Brazen daylight grab thwarted!!
Portland, Oregon—
I caught another Sergeant’s tow driver attempting an illegal heist of my neighbor’s car from his designated parking spot yesterday afternoon.
The Sergeant’s tow-jacker was in the act of telling the neighbor that his car didn’t have the proper Hacienda CDC tag and he was therefore impounding the vehicle when he saw me coming and changed his mind about going through with the tow, just like that!
We’ve been down this path before, and Sergeant’s towed a tenant’s vehicle from its designated spot back there, in clear violation of Oregon statute, just a couple of weeks ago.
I informed the neighbor about his rights under Senate Bill 431 (2007), to wit: If your rental or lease agreement provides for a designated parking spot, then they need your permission before they can tow the vehicle. This is the law!!!
This law has been on the books for more than two years now, but Sergeant’s is counting on (your) lack of awareness, continuing to make illegal tows all over town.
It’s a tough economy for predatory patrol towers, too….
Remember, the entire organization runs on commission. I understand that the new rate for towjacking your vehicle is a ransom of $340, plus whatever other fees they can pile on.
In absolute fairness to Sergeant’s Towing, they are making the tows under an agreement with the property owner, Hacienda CDC.
Hacienda CDC operates in a de facto partnership with Sergeant’s and Retriever Towing, has done so for years. Hacienda CDC owns the real estate and gives towing predators carte blanche, authorizing commission-paid drivers to tow at will, without regard for the laws protecting tenants from illegal tows.
Hacienda CDC is therefore the most prolific authorizer-of-predatory-towing in all of Northeast Portland, responsible for sending many a tow truck driver to sunny Baja, year after year, tow after tow, $340 bucks a pop now….
And they call it affordable housing….
Hacienda’s clout in City Hall and on the PDC, however, enables the organization to carve out an illegal towaway zone from public right-of-way at it’s NE 42nd Ave offices, for the convenience of its staff.
I reported on this fact before, and Hacienda CDC staff heard from the City of Portland that their “Hacienda parking only” signage was illegal, but the signs are still there….
Showing posts with label towing in Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label towing in Oregon. Show all posts
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Oregon House Committee hears predatory towing bill
Portland, Oregon--The Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee heard HB 2578 yesterday, February 25, sponsored by the committee's Vice Chair, Representative Chuck Riley.
Predatory patrol towers are fighting back to protect their towjacking profit margins.
Testimony by a number of witnesses indicated that the patrol towers are largely ignoring the regulations imposed on them by new state laws, still the same packs of junkyard dogs roving around the state.
First speakers up were the Mayor and Chief of Police of the City of Fairview, the first municipality in the state to take action against predatory patrol towing, and they described how 100% of the problem incidents regarding predatory towing went away overnight, with the passage of the citywide ban.
Every city and every county government in the state has the power to do exactly what Fairview has done, simply enact the ordinance.
Now it's up to you, to urge your city and county officials to take action, and to support Representative Riley's bill.
Here's the link to the audio record of the hearing:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/
Select the date feb 25 2009
The towing bill discussion begins about at the 14:00 mark. My testimony starts at about 1:12:10.
Isubmitted the following written testimony (slightly edited for clarity):
Vice Chair Riley and Members of the Committee:
My name is Sean Cruz. I am a resident of Parkrose neighborhood in NE Portland. I served as Senator Avel Gordly’s Legislative Aide and Chief of Staff, representing Senate District 23 throughout the 2003, 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions. I also claim the distinction of having “Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story”, which I write about on my blog.
I led Senator Gordly’s Senate Bill 431 workgroup on patrol towing reforms and I represented her office in the Attorney General’s Senate Bill 116 workgroup, led by Eva Novick. Senate Bill 116 incorporates several of Senator Gordly’s legislative concepts.
Both bills passed the House and Senate with unanimous votes in committee and on the floor, but fell just short of Senator Gordly’s goal, which was to model California’s statute, requiring the property owner or manager to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice, in order to promote the safety and wellbeing of members of the general pubic. California’s law also held the advantage of having been recently upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prior to the 2007 legislative session, Oregon’s patrol towing industry was largely unregulated, and there was a lack of clarity in Oregon statutes as to whether the state and local governments had the authority to regulate businesses built around the involuntary towing of citizen’s private vehicles. The Attorney General, for example, had no explicit authority to even receive complaints from the public, much less act on them.
This fact was enormously frustrating to many Oregon citizens, who often found that the local police were also stymied, with no power over the towing disputes they were often called into other than to allow a tow truck driver to take a citizen’s property away.
There was a widespread assumption that federal law regarding interstate commerce pre-empted state and local governments, and on this basis patrol towing metastasized over several decades, seemingly untouchable, answerable to no authority. It was literally the Wild West, here in Oregon, the only state on the West coast that has not banned patrol towing.
The first thing we had to do in 2007 was to establish that authority.
Thanks to the research of a constituent, Tim Barrett, whose car was patrol-towed less than five minutes after his arrival to visit his son in a Fairview apartment, we found what was needed:
In 2005, in Tillotson vs the City of San Diego, the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals found that California’s law curbing patrol towing was designed to promote the safety of the general public, who might be stranded or whose family might be stranded in unsafe circumstances, and of the tow drivers themselves and is therefore exempted from the federal pre-emption.
Testimony from a number of citizens during the tow bill hearings demonstrated that this was happening frequently, including separating drivers from prescription medications and leaving people in wheelchairs stranded on the sidewalk. You will shortly hear Mr. Michael Meiers describe his experience….
This regulatory authority, in the language used by the federal court, comprises Section 1 of Senate Bill 116, clarifying the exemption regarding the regulation of involuntary towing, including the price thereof.
Paragraph 2 (a) states: “The Legislative Assembly declares that…statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
I want to applaud the City of Fairview, the first municipality in the state to take action under Senate Bill 116, passed on a unanimous vote by this Committee.
Speaking on behalf of Senator Gordly and thousands of aggrieved Oregonians, I want to thank Vice Chair Riley and the Committee for taking this issue on with HB 2578. I wish you great success!
It was not my personal predatory patrol towing horror story that brought Senator Gordly to see a need for legislative action, although when the towers broke my transmission that Saturday morning, they sidelined the vehicle that I used to drive the office carpool to the Capitol every day. We had to switch to Senator Gordly’s Executive Assistant Denise Pederson’s vehicle for the remainder of the session.
I would like to note for the record that 100% of the many dozens of complaints that Senator Gordly’s office received regarding predatory or wrongful towing practices involved patrol towing. None were a result of the legitimate practices and operations of tow companies that do not patrol tow.
Senator Gordly’s legislative concepts came about from what we learned about how the industry has operated unregulated in Oregon, from what we learned directly from interviews with many dozens of Oregonians, from the tow companies’ practices and business model, from the attitudes of its employees, and from the tow company’s own invoices.
Burden placed on public resources
All of these citizens called the police when their vehicles were taken. Unlike any other commercial activity in Oregon, patrol towing creates a direct burden on local police resources, paid for entirely by the taxpaying general population.
This burden begins when the tow driver calls the police to report that he is towing a certain vehicle. Then there is the second call to the police, coming either when the vehicle owner finds her vehicle gone and is reporting it stolen, or when the vehicle owner returns to her vehicle and finds some surly stranger with a tow truck hooking it up. This driver is fully aware that either money changes hands at this moment, or he is wasting his time, about to drive off with an empty wallet.
The third burden on police resources comes when at least one officer is called to the scene, and then anything can happen or might have already happened.
Beyond this lies the burden on the court system that can follow, all at public expense, and all of this hubbub began—with members of the public left stranded in every sort of circumstance—with a decision made by a tow truck driver working on commission, generally in the dead of night, underpaid and under great pressure.
They’re stealing parking….
In the 2007 legislative workgroup discussions, the patrol towers stated that they regarded all of their tows to be lawful and righteous, that they always dealt with every mistaken tow incident swiftly and properly…we disputed that.
In those same discussions, the patrol towers stated their opinion that the people whose vehicles they towed were “stealing” parking. They were thieves.
In their own minds, a small number of patrol towing companies had created a crime called theft of parking, and through a mass of agreements with individual property owners, carved out a niche for themselves as a quasi-police force, with sole authority to make and enforce the law, to act as judge, jury and tax collector.
If your vehicle was towed, it was because you were a thief, stealing parking. And your story was a pack of lies. So when Mary Q. Public came to their tow yard to claim her vehicle, she was viewed as a thief and a liar and treated as such. This is how they described their operations….
Furthermore, it is not only the drivers who are paid on commission. So is everyone else in the organization. So when Mary Q. Public comes to the tow yard and argues about the bill, she is talking to people who are not going to take a dollar out of their own pockets for any reason, certainly not for this lying parking thief.
“Attitude” fees and confiscation
These are the people that have been willfully charging the public “attitude” or “anger” fees in this state for decades.
And they have openly charged the public fees in amounts that are beyond anything reasonable, beyond deterrence, beyond fair recompense, beyond punitive…many of their tows result in the actual confiscation of the car.
In the last interim, Senator Gordly’s office received a call from a constituent in East Multnomah County, requesting our urgent assistance. A patrol tow company was about to auction off a vehicle that belonged to a person who was a patient in the Oregon State Hospital. The towers claimed that the owner owed them $ 2000 in storage fees, accrued since the time they had towed the vehicle from a hospital parking lot.
The young man had gone to the hospital for a medical appointment, parked his car in the lot, but suffered a psychotic episode there and was taken directly to the State Hospital, where he continued to reside. He had no intention of parking there over the limit, and hospital personnel would certainly have not made towing their first choice, if they had a role in authorizing the tow.
If the tow company auctioned off the car, the young man would emerge from the hospital with an unfair burden of debt and without the car. His only income was his disability check going into this situation.
We intervened and the tow company released the vehicle without the charge.
Apples to apples
The patrol tow industry opened this can of worms itself when Retriever Towing took my two vehicles, parked side by side on my own property in my own driveway, at the same time and under the same circumstances, but with completely different invoices and charges, providing an apples-to-apples opportunity to see how they were operating. Those invoices are in your packet as Exhibit “A”.
In March 2005, an absentee neighboring property owner, Hacienda Community Development Corporation, began employing tow companies to patrol the small parking area that serves two triplexes that it owns on a flag lot behind my home.
I park my vehicles on my own property, adjacent to the lot.
I learned about the patrol towing contract the day after the tow company posted its signs in the lot, when I woke up that Saturday morning to find both of my vehicles gone. There was no prior notification by any party to the contract, either to the neighborhood or to the tenants themselves.
I called the number posted on the signs. The tow company affirmed that they had indeed stolen my vehicles and that I could pay just under $400 to get them back that day, or I could wait until Monday if I wanted to talk to a manager. I called the property manager, who did not answer their phone. I tracked down Hacienda’s board chair, who informed me that I should either call the police or wait until Monday. I called the police.
A police officer came to my home, looked at my plat and confirmed that my parking area was my own private property. He then drove to the patrol tower’s lot to request the release of my vehicles, but the patrol towers refused to do so.
Eventually, later that day, after a number of phone calls, including more conversations with the police officer, the towers did release the vehicles. At first, they could not find one of my vehicles, although they knew that they had it.
The following Monday, as I was arriving here for work at the state Capitol, I learned that the towers had returned and taken one of the vehicles for a second time.
