been determined yet by the courts.
Since we provide the parking near the drinking establishments downtown free of charge, I suspect we could be named in litigation trying to make the case of negligence. Even if we were to prevail, defense is always expensive.
Zipcar has only been in business for 10 years, is in debt and has never turned a profit. I suspect the city would be viewed as the deep pockets in such a case. And I have spoken with local attorneys specializing in public law who share my concerns.
I also think the fact that the City is required to maintain these vehicles is an invitation for a lawsuit.
Also, I’ve contracted as a consultant for a number of cities and am always required to sign some sort of statement limiting the city’s liability. It doesn’t sound like any such arrangement was made here–I hope I am wrong. That is a bit frightening and surprising.
I have to do a mea culpa here. I ran into Kemble Pope today at a workshop. We said hello, and he expressed surprise at my challenge for him to give up his car in favor of using Zipcars. He gently pointed out to me he did not own a car. I profusely apologized to him for my commment challenging Don Saylor, Steve Souza, Kemble Pope et al to put their money where there collective mouths are and give up their cars to use zip cars as they are encouraging the rest of us to do. Kemble Pope does not drive a car, so at least he does put his money where his mouth is figuratively speaking! He did concede not everyone is able to do without their own car.
My views on the Zipcar have not changed (I think it was a bad deal for the city), but I do admire Kemble for living his principles. And I also appreciate his gentlemanly attitude and willingness to accept my apology!
Not exactly on topic though relevant to wasting public funds on vehicles: I’ve always wondered who pays for Don’s gem car? I’m guessing he must reimburse the city in some manner or else all the other CC members would be crying foul.