My absentee-landlord neighbor’s patrol towers have trespassed on my property and towed my vehicle four times—so far—and broken my transmission in the process.
In each of these incidents, to this very day, all parties to my neighbor’s patrol towing contract have disclaimed responsibility for the trespass, the theft of my vehicle, the damage to my property and for all of the trouble they put me through.
The tow company stated that they towed the vehicles according to their contract with the apartment managers, the apartment management company claimed that they told the towers not to tow my vehicles, and the property owner took the position that they knew nothing about it and that I should work it out with the tow company.
Attachment “B” in your packet is a copy of a subsequent letter from the City of Portland Towing Coordinator to the property owner’s Executive Director, and quoting Bertha Ferran the Hacienda board chair as stating “the tower probably has a contract to provide this service, not Hacienda CDC.”
The Ms Ferran knew with absolute certainty about the contract. In fact, Hacienda’s affordable housing properties generate more patrol tows than any other property owner in NE Portland, upwards of 150 tows a year for some 300 apartments.
Attachment “B” also illustrates the ongoing burden on public resources of patrol towing incidents.
The four incidents at my home involved four different drivers, two different tow companies and two different property management companies.
The only constants are the property ownership, the patrol contract, tow drivers working on commission, and the result. It is abundantly clear that none of these incidents would have occurred had HB 2578 been the law of the land, removing commission-paid drivers from decision making and requiring the property managers or owners to be present at the time of the tow.
From that weekend to the present day, these two different patrol towing companies have subjected my neighbors to the same level of intensity, towing the tenants’ legally parked vehicles, towing vehicles despite clearly displayed Hacienda parking permits, showing up and hooking up vehicles minutes after they were parked, and pulling numbers out of the air. I personally witnessed a driver attempt to extort money from one of the families living there. I went back there and broke that up myself.
Four years later, my van is still sitting in my driveway with a broken transmission, and I’ll bet they are sorry now….
Attachment “A.”
Aside from the name of the company, the two invoices are completely different. No line items on the list of charges and fees appearing on one invoice appear on the other, none are identical, and neither are the amounts.
They can’t possibly both be correct. Which, if any, is correct? The towers took the position that they were both correct.
The towing company treated each vehicle in practice differently as well.
We came to learn that the towers were exploiting a line in ORS statute that prevented regulation if the parking lot held ten or fewer spaces. The lot behind my home had parking for only seven vehicles. The City of Portland had limited authority to regulate towing, and only if a parking lot was larger than ten spaces.
Who knew that the size of a parking lot made any difference in how much an Oregon citizen could be charged, on what fees could be assessed, and in how one would be treated?
These two invoices reflected that reality. The upper invoice in Attachment “A” reflects the fees and line items permitted under the authority of the City of Portland.
The lower invoice shows how the towing company was operating absent of regulation. This also explains the enthusiasm with which the tow drivers were patrolling that seven-space parking lot. More fees and charges, higher commissions, no public authority to regulate. I have seen two tow trucks in that lot at the same time.
Under the regulated invoice, the driver took my vehicle to their tow yard only about 25 blocks from my home in outer NE Portland. The City does not permit mileage to be charged.
Under the unregulated invoice, however, the other driver took my vehicle clear across town to their lot at NW 15th and Quimby.
He charged me $110 for the tow, $16 for his mileage, driving around town, $3 for the fuel he claimed that he burned while towing my vehicle, $10 for taking a photo of the tow (which clearly identifies the trespass and theft), $35 for the dolly he used to break my transmission, and $15 for a dispatch fee. Other than the tow fee, none of these charges were permitted under City code.
And you can see there are boxes for more fees: “Retow fee”, “Retow dollies”, “recovery and winching”, “service call”, “gate fee” and “service fee.”
Note that the regulated invoice has a $ 20/day printed storage fee.
The unregulated invoice daily storage rate is not printed. Here, the driver has written in a rate of $33. Which is the correct number? The tower claimed they were both correct.
The unregulated invoice bears no printed rates or costs. In all cases, the driver alone decides what numbers to put in the boxes and which boxes to check. The form also has a blank line at the bottom of the price column where the driver or lot employee can invent things to charge, like “anger” or “attitude” fees, and write in a number he likes.
And he is paid on commission.
2007 legislation
At the start of the 2007 session, Senator Gordly filed five legislative concepts to address patrol towing, later concentrated into the two bills.
Our contributions to Senate Bill 116, sponsored by the Attorney General, were these:
Section 1 of SB 116 clarifies the authority of the state and Oregon municipal governments to regulate involuntary towing.
Senate Bill 116 also removed the language from ORS that barred regulation of parking lots if they contained ten or fewer vehicles. In the workgroup, with the assistance of Legislative Counsel, we learned that there was no record of why that line was in statute in the first place, or why the number was ten. Even the patrol towers could offer no reason, other than that they thought it was a good idea. At one point, one of the patrol company owners shouted at me that the City had no right to regulate in that parking lot behind my home. Well, they do now.
Senate Bill 116 requires tow drivers to provide vehicle owners with a printed rate sheet, in order to eliminate the practice of commission-paid drivers pulling a smorgasbord of numbers out of the air.
However, a recent patrol towing incident in Wilsonville, where a driver attempted to tow the vehicle of an injured woman fleeing an assault, indicates that the company involved is not complying with this provision of law. In the extensive media coverage that followed, no one, not the police, not even the owner of the tow company, interviewed on-camera, knew how much money his driver had charged the victim. They are clearly not complying with the provisions passed out of this Committee in 2007.
Senate Bill 431
Senate Bill 431 addressed patrol towing abuses in landlord-tenant relationships.
SB 431 prohibits towers from removing vehicles solely for having expired tags. Those tenants’ rental agreements gave them the right to park their car in the lot, and they were violating no state law as long as they kept that vehicle parked and off the street, which is where it was.
SB 431 requires landlords to provide tenants with written notice that includes the actual costs they might face if their vehicle is towed. It is not unreasonable to have a pre-printed rate sheet, but the patrol towers really howled about this one in the workgroup.
Landlords must provide this information at the time the rental or lease agreement is signed, they must update the tenants if and when any of those numbers change, and they must provide the tenants with parking permits. It is highly doubtful that any are complying with this portion of the law passed by this Committee, as none of the constituents who contacted Senator Gordly’s office in the interim and none of my neighbors have received any such notices or rate sheets or parking permits from their landlords.
Opposition to the 2007 legislation came from lobbyists for commercial property owners, who stated that they absolutely needed patrol towing, but acknowledged that they received these services for free. Their agreements with patrol towers permit the towers to load all costs, real or otherwise, and their profit expectations on the backs of their victims.
Unless landlords and property managers participate in the expense of the service and the cost of police resources they rely on….
In closing:
Despite all of the reforms instituted by the legislature in 2007 and ample fair warning to patrol towers clearly and plainly stated at that time by members of the Senate Commerce Committee and of this Committee, most memorably by Vice Chair Riley, little has changed in actual practice. The patrol towing business model itself is to blame
I would suggest that the Committee, as it works this bill, consider provisions requiring the owners of patrol towing companies that are competing for public towing contracts for any public agency or entity, to conform all of their towing operations under any other name to the standards set in the public contract.
---------------------------
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant, here.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Predatory patrol towers are fighting back to protect their towjacking profit margins.
Testimony by a number of witnesses indicated that the patrol towers are largely ignoring the regulations imposed on them by new state laws, still the same packs of junkyard dogs roving around the state.
First speakers up were the Mayor and Chief of Police of the City of Fairview, the first municipality in the state to take action against predatory patrol towing, and they described how 100% of the problem incidents regarding predatory towing went away overnight, with the passage of the citywide ban.
Every city and every county government in the state has the power to do exactly what Fairview has done, simply enact the ordinance.
Now it's up to you, to urge your city and county officials to take action, and to support Representative Riley's bill.
Here's the link to the audio record of the hearing:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/
Select the date feb 25 2009
The towing bill discussion begins about at the 14:00 mark. My testimony starts at about 1:12:10.
Isubmitted the following written testimony (slightly edited for clarity):
Vice Chair Riley and Members of the Committee:
My name is Sean Cruz. I am a resident of Parkrose neighborhood in NE Portland. I served as Senator Avel Gordly’s Legislative Aide and Chief of Staff, representing Senate District 23 throughout the 2003, 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions. I also claim the distinction of having “Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story”, which I write about on my blog.
I led Senator Gordly’s Senate Bill 431 workgroup on patrol towing reforms and I represented her office in the Attorney General’s Senate Bill 116 workgroup, led by Eva Novick. Senate Bill 116 incorporates several of Senator Gordly’s legislative concepts.
Both bills passed the House and Senate with unanimous votes in committee and on the floor, but fell just short of Senator Gordly’s goal, which was to model California’s statute, requiring the property owner or manager to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice, in order to promote the safety and wellbeing of members of the general pubic. California’s law also held the advantage of having been recently upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prior to the 2007 legislative session, Oregon’s patrol towing industry was largely unregulated, and there was a lack of clarity in Oregon statutes as to whether the state and local governments had the authority to regulate businesses built around the involuntary towing of citizen’s private vehicles. The Attorney General, for example, had no explicit authority to even receive complaints from the public, much less act on them.
This fact was enormously frustrating to many Oregon citizens, who often found that the local police were also stymied, with no power over the towing disputes they were often called into other than to allow a tow truck driver to take a citizen’s property away.
There was a widespread assumption that federal law regarding interstate commerce pre-empted state and local governments, and on this basis patrol towing metastasized over several decades, seemingly untouchable, answerable to no authority. It was literally the Wild West, here in Oregon, the only state on the West coast that has not banned patrol towing.
The first thing we had to do in 2007 was to establish that authority.
Thanks to the research of a constituent, Tim Barrett, whose car was patrol-towed less than five minutes after his arrival to visit his son in a Fairview apartment, we found what was needed:
In 2005, in Tillotson vs the City of San Diego, the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals found that California’s law curbing patrol towing was designed to promote the safety of the general public, who might be stranded or whose family might be stranded in unsafe circumstances, and of the tow drivers themselves and is therefore exempted from the federal pre-emption.
Testimony from a number of citizens during the tow bill hearings demonstrated that this was happening frequently, including separating drivers from prescription medications and leaving people in wheelchairs stranded on the sidewalk. You will shortly hear Mr. Michael Meiers describe his experience….
This regulatory authority, in the language used by the federal court, comprises Section 1 of Senate Bill 116, clarifying the exemption regarding the regulation of involuntary towing, including the price thereof.
Paragraph 2 (a) states: “The Legislative Assembly declares that…statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
I want to applaud the City of Fairview, the first municipality in the state to take action under Senate Bill 116, passed on a unanimous vote by this Committee.
Speaking on behalf of Senator Gordly and thousands of aggrieved Oregonians, I want to thank Vice Chair Riley and the Committee for taking this issue on with HB 2578. I wish you great success!
It was not my personal predatory patrol towing horror story that brought Senator Gordly to see a need for legislative action, although when the towers broke my transmission that Saturday morning, they sidelined the vehicle that I used to drive the office carpool to the Capitol every day. We had to switch to Senator Gordly’s Executive Assistant Denise Pederson’s vehicle for the remainder of the session.
I would like to note for the record that 100% of the many dozens of complaints that Senator Gordly’s office received regarding predatory or wrongful towing practices involved patrol towing. None were a result of the legitimate practices and operations of tow companies that do not patrol tow.
Senator Gordly’s legislative concepts came about from what we learned about how the industry has operated unregulated in Oregon, from what we learned directly from interviews with many dozens of Oregonians, from the tow companies’ practices and business model, from the attitudes of its employees, and from the tow company’s own invoices.
Burden placed on public resources
All of these citizens called the police when their vehicles were taken. Unlike any other commercial activity in Oregon, patrol towing creates a direct burden on local police resources, paid for entirely by the taxpaying general population.
This burden begins when the tow driver calls the police to report that he is towing a certain vehicle. Then there is the second call to the police, coming either when the vehicle owner finds her vehicle gone and is reporting it stolen, or when the vehicle owner returns to her vehicle and finds some surly stranger with a tow truck hooking it up. This driver is fully aware that either money changes hands at this moment, or he is wasting his time, about to drive off with an empty wallet.
The third burden on police resources comes when at least one officer is called to the scene, and then anything can happen or might have already happened.
Beyond this lies the burden on the court system that can follow, all at public expense, and all of this hubbub began—with members of the public left stranded in every sort of circumstance—with a decision made by a tow truck driver working on commission, generally in the dead of night, underpaid and under great pressure.
They’re stealing parking….
In the 2007 legislative workgroup discussions, the patrol towers stated that they regarded all of their tows to be lawful and righteous, that they always dealt with every mistaken tow incident swiftly and properly…we disputed that.
In those same discussions, the patrol towers stated their opinion that the people whose vehicles they towed were “stealing” parking. They were thieves.
In their own minds, a small number of patrol towing companies had created a crime called theft of parking, and through a mass of agreements with individual property owners, carved out a niche for themselves as a quasi-police force, with sole authority to make and enforce the law, to act as judge, jury and tax collector.
If your vehicle was towed, it was because you were a thief, stealing parking. And your story was a pack of lies. So when Mary Q. Public came to their tow yard to claim her vehicle, she was viewed as a thief and a liar and treated as such. This is how they described their operations….
Furthermore, it is not only the drivers who are paid on commission. So is everyone else in the organization. So when Mary Q. Public comes to the tow yard and argues about the bill, she is talking to people who are not going to take a dollar out of their own pockets for any reason, certainly not for this lying parking thief.
“Attitude” fees and confiscation
These are the people that have been willfully charging the public “attitude” or “anger” fees in this state for decades.
And they have openly charged the public fees in amounts that are beyond anything reasonable, beyond deterrence, beyond fair recompense, beyond punitive…many of their tows result in the actual confiscation of the car.
In the last interim, Senator Gordly’s office received a call from a constituent in East Multnomah County, requesting our urgent assistance. A patrol tow company was about to auction off a vehicle that belonged to a person who was a patient in the Oregon State Hospital. The towers claimed that the owner owed them $ 2000 in storage fees, accrued since the time they had towed the vehicle from a hospital parking lot.
The young man had gone to the hospital for a medical appointment, parked his car in the lot, but suffered a psychotic episode there and was taken directly to the State Hospital, where he continued to reside. He had no intention of parking there over the limit, and hospital personnel would certainly have not made towing their first choice, if they had a role in authorizing the tow.
If the tow company auctioned off the car, the young man would emerge from the hospital with an unfair burden of debt and without the car. His only income was his disability check going into this situation.
We intervened and the tow company released the vehicle without the charge.
Apples to apples
The patrol tow industry opened this can of worms itself when Retriever Towing took my two vehicles, parked side by side on my own property in my own driveway, at the same time and under the same circumstances, but with completely different invoices and charges, providing an apples-to-apples opportunity to see how they were operating. Those invoices are in your packet as Exhibit “A”.
In March 2005, an absentee neighboring property owner, Hacienda Community Development Corporation, began employing tow companies to patrol the small parking area that serves two triplexes that it owns on a flag lot behind my home.
I park my vehicles on my own property, adjacent to the lot.
I learned about the patrol towing contract the day after the tow company posted its signs in the lot, when I woke up that Saturday morning to find both of my vehicles gone. There was no prior notification by any party to the contract, either to the neighborhood or to the tenants themselves.
I called the number posted on the signs. The tow company affirmed that they had indeed stolen my vehicles and that I could pay just under $400 to get them back that day, or I could wait until Monday if I wanted to talk to a manager. I called the property manager, who did not answer their phone. I tracked down Hacienda’s board chair, who informed me that I should either call the police or wait until Monday. I called the police.
A police officer came to my home, looked at my plat and confirmed that my parking area was my own private property. He then drove to the patrol tower’s lot to request the release of my vehicles, but the patrol towers refused to do so.
Eventually, later that day, after a number of phone calls, including more conversations with the police officer, the towers did release the vehicles. At first, they could not find one of my vehicles, although they knew that they had it.
The following Monday, as I was arriving here for work at the state Capitol, I learned that the towers had returned and taken one of the vehicles for a second time.
My absentee-landlord neighbor’s patrol towers have trespassed on my property and towed my vehicle four times—so far—and broken my transmission in the process.
In each of these incidents, to this very day, all parties to my neighbor’s patrol towing contract have disclaimed responsibility for the trespass, the theft of my vehicle, the damage to my property and for all of the trouble they put me through.
The tow company stated that they towed the vehicles according to their contract with the apartment managers, the apartment management company claimed that they told the towers not to tow my vehicles, and the property owner took the position that they knew nothing about it and that I should work it out with the tow company.
Attachment “B” in your packet is a copy of a subsequent letter from the City of Portland Towing Coordinator to the property owner’s Executive Director, and quoting Bertha Ferran the Hacienda board chair as stating “the tower probably has a contract to provide this service, not Hacienda CDC.”
The Ms Ferran knew with absolute certainty about the contract. In fact, Hacienda’s affordable housing properties generate more patrol tows than any other property owner in NE Portland, upwards of 150 tows a year for some 300 apartments.
Attachment “B” also illustrates the ongoing burden on public resources of patrol towing incidents.
The four incidents at my home involved four different drivers, two different tow companies and two different property management companies.
The only constants are the property ownership, the patrol contract, tow drivers working on commission, and the result. It is abundantly clear that none of these incidents would have occurred had HB 2578 been the law of the land, removing commission-paid drivers from decision making and requiring the property managers or owners to be present at the time of the tow.
From that weekend to the present day, these two different patrol towing companies have subjected my neighbors to the same level of intensity, towing the tenants’ legally parked vehicles, towing vehicles despite clearly displayed Hacienda parking permits, showing up and hooking up vehicles minutes after they were parked, and pulling numbers out of the air. I personally witnessed a driver attempt to extort money from one of the families living there. I went back there and broke that up myself.
Four years later, my van is still sitting in my driveway with a broken transmission, and I’ll bet they are sorry now….
Attachment “A.”
Aside from the name of the company, the two invoices are completely different. No line items on the list of charges and fees appearing on one invoice appear on the other, none are identical, and neither are the amounts.
They can’t possibly both be correct. Which, if any, is correct? The towers took the position that they were both correct.
The towing company treated each vehicle in practice differently as well.
We came to learn that the towers were exploiting a line in ORS statute that prevented regulation if the parking lot held ten or fewer spaces. The lot behind my home had parking for only seven vehicles. The City of Portland had limited authority to regulate towing, and only if a parking lot was larger than ten spaces.
Who knew that the size of a parking lot made any difference in how much an Oregon citizen could be charged, on what fees could be assessed, and in how one would be treated?
These two invoices reflected that reality. The upper invoice in Attachment “A” reflects the fees and line items permitted under the authority of the City of Portland.
The lower invoice shows how the towing company was operating absent of regulation. This also explains the enthusiasm with which the tow drivers were patrolling that seven-space parking lot. More fees and charges, higher commissions, no public authority to regulate. I have seen two tow trucks in that lot at the same time.
Under the regulated invoice, the driver took my vehicle to their tow yard only about 25 blocks from my home in outer NE Portland. The City does not permit mileage to be charged.
Under the unregulated invoice, however, the other driver took my vehicle clear across town to their lot at NW 15th and Quimby.
He charged me $110 for the tow, $16 for his mileage, driving around town, $3 for the fuel he claimed that he burned while towing my vehicle, $10 for taking a photo of the tow (which clearly identifies the trespass and theft), $35 for the dolly he used to break my transmission, and $15 for a dispatch fee. Other than the tow fee, none of these charges were permitted under City code.
And you can see there are boxes for more fees: “Retow fee”, “Retow dollies”, “recovery and winching”, “service call”, “gate fee” and “service fee.”
Note that the regulated invoice has a $ 20/day printed storage fee.
The unregulated invoice daily storage rate is not printed. Here, the driver has written in a rate of $33. Which is the correct number? The tower claimed they were both correct.
The unregulated invoice bears no printed rates or costs. In all cases, the driver alone decides what numbers to put in the boxes and which boxes to check. The form also has a blank line at the bottom of the price column where the driver or lot employee can invent things to charge, like “anger” or “attitude” fees, and write in a number he likes.
And he is paid on commission.
2007 legislation
At the start of the 2007 session, Senator Gordly filed five legislative concepts to address patrol towing, later concentrated into the two bills.
Our contributions to Senate Bill 116, sponsored by the Attorney General, were these:
Section 1 of SB 116 clarifies the authority of the state and Oregon municipal governments to regulate involuntary towing.
Senate Bill 116 also removed the language from ORS that barred regulation of parking lots if they contained ten or fewer vehicles. In the workgroup, with the assistance of Legislative Counsel, we learned that there was no record of why that line was in statute in the first place, or why the number was ten. Even the patrol towers could offer no reason, other than that they thought it was a good idea. At one point, one of the patrol company owners shouted at me that the City had no right to regulate in that parking lot behind my home. Well, they do now.
Senate Bill 116 requires tow drivers to provide vehicle owners with a printed rate sheet, in order to eliminate the practice of commission-paid drivers pulling a smorgasbord of numbers out of the air.
However, a recent patrol towing incident in Wilsonville, where a driver attempted to tow the vehicle of an injured woman fleeing an assault, indicates that the company involved is not complying with this provision of law. In the extensive media coverage that followed, no one, not the police, not even the owner of the tow company, interviewed on-camera, knew how much money his driver had charged the victim. They are clearly not complying with the provisions passed out of this Committee in 2007.
Senate Bill 431
Senate Bill 431 addressed patrol towing abuses in landlord-tenant relationships.
SB 431 prohibits towers from removing vehicles solely for having expired tags. Those tenants’ rental agreements gave them the right to park their car in the lot, and they were violating no state law as long as they kept that vehicle parked and off the street, which is where it was.
SB 431 requires landlords to provide tenants with written notice that includes the actual costs they might face if their vehicle is towed. It is not unreasonable to have a pre-printed rate sheet, but the patrol towers really howled about this one in the workgroup.
Landlords must provide this information at the time the rental or lease agreement is signed, they must update the tenants if and when any of those numbers change, and they must provide the tenants with parking permits. It is highly doubtful that any are complying with this portion of the law passed by this Committee, as none of the constituents who contacted Senator Gordly’s office in the interim and none of my neighbors have received any such notices or rate sheets or parking permits from their landlords.
Opposition to the 2007 legislation came from lobbyists for commercial property owners, who stated that they absolutely needed patrol towing, but acknowledged that they received these services for free. Their agreements with patrol towers permit the towers to load all costs, real or otherwise, and their profit expectations on the backs of their victims.
Unless landlords and property managers participate in the expense of the service and the cost of police resources they rely on….
In closing:
Despite all of the reforms instituted by the legislature in 2007 and ample fair warning to patrol towers clearly and plainly stated at that time by members of the Senate Commerce Committee and of this Committee, most memorably by Vice Chair Riley, little has changed in actual practice. The patrol towing business model itself is to blame
I would suggest that the Committee, as it works this bill, consider provisions requiring the owners of patrol towing companies that are competing for public towing contracts for any public agency or entity, to conform all of their towing operations under any other name to the standards set in the public contract.
---------------------------
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant, here.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Monday, February 02, 2009
To Oregon's predatory patrol towers: The end is near!
By Sean Cruz
Portland—There will be rejoicing in the land when and if the 2009 Oregon legislature passes Representative Chuck Riley’s patrol towing reform bills.
As reported by The Oregonian’s Rick Bella, Representative Riley will finish the job begun in 2007 by Senator Avel Gordly (SB 431) and Attorney General Hardy Myers (SB116). See story, here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/patrol_towing_on_the_hook_if_n.html
The City of Fairview is the first Oregon municipality to act on the authority to ban patrol towing granted to all Oregon cities as a result of the 2007 legislation.
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2008/12/fairview_cracks_down_on_tow_tr.html
Contact your City Council, urging them to ban patrol towing in your town.
Representative Riley’s draft legislation addresses the commission-based foundation of Retriever Towing’s business model, the root cause of most patrol towing abuses, and the predators are already starting to howl.
Mr. Bella notes that the patrol towing reforms will be opposed by commercial property interests as well as by the towers themselves, the sole opposition to the 2007 bills, which passed both House and Senate on unanimous votes.
It was pressure from the commercial property interests that prevented the passage of the complete ban on patrol towing in Oregon that Senator Gordly sought in 2007, for there are big dollars at stake, and they will be back in 2009.
Retriever’s and Sergeant’s contracts with commercial property owners and managers, deferring on-the-spot decision making to drivers working on commission, is the other part of the predatory patrol towing problem.
In exchange for this authority, Sergeant’s and Retriever provide their “services” to the owners and managers for free, getting 100% of their revenue from their fleets of towjacking thugs.
The commercial property owners demand the service, and they demand it for free. They will carry that argument to the 2009 legislature, and future campaign contributions from this powerful lobby will hinge on how the votes come down.
Representative Riley gave notice during the 2007 House Consumer Protection Committee hearings that if the industry did not shape up before the 2009 session, he would take them on and seek a ban on the practice, and he is delivering on that promise.
The general public still has a role to play in this argument.
Contact your legislators and Representative Riley and voice your support, here:
www.leg.state.or.us
Stay informed on the issue. If you are able to attend any hearings, do so. Your legislators will be happy to help orient you around the Capitol.
If you are wrongfully patrol-towed, the Attorney General’s office is waiting to hear from you, ready to hear your complaint. 2007’s Senate Bill 116 and 431 empowered the AG to promulgate and enforce involuntary towing regulations on its own authority.
Register your complaint here:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/finfraud/towing.shtml
The Attorney General now has the statutory authority to promulgate and enforce regulations regarding involuntary towing, including the price thereof. Many predatory patrol towing practices are now subject to civil sanctions, including prosecution under Unfair Trade Practices statutes.
===============
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant, here.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Portland—There will be rejoicing in the land when and if the 2009 Oregon legislature passes Representative Chuck Riley’s patrol towing reform bills.
As reported by The Oregonian’s Rick Bella, Representative Riley will finish the job begun in 2007 by Senator Avel Gordly (SB 431) and Attorney General Hardy Myers (SB116). See story, here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/patrol_towing_on_the_hook_if_n.html
The City of Fairview is the first Oregon municipality to act on the authority to ban patrol towing granted to all Oregon cities as a result of the 2007 legislation.
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2008/12/fairview_cracks_down_on_tow_tr.html
Contact your City Council, urging them to ban patrol towing in your town.
Representative Riley’s draft legislation addresses the commission-based foundation of Retriever Towing’s business model, the root cause of most patrol towing abuses, and the predators are already starting to howl.
Mr. Bella notes that the patrol towing reforms will be opposed by commercial property interests as well as by the towers themselves, the sole opposition to the 2007 bills, which passed both House and Senate on unanimous votes.
It was pressure from the commercial property interests that prevented the passage of the complete ban on patrol towing in Oregon that Senator Gordly sought in 2007, for there are big dollars at stake, and they will be back in 2009.
Retriever’s and Sergeant’s contracts with commercial property owners and managers, deferring on-the-spot decision making to drivers working on commission, is the other part of the predatory patrol towing problem.
In exchange for this authority, Sergeant’s and Retriever provide their “services” to the owners and managers for free, getting 100% of their revenue from their fleets of towjacking thugs.
The commercial property owners demand the service, and they demand it for free. They will carry that argument to the 2009 legislature, and future campaign contributions from this powerful lobby will hinge on how the votes come down.
Representative Riley gave notice during the 2007 House Consumer Protection Committee hearings that if the industry did not shape up before the 2009 session, he would take them on and seek a ban on the practice, and he is delivering on that promise.
The general public still has a role to play in this argument.
Contact your legislators and Representative Riley and voice your support, here:
www.leg.state.or.us
Stay informed on the issue. If you are able to attend any hearings, do so. Your legislators will be happy to help orient you around the Capitol.
If you are wrongfully patrol-towed, the Attorney General’s office is waiting to hear from you, ready to hear your complaint. 2007’s Senate Bill 116 and 431 empowered the AG to promulgate and enforce involuntary towing regulations on its own authority.
Register your complaint here:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/finfraud/towing.shtml
The Attorney General now has the statutory authority to promulgate and enforce regulations regarding involuntary towing, including the price thereof. Many predatory patrol towing practices are now subject to civil sanctions, including prosecution under Unfair Trade Practices statutes.
===============
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant, here.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Want to end predatory patrol towing in Oregon? The Attorney General's office is open for business!
Portland, Oregon—Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 116 and Senate Bill 431 in 2007, Oregon’s predatory patrol towing industry was largely unregulated, even though the practice had been banned entirely in some other states. Oregon’s Attorney General had no statutory authority to even receive complaints from the public, much less act on them, and the hands of local law enforcement agencies were similarly tied.
Many Oregon motorists learned these facts the hard way, after having had their vehicle tow-jacked and finding that the police and other authorities could do little to help.
Adding to victims’ frustration was the awareness that these private-property patrol towing incidents were costing taxpayers a great deal of public money in their demand on police resources.
Passage of these two senate bills marks the beginning of the end for patrol towing in Oregon.
The rest is up to you, to the general public, and the tools you need are right here:
1. File your towing complaints with the Attorney General’s Office here:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/finfraud/towing.shtml
The Attorney General now has the statutory authority to promulgate and enforce regulations regarding involuntary towing, including the price thereof. Many predatory patrol towing practices are now subject to civil sanctions, including prosecution under Unfair Trade Practices statutes.
2. Contact your state representative and state senator here:
www.leg.state.or.us
Ask them to consider ending patrol towing in Oregon in the 2009 legislative session.
The predatory patrol towing practices of certain Oregon towers (notoriously, Sergeant's and Retriever Towing) were dealt with in broad strokes by the 2007 legislature.
Senate Bills 116 and 431 were passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, indicating the strong public sentiment for towing reforms.
The business model these predators employ is the basis for most of the towing abuses, but it is important to note that the property owners are complicit, by authorizing towers to delegate decision-making to drivers working on commission.
As State Senator Avel Gordly's Chief of Staff, I led the workgroup that drafted her Senate Bill 431.
It is important to note that 100% of the complaints that Senator Gordly's office received were related to patrol towing, and not to other towing activities, and that all of these incidents drew in police resources, resulting in public expense.
Towed or not, all Oregon citizens have a stake in this issue. Your taxes pay for this extra burden on police time and resources.
Senator Gordly strongly supports legislation that would mirror California's ban on predatory patrol towing, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice.
That action would end the majority of towing abuses in a stroke.
Contact your legislator(s) and request that action be taken. You would be surprised at how many will be happy you called.
--Sean Cruz
==========================
On predators towing vehicles displaying disability placards:
The commission-based compensation system towing predators use is the root of the evil, the sole motivating force behind Retriever and Sergeants drivers towing vehicles belonging to persons with disabilities, often stranding people in wheelchairs.
They do this far, far too frequently…every chance they get, actually….
Most of these tows would have never taken place without property owners agreeing to defer on-the-spot decision-making to drivers working on commission.
Patrol towing companies in Oregon provide their “services” to the property owners for free in exchange for the right to tow at their drivers’ discretion.
Both property owners and patrol towers take it for granted that towing disagreements would involve police and other public resources at taxpayer expense.
The 2009 Oregon legislature needs to address the particular issue of vehicles displaying disability placards, providing an alternative to towing the vehicle away, and a policy of returning towed vehicles to their owners.
Adopting California’s standard, requiring property owners to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice, would go far in eliminating these issues.
====================
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Many Oregon motorists learned these facts the hard way, after having had their vehicle tow-jacked and finding that the police and other authorities could do little to help.
Adding to victims’ frustration was the awareness that these private-property patrol towing incidents were costing taxpayers a great deal of public money in their demand on police resources.
Passage of these two senate bills marks the beginning of the end for patrol towing in Oregon.
The rest is up to you, to the general public, and the tools you need are right here:
1. File your towing complaints with the Attorney General’s Office here:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/finfraud/towing.shtml
The Attorney General now has the statutory authority to promulgate and enforce regulations regarding involuntary towing, including the price thereof. Many predatory patrol towing practices are now subject to civil sanctions, including prosecution under Unfair Trade Practices statutes.
2. Contact your state representative and state senator here:
www.leg.state.or.us
Ask them to consider ending patrol towing in Oregon in the 2009 legislative session.
The predatory patrol towing practices of certain Oregon towers (notoriously, Sergeant's and Retriever Towing) were dealt with in broad strokes by the 2007 legislature.
Senate Bills 116 and 431 were passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, indicating the strong public sentiment for towing reforms.
The business model these predators employ is the basis for most of the towing abuses, but it is important to note that the property owners are complicit, by authorizing towers to delegate decision-making to drivers working on commission.
As State Senator Avel Gordly's Chief of Staff, I led the workgroup that drafted her Senate Bill 431.
It is important to note that 100% of the complaints that Senator Gordly's office received were related to patrol towing, and not to other towing activities, and that all of these incidents drew in police resources, resulting in public expense.
Towed or not, all Oregon citizens have a stake in this issue. Your taxes pay for this extra burden on police time and resources.
Senator Gordly strongly supports legislation that would mirror California's ban on predatory patrol towing, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice.
That action would end the majority of towing abuses in a stroke.
Contact your legislator(s) and request that action be taken. You would be surprised at how many will be happy you called.
--Sean Cruz
==========================
On predators towing vehicles displaying disability placards:
The commission-based compensation system towing predators use is the root of the evil, the sole motivating force behind Retriever and Sergeants drivers towing vehicles belonging to persons with disabilities, often stranding people in wheelchairs.
They do this far, far too frequently…every chance they get, actually….
Most of these tows would have never taken place without property owners agreeing to defer on-the-spot decision-making to drivers working on commission.
Patrol towing companies in Oregon provide their “services” to the property owners for free in exchange for the right to tow at their drivers’ discretion.
Both property owners and patrol towers take it for granted that towing disagreements would involve police and other public resources at taxpayer expense.
The 2009 Oregon legislature needs to address the particular issue of vehicles displaying disability placards, providing an alternative to towing the vehicle away, and a policy of returning towed vehicles to their owners.
Adopting California’s standard, requiring property owners to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice, would go far in eliminating these issues.
====================
Sean Cruz writes:
Blogolitical Sean, political commentary here:
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Aaron’s Law, regarding child abduction prevention and resolution here:
www.aaronslaw.blogspot.com
Jim Pepper House, dedicated to the legacy of the late, great Jim Pepper here:
www.jimpepperhouse.blogspot.com
Portland’s #1 Predatory Towing Horror Story, regarding predatory patrol towing practices here:
www.patroltowing.blogspot.com
Chicano Hero Cesar Chavez, dedicated to the Mexican-American giant.
http://chicanoherocesarchavez.blogspot.com/
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sergeant's towing scam targeted wheelchair users, vehicles with legal disability placards
By Sean Cruz
Portland, Oregon--With all of the well-deserved attention Retriever Towing and its owner, Gary Coe, is getting these days, it is probably easy to overlook Oregon’s other patrol towing predators, and the fact that it is the business model itself that creates the problems experienced by so many Oregonians.
It is worth noting that patrol towing has been banned in many other states. In California, for example, with some common-sense exceptions, the property owner must be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice. Not complicated at all.
This basic change in Oregon towing policy would eliminate the vast majority of towing-related issues in the state at a stroke, and free up a mountain of police time and resources.
It is reasonably safe to assert that every predatory towing incident in Oregon results in an expenditure of taxpayer funds, that the police get pulled into it....
Retriever has towed my vehicle out of my own driveway three times, breaking the transmission in the process. Sergeant’s later added a fourth time, towing my van, broken transmission and all, right out of my own driveway. You can bet I called the police!
These tows occurred as a result of the towers’ contracts with Hacienda CDC, owner of the small parking lot adjacent to my home.
Note that it is not the towers that pay for these police services, nor is it the owners of the properties they patrol. These costs are born by you, Oregon taxpayer, and it is a fundamental part of the predatory patrol towers’ business model.
You have to ask yourself if you want your hard-earned tax money spent this way.
Oregon’s chief predatory patrollers, Retriever and Sergeant’s, hire and employ a platoon of thugs, arm them with tow trucks specially designed to grab and go in seconds, and pay them on a commission basis to skulk about in the dark.
It sounds like the scenario for a video game to me: Tow-Jacker!...Devil with a Hook!...Your car or your life!....
You can bet that Retriever's and Sergeant's commission schedules are designed inducements for ratcheting up the aggression quotient. Their attitude towards the public is that they are "stealing parking" and should be treated as any other kinds of thieves. Does this surprise you...?
These drivers function as the patrollers' sales agents as much as anything else they do; the towers receive no income from the property owners; the towing invoices are more like orders, with the salesmen empowered to write their own....
On the other side of the deal, Sergeant’s and Retriever’s contracts with property owners allow them to delegate on-the-spot towing authority to the aforementioned commission-paid thugs; thugs whose job is to find people "stealing" parking.
The conflict of interest is built into the business model, and that also needs to change.
Senator Gordly’s Senate Bill 431 and the Attorney General’s Senate Bill 116, both passed in 2007 on unanimous votes, give the state and local governments broad authority to regulate involuntary towing, but those new laws have yet to be implemented to any appreciable degree.
For more than a year, Sergeant’s Towing ran an illegal towing scam on public property in front of the former McCall’s Restaurant at Waterfront Park.
The notorious predatory patrol towing company heisted vehicles from the City-owned parking lot with no contract or authority from the City of Portland to do so.
The City of Portland determined in September that a Portland man, whose wheelchair-enabled van was towed from the McCalls lot by a Sergeant’s towing varlet, will at long last get his money back and just his money back.
Nothing for the inconvenience, the frustration, the time lost, the insulting attitude of Sergeant’s Towing, nothing for the real out-of-pocket expense that this company cost an innocent person…just the money that they had no legal right to at any point in the story….
Sergeant’s driver took the vehicle knowing he was leaving someone in a wheelchair without his vehicle! This is the kind of commission-driven thinking that characterizes the businesses burden on the public.
What is so singularly egregious about this particular towing scam is that it targeted people in wheelchairs!
The McCall’s lot contains several spaces reserved for vehicles marked with disabled placards, and a small forest of Sergeant’s signs that appear to be posted deliberately to confuse the public.
Some of the Sergeant’s signs posted throughout the lot state that a disability placard AND a McCall’s Restaurant permit must both be visible on the vehicle.
But McCall’s Restaurant had been closed for more than a year! There WERE no permits and there ARE no McCall’s Restaurant permits!
This predatory patrol towing victim parked in the lot on a Sunday afternoon intending to take a brisk wheel around the park. He parked his van in a space where the sign states that both the disability placard AND a McCall’s permit must be displayed.
But McCall’s was an empty building! It was a Sunday! He’s been in a wheelchair for more than 15 years! The placard is there! The van has a wheelchair lift! Towed anyway! And the attitude from Sergeant’s that followed!
The reason that none of these facts were a deterrent to the tow driver was because he was hooking up precisely the sort of “customer” the scam is designed to snare!
Sergeant’s commission-paid thugs patrolled McCall’s 24-7, placard or not, pure gravy to them.
Sergeant’s had no contract or authority to post its signs or tow vehicles from that parking lot.
Sergeant’s sent the towing victim a nasty letter in response to his complaint, stating that he should have called them on that Sunday afternoon to obtain a McCall’s permit, if he didn’t want to get his van towed….
There was no signage on the property that described how to get a McCall’s permit which, again, did not exist…..
This is a measure of the arrogance one finds rampant among patrol towers.
Anyone whose vehicle was towed from McCall’s in the past year or so should contact the City about getting your money back.
One wonders where else they are pulling these scams….
Many thanks to Tim Barrett for bulldogging this case to a successful conclusion.
Oregonians (and visitors to the state) owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Barrett for providing Senator Gordly’s office with his research on patrol towing in other states prior to the 2007 Legislative Session.
That information, which included the 9th U.S. Circuit Court’s ruling upholding California’s ban on patrol towing, gave us the legal foundation for Senate Bill 431 and Senate Bill 116. Both bills passed on unanimous votes.
The Circuit’s Court’s language is now embodied in Oregon Statute as Section 1 of Senate Bill 116 (2007).
As you can see, there remains some legislative work yet to be done regarding predatory patrol towing.
That work obviously needs to address the issue of towing vehicles that display disability placards, on both state and local levels.
It is completely unreasonable to require persons with disabilities to have to travel to the predators’ lots to recover their vehicles.
Oregon’s public policy needs to be clarified, set and enforced regarding vehicles bearing disability placards. This is a local issue only to the extent that the state fails to act.
This policy must at minimum accomplish two things: 1. Provide an alternative to towing the vehicle away in the first place (which should include a quick phone call to the property owner); and, 2. In the event of actual towing, facilitate the speedy, efficient return of the vehicle to its owner.
The simple solution to this problem is to require the property owner or manager to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice.
That is how it is done in other states; this is not rocket science….
Not one of the tows that have made the news recently, and most of those that did not, would have happened if the conflict-of-interest issue in the business model was dealt with.
Photos of the McCall’s parking lot taken the day after the wheelchair-enabled van was towed are here:
http://blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com/2008/09/urgent-portland-predatory-towing-alert.html
Portland, Oregon--With all of the well-deserved attention Retriever Towing and its owner, Gary Coe, is getting these days, it is probably easy to overlook Oregon’s other patrol towing predators, and the fact that it is the business model itself that creates the problems experienced by so many Oregonians.
It is worth noting that patrol towing has been banned in many other states. In California, for example, with some common-sense exceptions, the property owner must be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice. Not complicated at all.
This basic change in Oregon towing policy would eliminate the vast majority of towing-related issues in the state at a stroke, and free up a mountain of police time and resources.
It is reasonably safe to assert that every predatory towing incident in Oregon results in an expenditure of taxpayer funds, that the police get pulled into it....
Retriever has towed my vehicle out of my own driveway three times, breaking the transmission in the process. Sergeant’s later added a fourth time, towing my van, broken transmission and all, right out of my own driveway. You can bet I called the police!
These tows occurred as a result of the towers’ contracts with Hacienda CDC, owner of the small parking lot adjacent to my home.
Note that it is not the towers that pay for these police services, nor is it the owners of the properties they patrol. These costs are born by you, Oregon taxpayer, and it is a fundamental part of the predatory patrol towers’ business model.
You have to ask yourself if you want your hard-earned tax money spent this way.
Oregon’s chief predatory patrollers, Retriever and Sergeant’s, hire and employ a platoon of thugs, arm them with tow trucks specially designed to grab and go in seconds, and pay them on a commission basis to skulk about in the dark.
It sounds like the scenario for a video game to me: Tow-Jacker!...Devil with a Hook!...Your car or your life!....
You can bet that Retriever's and Sergeant's commission schedules are designed inducements for ratcheting up the aggression quotient. Their attitude towards the public is that they are "stealing parking" and should be treated as any other kinds of thieves. Does this surprise you...?
These drivers function as the patrollers' sales agents as much as anything else they do; the towers receive no income from the property owners; the towing invoices are more like orders, with the salesmen empowered to write their own....
On the other side of the deal, Sergeant’s and Retriever’s contracts with property owners allow them to delegate on-the-spot towing authority to the aforementioned commission-paid thugs; thugs whose job is to find people "stealing" parking.
The conflict of interest is built into the business model, and that also needs to change.
Senator Gordly’s Senate Bill 431 and the Attorney General’s Senate Bill 116, both passed in 2007 on unanimous votes, give the state and local governments broad authority to regulate involuntary towing, but those new laws have yet to be implemented to any appreciable degree.
For more than a year, Sergeant’s Towing ran an illegal towing scam on public property in front of the former McCall’s Restaurant at Waterfront Park.
The notorious predatory patrol towing company heisted vehicles from the City-owned parking lot with no contract or authority from the City of Portland to do so.
The City of Portland determined in September that a Portland man, whose wheelchair-enabled van was towed from the McCalls lot by a Sergeant’s towing varlet, will at long last get his money back and just his money back.
Nothing for the inconvenience, the frustration, the time lost, the insulting attitude of Sergeant’s Towing, nothing for the real out-of-pocket expense that this company cost an innocent person…just the money that they had no legal right to at any point in the story….
Sergeant’s driver took the vehicle knowing he was leaving someone in a wheelchair without his vehicle! This is the kind of commission-driven thinking that characterizes the businesses burden on the public.
What is so singularly egregious about this particular towing scam is that it targeted people in wheelchairs!
The McCall’s lot contains several spaces reserved for vehicles marked with disabled placards, and a small forest of Sergeant’s signs that appear to be posted deliberately to confuse the public.
Some of the Sergeant’s signs posted throughout the lot state that a disability placard AND a McCall’s Restaurant permit must both be visible on the vehicle.
But McCall’s Restaurant had been closed for more than a year! There WERE no permits and there ARE no McCall’s Restaurant permits!
This predatory patrol towing victim parked in the lot on a Sunday afternoon intending to take a brisk wheel around the park. He parked his van in a space where the sign states that both the disability placard AND a McCall’s permit must be displayed.
But McCall’s was an empty building! It was a Sunday! He’s been in a wheelchair for more than 15 years! The placard is there! The van has a wheelchair lift! Towed anyway! And the attitude from Sergeant’s that followed!
The reason that none of these facts were a deterrent to the tow driver was because he was hooking up precisely the sort of “customer” the scam is designed to snare!
Sergeant’s commission-paid thugs patrolled McCall’s 24-7, placard or not, pure gravy to them.
Sergeant’s had no contract or authority to post its signs or tow vehicles from that parking lot.
Sergeant’s sent the towing victim a nasty letter in response to his complaint, stating that he should have called them on that Sunday afternoon to obtain a McCall’s permit, if he didn’t want to get his van towed….
There was no signage on the property that described how to get a McCall’s permit which, again, did not exist…..
This is a measure of the arrogance one finds rampant among patrol towers.
Anyone whose vehicle was towed from McCall’s in the past year or so should contact the City about getting your money back.
One wonders where else they are pulling these scams….
Many thanks to Tim Barrett for bulldogging this case to a successful conclusion.
Oregonians (and visitors to the state) owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Barrett for providing Senator Gordly’s office with his research on patrol towing in other states prior to the 2007 Legislative Session.
That information, which included the 9th U.S. Circuit Court’s ruling upholding California’s ban on patrol towing, gave us the legal foundation for Senate Bill 431 and Senate Bill 116. Both bills passed on unanimous votes.
The Circuit’s Court’s language is now embodied in Oregon Statute as Section 1 of Senate Bill 116 (2007).
As you can see, there remains some legislative work yet to be done regarding predatory patrol towing.
That work obviously needs to address the issue of towing vehicles that display disability placards, on both state and local levels.
It is completely unreasonable to require persons with disabilities to have to travel to the predators’ lots to recover their vehicles.
Oregon’s public policy needs to be clarified, set and enforced regarding vehicles bearing disability placards. This is a local issue only to the extent that the state fails to act.
This policy must at minimum accomplish two things: 1. Provide an alternative to towing the vehicle away in the first place (which should include a quick phone call to the property owner); and, 2. In the event of actual towing, facilitate the speedy, efficient return of the vehicle to its owner.
The simple solution to this problem is to require the property owner or manager to be present at the time of the tow and sign the invoice.
That is how it is done in other states; this is not rocket science….
Not one of the tows that have made the news recently, and most of those that did not, would have happened if the conflict-of-interest issue in the business model was dealt with.
Photos of the McCall’s parking lot taken the day after the wheelchair-enabled van was towed are here:
http://blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com/2008/09/urgent-portland-predatory-towing-alert.html
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Retriever Towing re-victimizes injured woman, Gary Coe offers insults
Portland, Oregon--
A Retriever Towing driver re-victimized an injured woman in an emergency situation, as reported in the Oregonian here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/wilsonville_assault_victim_mad.html
KATU-TV television news coverage of the incident showed Retriever's owner, Gary Coe, alleging that the victim "smelled of alcohol and had no business driving a car", according to the report.
The link to the report is here: http://www.katu.com/news/35896334.html
Coe was not present at the scene and had no basis to make such a judgment, which was NOT echoed by the police officers who actually were there.
Such is the character of the man in charge of Oregon's largest predatory towing empire....
The Oregonian's Maxine Bernstein’s recently described how another Retriever patrol towing incident escalated rapidly to include an angry crowd, an attempt to set fire to the tow truck, and the vehicle owner under arrest:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/woman_accused_of_torching_a_to.html
KATU also reported on an incident where a driver for Sergeant's tow-jacked the car of a woman in labor, here: http://www.katu.com/news/local/33599024.html
These incidents underscore the point that patrol towing is hazardous to the health of the general public, the legal foundation for California’s ban on the practice.
Oregon is the only state on the west coast that allows patrol towing.
The 2007 Oregon Legislature, under the leadership of Senator Avel Gordly, imposed regulations on patrol towing that have yet to be fully implemented, particularly by local governments.
The towing bills passed that year were Senate Bill 116 and Senate Bill 431.
I led the SB 431 workgroup, which focused on private property impounds, to deal with situations such as these, and participated in the SB 116 workgroup, which addressed the broad scope of towing in the state of Oregon.
Prior to the passage of these bills, towing practices in Oregon were largely unregulated, with state and local jurisdictions having little explicit authority to put a dent in abusive and predatory towing.
SB 116 laid out the public policy goal: “(a) Statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
SB 116 establishes the authority of the Oregon Attorney General to receive complaints and to adopt and implement rules to promote the safety and welfare of members of the public. This legislation classifies many abusive towing practices under Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices statutes, which greatly increases the State's power to put the hammer down....
SB 116 also establishes the authority of local governments to regulate patrol towing within their respective jurisdictions, but none seem to have taken any action since the legislation was enacted.
SB 431 addresses private property impounds or patrol towing, the cause of the vast majority of towing complaints.
The legislation also gave state and local governments the authority to regulate the prices towers may charge for heisting your vehicle, but there has been little, if any, action taken.
This is where a conflict of interest exists within municipal governments: as much as they may dislike the practice, they need the revenue generated by patrol towing operations to fund city and county services.
Placing a cap on the amount of ransom a tower can charge the victim for release of the victim’s vehicle is an obvious next step, but no elected official has stepped up to take that one on: the pushback will come not only from the towing companies, the heaviest political pressure will come from the commercial interests that authorize the patrol towing practices on their properties.
The property owners pay nothing for the patrol towing “services”, and they want to keep it that way.
The tow company owners pay their drivers on bonus or commission schedules, which explains the drivers’ motivation for aggressive behavior and need for speed.
Some of these drivers carry weapons.
As the patrol towers’ costs increase, they will increase their ransom demands at points of contact with the public.
In both cases, the driver verbally demanded approximately $150-180 in cash for release of the vehicle.
How likely is the average apartment dweller to have that much cash on hand without prior notice?
Some are more likely to have a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun at home than a wallet full of cash.
A section of Senate Bill 116 explicitly requires tow truck drivers to provide their prospective victims with a printed rate sheet so that there is no confusion about the amount of ransom demanded. Failure to do so is an unfair trade practice under the new law, and it is highly important that the public contacts Oregon's Attorney General whenever these incidents occur.
Believe me, there are lawyers in the AG's office who really want to take the predators on a perp walk.
Other states and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals have recognized the broad range of hazards to the general public and to the drivers themselves that patrol towing creates. Oregon has yet to step up and resolve the main issues.
The towers’ fee demands are often confiscatory in effect. Loss of vehicle is a penalty far beyond what is just for the “offense” that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle owner.
The patrol towers are hired to do one thing: remove a vehicle from the property.
If you are present at the scene, then you can remove the vehicle yourself. No need for a tow truck.
But that leaves the driver with an investment of time and emotion, and no money forthcoming from his employer, so he must get what he can from you, the vehicle owner.
California’s ban on predatory patrol towing is simple and straightforward, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and to sign the authorization form.
Commercial property interests and the patrol towers, led by the owners of Retriever and Sergeant’s Towing, were able to prevent the inclusion of this language in the 2007 legislation, over Senator Gordly’s objections.
This is the most important towing reform legislative work yet to be completed, but I am unaware of any legislative office that is working on the issue (Senator Gordly is retiring prior to the 2009 session).
Here are some important links regarding patrol towing:
Link to description of key towing bills (“Towing reform bills moving”):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/gordly/newsletter_042007.htm
Link to Senate Bill 116 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0116.en.pdf
Link to Senate Bill 431 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0431.en.pdf
A Retriever Towing driver re-victimized an injured woman in an emergency situation, as reported in the Oregonian here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/wilsonville_assault_victim_mad.html
KATU-TV television news coverage of the incident showed Retriever's owner, Gary Coe, alleging that the victim "smelled of alcohol and had no business driving a car", according to the report.
The link to the report is here: http://www.katu.com/news/35896334.html
Coe was not present at the scene and had no basis to make such a judgment, which was NOT echoed by the police officers who actually were there.
Such is the character of the man in charge of Oregon's largest predatory towing empire....
The Oregonian's Maxine Bernstein’s recently described how another Retriever patrol towing incident escalated rapidly to include an angry crowd, an attempt to set fire to the tow truck, and the vehicle owner under arrest:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/woman_accused_of_torching_a_to.html
KATU also reported on an incident where a driver for Sergeant's tow-jacked the car of a woman in labor, here: http://www.katu.com/news/local/33599024.html
These incidents underscore the point that patrol towing is hazardous to the health of the general public, the legal foundation for California’s ban on the practice.
Oregon is the only state on the west coast that allows patrol towing.
The 2007 Oregon Legislature, under the leadership of Senator Avel Gordly, imposed regulations on patrol towing that have yet to be fully implemented, particularly by local governments.
The towing bills passed that year were Senate Bill 116 and Senate Bill 431.
I led the SB 431 workgroup, which focused on private property impounds, to deal with situations such as these, and participated in the SB 116 workgroup, which addressed the broad scope of towing in the state of Oregon.
Prior to the passage of these bills, towing practices in Oregon were largely unregulated, with state and local jurisdictions having little explicit authority to put a dent in abusive and predatory towing.
SB 116 laid out the public policy goal: “(a) Statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
SB 116 establishes the authority of the Oregon Attorney General to receive complaints and to adopt and implement rules to promote the safety and welfare of members of the public. This legislation classifies many abusive towing practices under Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices statutes, which greatly increases the State's power to put the hammer down....
SB 116 also establishes the authority of local governments to regulate patrol towing within their respective jurisdictions, but none seem to have taken any action since the legislation was enacted.
SB 431 addresses private property impounds or patrol towing, the cause of the vast majority of towing complaints.
The legislation also gave state and local governments the authority to regulate the prices towers may charge for heisting your vehicle, but there has been little, if any, action taken.
This is where a conflict of interest exists within municipal governments: as much as they may dislike the practice, they need the revenue generated by patrol towing operations to fund city and county services.
Placing a cap on the amount of ransom a tower can charge the victim for release of the victim’s vehicle is an obvious next step, but no elected official has stepped up to take that one on: the pushback will come not only from the towing companies, the heaviest political pressure will come from the commercial interests that authorize the patrol towing practices on their properties.
The property owners pay nothing for the patrol towing “services”, and they want to keep it that way.
The tow company owners pay their drivers on bonus or commission schedules, which explains the drivers’ motivation for aggressive behavior and need for speed.
Some of these drivers carry weapons.
As the patrol towers’ costs increase, they will increase their ransom demands at points of contact with the public.
In both cases, the driver verbally demanded approximately $150-180 in cash for release of the vehicle.
How likely is the average apartment dweller to have that much cash on hand without prior notice?
Some are more likely to have a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun at home than a wallet full of cash.
A section of Senate Bill 116 explicitly requires tow truck drivers to provide their prospective victims with a printed rate sheet so that there is no confusion about the amount of ransom demanded. Failure to do so is an unfair trade practice under the new law, and it is highly important that the public contacts Oregon's Attorney General whenever these incidents occur.
Believe me, there are lawyers in the AG's office who really want to take the predators on a perp walk.
Other states and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals have recognized the broad range of hazards to the general public and to the drivers themselves that patrol towing creates. Oregon has yet to step up and resolve the main issues.
The towers’ fee demands are often confiscatory in effect. Loss of vehicle is a penalty far beyond what is just for the “offense” that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle owner.
The patrol towers are hired to do one thing: remove a vehicle from the property.
If you are present at the scene, then you can remove the vehicle yourself. No need for a tow truck.
But that leaves the driver with an investment of time and emotion, and no money forthcoming from his employer, so he must get what he can from you, the vehicle owner.
California’s ban on predatory patrol towing is simple and straightforward, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and to sign the authorization form.
Commercial property interests and the patrol towers, led by the owners of Retriever and Sergeant’s Towing, were able to prevent the inclusion of this language in the 2007 legislation, over Senator Gordly’s objections.
This is the most important towing reform legislative work yet to be completed, but I am unaware of any legislative office that is working on the issue (Senator Gordly is retiring prior to the 2009 session).
Here are some important links regarding patrol towing:
Link to description of key towing bills (“Towing reform bills moving”):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/gordly/newsletter_042007.htm
Link to Senate Bill 116 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0116.en.pdf
Link to Senate Bill 431 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0431.en.pdf
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Anatomy of a Portland patrol towing empire
A Blogolitical Sean reader provided the following information in a comment on an earlier post, “Portland tow truck set on fire!”:
=====================
towmater said...
Let me give you a couple more things to think about.
These are all the companies owned by a Mr. Gary Coe:
(1) Private Parking Auditors: Patrols parking lots and writes tickets, calls for Retriever for the tows.
(2) Retriever Towing: tows cars for parking infractions, patrols parking lots and handles district 3 police calls. Has two impound lots and shares three of Speeds Supertow's four lots.
(3) Oregon Lien: Puts liens on the impounded cars so that they can be auctioned. They do this for both Speeds and Retriever within about a week of being impounded.
(4) Speeds Auction Yard: Sells the cars not picked up from auction. For both Speeds and Retriever. They also auction cars for just about every charity you could imagine, not for free though.
(5) Speeds Supertow: Normal Towing. You call they come get you. They also handle police calls for district 5 and 8. They charge more than any other tow in town and they give a 20% discount to dealerships and shops. The dealerships and shops in turn charge full price to the cars owner for the tow and make a nice profit for picking speeds.
(6) Fleet Sales West: Custom makes tow trucks and towing equipment. They're the only one in town, so everyone goes to them or has it brought from out of state. They're also called Golden West Towing in California.
(7) Speeds Auto Service: Does all the fleet maintenance for not only the tow trucks but all Gary's other companies and they'll turn a wrench for people off the street. They're also a car dealership for the nicer cars.
(8) Speeds Auto Body: Does all the body work for the fleet of tow trucks and anyone they bump into.
(9) Auto Adventure: Chops cars up for parts and sells those parts nation wide.
(10) Coe Consulting: Sells the secrets to Gary Coe's success in twelve easy steps.
(11) Cascade Coach Town Cars: Drives people around like a taxi but for a lot more.
(12) Pacific Executive Service town cars: Also does the expensive taxi service but mostly to the airport.
Gary has the American dream, a monopoly. He has his fingers in three police districts. No other tow company can claim that inside Portland. He has over fifty trucks (all new) and six impound yards total. Bigger than anyone else in the State of Oregon. Gary controls a lions share of the contracts with dealerships and shops through 20% discount/kick backs. Gary also has his own lobbyist in the Oregon Legislature and has been President of several towing organizations.
The Tow Truck Drivers are poor and manipulated. They make commission off the tow. So its in there best interest to tow a lot and bend the rules, speed, cut corners.
They have no Union, no medical benefits. Most will be hurt several times on the job and will only last a couple of years.
None of these drivers have certification or CDLs. Their training is in-house or if they're lucky a traveling trainer (NATA) will come through town and give them some wall paper. Nobody ever fails those schools and they’re hosted on company property.
All these driver's sign a non-disclosure when hired so they can never speak about the truth.
They Drive 12 to 14 hours a day and have 24 hour on call shifts which means they are on the road more than a driver with a CDL legally could be. Big Rigs are only allowed to drive for eleven hours and they have to keep a log. Many of these Tow trucks are as big as a semi truck too.
Yes, many of these driver's are rude. But under these conditions who wouldnt be. Everybody hates them including their boss, they get little sleep, sacrifice there families, make $30,000 a year for it and are constantly exposed to stress and confrontations.
I hope you'll take all this to heart. I know it might not be printed do to libel concerns, but if you investigate it at all you'll see it's all fact. Thank You.
===============
Thanks to Towmater for providing this information.
=====================
towmater said...
Let me give you a couple more things to think about.
These are all the companies owned by a Mr. Gary Coe:
(1) Private Parking Auditors: Patrols parking lots and writes tickets, calls for Retriever for the tows.
(2) Retriever Towing: tows cars for parking infractions, patrols parking lots and handles district 3 police calls. Has two impound lots and shares three of Speeds Supertow's four lots.
(3) Oregon Lien: Puts liens on the impounded cars so that they can be auctioned. They do this for both Speeds and Retriever within about a week of being impounded.
(4) Speeds Auction Yard: Sells the cars not picked up from auction. For both Speeds and Retriever. They also auction cars for just about every charity you could imagine, not for free though.
(5) Speeds Supertow: Normal Towing. You call they come get you. They also handle police calls for district 5 and 8. They charge more than any other tow in town and they give a 20% discount to dealerships and shops. The dealerships and shops in turn charge full price to the cars owner for the tow and make a nice profit for picking speeds.
(6) Fleet Sales West: Custom makes tow trucks and towing equipment. They're the only one in town, so everyone goes to them or has it brought from out of state. They're also called Golden West Towing in California.
(7) Speeds Auto Service: Does all the fleet maintenance for not only the tow trucks but all Gary's other companies and they'll turn a wrench for people off the street. They're also a car dealership for the nicer cars.
(8) Speeds Auto Body: Does all the body work for the fleet of tow trucks and anyone they bump into.
(9) Auto Adventure: Chops cars up for parts and sells those parts nation wide.
(10) Coe Consulting: Sells the secrets to Gary Coe's success in twelve easy steps.
(11) Cascade Coach Town Cars: Drives people around like a taxi but for a lot more.
(12) Pacific Executive Service town cars: Also does the expensive taxi service but mostly to the airport.
Gary has the American dream, a monopoly. He has his fingers in three police districts. No other tow company can claim that inside Portland. He has over fifty trucks (all new) and six impound yards total. Bigger than anyone else in the State of Oregon. Gary controls a lions share of the contracts with dealerships and shops through 20% discount/kick backs. Gary also has his own lobbyist in the Oregon Legislature and has been President of several towing organizations.
The Tow Truck Drivers are poor and manipulated. They make commission off the tow. So its in there best interest to tow a lot and bend the rules, speed, cut corners.
They have no Union, no medical benefits. Most will be hurt several times on the job and will only last a couple of years.
None of these drivers have certification or CDLs. Their training is in-house or if they're lucky a traveling trainer (NATA) will come through town and give them some wall paper. Nobody ever fails those schools and they’re hosted on company property.
All these driver's sign a non-disclosure when hired so they can never speak about the truth.
They Drive 12 to 14 hours a day and have 24 hour on call shifts which means they are on the road more than a driver with a CDL legally could be. Big Rigs are only allowed to drive for eleven hours and they have to keep a log. Many of these Tow trucks are as big as a semi truck too.
Yes, many of these driver's are rude. But under these conditions who wouldnt be. Everybody hates them including their boss, they get little sleep, sacrifice there families, make $30,000 a year for it and are constantly exposed to stress and confrontations.
I hope you'll take all this to heart. I know it might not be printed do to libel concerns, but if you investigate it at all you'll see it's all fact. Thank You.
===============
Thanks to Towmater for providing this information.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Portland Tow Truck Set on Fire!
Portland, Oregon--Maxine Bernstein’s story describes how a patrol towing incident escalated rapidly to include an angry crowd, an attempt to set fire to the tow truck, and the vehicle owner under arrest.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/woman_accused_of_torching_a_to.html
This incident underscores the point that patrol towing is hazardous to the health of the general public, the legal foundation for California’s ban on the practice.
Oregon is the only state on the west coast that allows patrol towing.
The 2007 Oregon Legislature, under the leadership of Senator Avel Gordly, imposed regulations on patrol towing that have yet to be fully implemented, particularly by local governments.
The towing bills passed that year were Senate Bill 116 and Senate Bill 431.
I led the SB 431 workgroup, which focused on private property impounds, to deal with situations such as these, and participated in the SB 116 workgroup, which addressed the broad scope of towing in the state of Oregon.
Prior to the passage of these bills, towing practices in Oregon were largely unregulated, with state and local jurisdictions having little explicit authority to put a dent in abusive and predatory towing.
SB 116 laid out the public policy goal: “(a) Statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
SB 116 establishes the authority of the Oregon Attorney General to receive complaints and to adopt and implement rules to promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.
SB 116 also establishes the authority of local governments to regulate patrol towing within their respective jurisdictions, but none seem to have taken any action since the laws were enacted.
SB 431 addresses private property impounds or patrol towing, the cause of the vast majority of towing complaints.
The legislation also gave state and local governments the authority to regulate the prices towers may charge for heisting your vehicle, but there has been little, if any, action taken.
This is where a conflict of interest exists within municipal governments: as much as they may dislike the practice personally, they need the revenue generated by patrol towing operations to fund city and county services.
Placing a cap on the amount of ransom a tower can charge the victim for release of the victim’s vehicle is an obvious next step, but no elected official has stepped up to take that one on: the pushback will come not only from the towing companies; the heaviest political pressure will come from the commercial interests that authorize the patrol towing practices on their properties.
The property owners pay nothing for the patrol towing “services”, and they want to keep it that way.
The tow company owners pay their drivers on bonus or commission schedules, which explains the drivers’ motivation for aggressive behavior and need for speed.
Some of these drivers carry weapons.
As the patrol towers’ costs increase, they will increase their ransom demands at points of contact with the public.
In yesterday’s incident, the driver demanded $150 in cash for release of the vehicle.
How likely is the average apartment dweller to have that much cash on hand without prior notice?
Some are more likely to have a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun at home than a wallet full of cash.
Other states and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals have recognized the broad range of hazards to the general public and to the drivers themselves that patrol towing creates. Oregon has yet to step up and resolve the main issues.
The towers’ fee demands are often confiscatory in effect. Loss of vehicle is a penalty far beyond what is just for the “offense” that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle owner.
The patrol towers are hired to do one thing: remove a vehicle from the property.
If you are present at the scene, then you can remove the vehicle yourself. No need for a tow truck.
But that leaves the driver with an investment of time and emotion, and no money forthcoming from his employer, so he must get what he can from you, the vehicle owner.
California’s ban on predatory patrol towing is simple and straightforward, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and to sign the authorization form.
Commercial property interests and the patrol towers, led by the owners of Retreiver and Sergeant’s Towing, were able to prevent the inclusion of this language in the 2007 legislation, over Senator Gordly’s objections.
This is the most important towing reform legislative work yet to be completed, but I am unaware of any legislative office that is working on the issue (Senator Gordly is retiring prior to the 2009 session).
Here are some important links regarding patrol towing:
Link to description of key towing bills (“Towing reform bills moving”):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/gordly/newsletter_042007.htm
Link to Senate Bill 116 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0116.en.pdf
Link to Senate Bill 431 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0431.en.pdf
Link to Blogolitical Sean:
http://www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com/
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/woman_accused_of_torching_a_to.html
This incident underscores the point that patrol towing is hazardous to the health of the general public, the legal foundation for California’s ban on the practice.
Oregon is the only state on the west coast that allows patrol towing.
The 2007 Oregon Legislature, under the leadership of Senator Avel Gordly, imposed regulations on patrol towing that have yet to be fully implemented, particularly by local governments.
The towing bills passed that year were Senate Bill 116 and Senate Bill 431.
I led the SB 431 workgroup, which focused on private property impounds, to deal with situations such as these, and participated in the SB 116 workgroup, which addressed the broad scope of towing in the state of Oregon.
Prior to the passage of these bills, towing practices in Oregon were largely unregulated, with state and local jurisdictions having little explicit authority to put a dent in abusive and predatory towing.
SB 116 laid out the public policy goal: “(a) Statutes that assist members of the public in avoiding involuntary loss of use of motor vehicles and in expediting recovery of motor vehicles and the personal property in the motor vehicles promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.”
SB 116 establishes the authority of the Oregon Attorney General to receive complaints and to adopt and implement rules to promote the safety and welfare of members of the public.
SB 116 also establishes the authority of local governments to regulate patrol towing within their respective jurisdictions, but none seem to have taken any action since the laws were enacted.
SB 431 addresses private property impounds or patrol towing, the cause of the vast majority of towing complaints.
The legislation also gave state and local governments the authority to regulate the prices towers may charge for heisting your vehicle, but there has been little, if any, action taken.
This is where a conflict of interest exists within municipal governments: as much as they may dislike the practice personally, they need the revenue generated by patrol towing operations to fund city and county services.
Placing a cap on the amount of ransom a tower can charge the victim for release of the victim’s vehicle is an obvious next step, but no elected official has stepped up to take that one on: the pushback will come not only from the towing companies; the heaviest political pressure will come from the commercial interests that authorize the patrol towing practices on their properties.
The property owners pay nothing for the patrol towing “services”, and they want to keep it that way.
The tow company owners pay their drivers on bonus or commission schedules, which explains the drivers’ motivation for aggressive behavior and need for speed.
Some of these drivers carry weapons.
As the patrol towers’ costs increase, they will increase their ransom demands at points of contact with the public.
In yesterday’s incident, the driver demanded $150 in cash for release of the vehicle.
How likely is the average apartment dweller to have that much cash on hand without prior notice?
Some are more likely to have a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun at home than a wallet full of cash.
Other states and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals have recognized the broad range of hazards to the general public and to the drivers themselves that patrol towing creates. Oregon has yet to step up and resolve the main issues.
The towers’ fee demands are often confiscatory in effect. Loss of vehicle is a penalty far beyond what is just for the “offense” that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle owner.
The patrol towers are hired to do one thing: remove a vehicle from the property.
If you are present at the scene, then you can remove the vehicle yourself. No need for a tow truck.
But that leaves the driver with an investment of time and emotion, and no money forthcoming from his employer, so he must get what he can from you, the vehicle owner.
California’s ban on predatory patrol towing is simple and straightforward, requiring the property owner to be present at the time of the tow and to sign the authorization form.
Commercial property interests and the patrol towers, led by the owners of Retreiver and Sergeant’s Towing, were able to prevent the inclusion of this language in the 2007 legislation, over Senator Gordly’s objections.
This is the most important towing reform legislative work yet to be completed, but I am unaware of any legislative office that is working on the issue (Senator Gordly is retiring prior to the 2009 session).
Here are some important links regarding patrol towing:
Link to description of key towing bills (“Towing reform bills moving”):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/gordly/newsletter_042007.htm
Link to Senate Bill 116 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0100.dir/sb0116.en.pdf
Link to Senate Bill 431 (2007):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0431.en.pdf
Link to Blogolitical Sean:
http://www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Urgent Portland Predatory Towing Alert! Sergeant's Towing running tow scam on public property!
Tow scam targets wheelchair users, persons with legal disability placards!
McCall’s Waterfront Park is scene of tow heists!
By Sean Cruz
For the past year or more, Sergeant’s Towing has been running a towing scam in plain sight in front of the former McCall’s Restaurant at Waterfront Park.
The notorious patrol towing company has been taking vehicles from the publicly-owned parking lot with no contract or authority from the City of Portland to do so.
The City of Portland has just determined that a Portland man, whose wheelchair-enabled van was towed from the McCalls lot by a Sergeant’s tow thug, will get his money back.
Sergeant’s driver took the vehicle knowing he was leaving someone in a wheelchair without his vehicle!
That’s what is so egregious about this particular towing scam—it targets people in wheelchairs (but not just in wheelchairs!)!
The McCall’s lot contains several spaces reserved for vehicles marked with disabled placards, and a small forest of Sergeant’s signs that appear to be posted deliberately to confuse the public.
Some of the Sergeant’s signs posted throughout the lot state that a disability placard AND a McCall’s Restaurant permit must both be visible on the vehicle.
But McCall’s Restaurant has been closed for more than a year! There ARE no McCall’s Restaurant permits!
The predatory patrol towing victim parked in the lot on a Sunday afternoon intending to take a brisk wheel around the park. He parked his van in a space where the sign states that both the disability placard AND McCall’s permit must be displayed.
But McCall’s was an empty building! It was a Sunday! He’s been in a wheelchair for more than 15 years! The van has a wheelchair lift!
The reason that none of these facts were a deterrent was because he was precisely the sort of “customer” the scam is designed to snare!
Sergeant’s has no contract or authority to post its signs or tow vehicles from that parking lot.
That is a measure of the arrogance one finds rampant among patrol towers.
Anyone whose vehicle was towed from McCall’s in the past year should contact the City about getting your money back.
One wonders where else Sergeant’s is pulling these scams.
Many thanks to Tim Barrett for bulldogging this case to a successful conclusion.
Oregonians (and visitors to the state) owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Barrett for providing Senator Gordly’s office with his research on patrol towing in other states prior to the 2007 Legislative Session.
That information, which included the 9th U.S. Circuit Court’s ruling upholding California’s ban on patrol towing, gave us the legal foundation for Senate Bill 431 and Senate Bill 116. Both bills passed on unanimous votes.
The Circuit’s Court’s language is now embodied in Oregon Statute as Section 1 of Senate Bill 116 (2007).
As you can see, there remains some legislative work yet to be done regarding predatory patrol towing.
The accompanying photos of the McCall’s parking lot were taken by Sean Cruz the day after the wheelchair-enabled van was towed.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Portland's #1 Predatory Patrol Towing Horror Story blog is open for business!
Explains why Hacienda CDC’s Pietro Ferrari and patrol towers are supporting my opponent in the race for Senate District 23.
Here’s the link:
http://www.patroltowing.blogspot.com/
Stay tuned for exciting updates!
=======================
The Oregonian Editorial Board on Senate District 23:
“Cruz…knows the issues well…”
“Sean Cruz, who has served as (Senator) Gordly's legislative aide and chief of staff for the past five years…is qualified for the job. He knows the issues that are important in the district, and he certainly knows how things get done in the Legislature. Most notably, he persuaded Gordly to push legislation, called ‘Aaron's Law,’ that gives families tools to punish parents for the crime of child abduction. “
===========================
Ridenbaugh Press on Senate District 23:
As in many of these primary districts, issues here aren’t distinctly philosophical: The 23rd is a solidly liberal Democratic district, and both contenders fit well within that framework.
But they are insiders of two distinctly different stripes.
Dingfelder, a four-term state representative from this area, would have to be considered the establishment choice, getting the larger share of endorsements and contributions.
But Cruz is not an outsider, either; he is retiring Senator Gordly’s Chief of Staff, is well informed, has her support and the support of her backers.
His campaign has hit rough patches but may also be more interesting to some of the primary voters.
Cruz is edgier; Dingfelder more easy-going. You have to figure the edge is with Dingfelder, but bear in mind that central Portland doesn’t always go the conventional route.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2008/05/03/or-the-legislative-primaries-seven-picks/#more-1691
Here’s the link:
http://www.patroltowing.blogspot.com/
Stay tuned for exciting updates!
=======================
The Oregonian Editorial Board on Senate District 23:
“Cruz…knows the issues well…”
“Sean Cruz, who has served as (Senator) Gordly's legislative aide and chief of staff for the past five years…is qualified for the job. He knows the issues that are important in the district, and he certainly knows how things get done in the Legislature. Most notably, he persuaded Gordly to push legislation, called ‘Aaron's Law,’ that gives families tools to punish parents for the crime of child abduction. “
===========================
Ridenbaugh Press on Senate District 23:
As in many of these primary districts, issues here aren’t distinctly philosophical: The 23rd is a solidly liberal Democratic district, and both contenders fit well within that framework.
But they are insiders of two distinctly different stripes.
Dingfelder, a four-term state representative from this area, would have to be considered the establishment choice, getting the larger share of endorsements and contributions.
But Cruz is not an outsider, either; he is retiring Senator Gordly’s Chief of Staff, is well informed, has her support and the support of her backers.
His campaign has hit rough patches but may also be more interesting to some of the primary voters.
Cruz is edgier; Dingfelder more easy-going. You have to figure the edge is with Dingfelder, but bear in mind that central Portland doesn’t always go the conventional route.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2008/05/03/or-the-legislative-primaries-seven-picks/#more-1691
Monday, April 28, 2008
Portland's #1 Predatory Patrol Towing Horror Story meets the Wheelchair Bandits!
Sergeant’s Towing, one of the patrol towing companies that trespassed on my property and stole my van out of my own driveway (for the fourth time!) as a consequence of their contract with patrol towing kingpin Hacienda CDC, the absentee landlord of the apartments next door, also has a vehicle harvesting operation down at McCall’s on the waterfront that is no joke, if you happen to be in a wheelchair.
Last week, on a warm Sunday afternoon, Sergeant’s towed a clearly marked wheelchair-fitted van from one of the handicap slots in front of McCall’s, leaving my friend Mike Meier stranded in his wheelchair.
Sergeant’s maintains a forest of contradictory signs in the small lot outside McCall’s, which has been closed for a year or more.
Some of those signs require the usual handicap permit displayed on the vehicle, but some of them also require a McCall’s permit, which Mike obviously did not have, since they are impossible to get.
I went down there and took these photos to clarify the issue.
If you think it’s difficult to get your vehicle returned from the sociopaths the patrol towing companies employ to deal with the public, imagine how much more difficult it is for people with disabilities.
Senate Bill 116 and 431, passed in 2007, gives the state and local governments the authority to regulate involuntary towing.
If the City of Portland can’t get around to this, I’ll take care of it in the 2009 session.
If I’m elected to the Senate, count on it!
Meanwhile, I encourage you to contact the Mayor and Portland City Council and urge them to take action now.
Meanwhile, I encourage you to contact the Mayor and Portland City Council and urge them to take action now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
