News from Patrick Flynn

I’ve received a few questions, and more than a few compliments, for being the lone vote against the now infamous taxi cab ordinance.  To offer some perspective on this topic, below is a lightly-edited exchange I had with a gentleman who contacted me via Facebook and posted on my blog (please note I’ve removed his name to protect his privacy):

[Poster]:

Why would you vote against a proposal to revoke the license of a cab driver that’s involved in a sexual assault? I just read the article in the daily news and I am at a total loss as to who you are trying to protect.

Me:

Mr. [Poster],

I generally do not support laws of general application written to address a single circumstance. In this case we had a cab driver alleged to have committed a terrible crime, an inexperienced magistrate who failed to set appropriate bail and bail conditions, and an industry that stepped in to address that gap (with the judiciary doing the same days later). In short, there was no one left to protect against and no need for yet another law.

I’ve been pretty consistent in this policy during my tenure on the Assembly, hence my willingness to respond to someone who used inappropriate language to comment on my blog.

(Editor’s note: [Poster] previously left comments similar to his inquiry above, as well as an epithet, in response to an unrelated post.  Because one was irrelevant to the post topic and the other offensive, both were subsequently removed.)

Regards,

Patrick Flynn

[Poster]:

Mr. Flynn,

I am impressed by your quick response. While I admire you for not being eager to create new laws, I think this one is one worth having, I am amazed that it is even new! I think it’s similar to the laws we have with regard to those who prey on children as far as mandating that predators not be in places kids are likely to frequent. I realize to that it did pass the assembly so it is really a mute point. I am sorry for the language I used on your blog, as a person with strong Irish heritage sometimes I throw darts without clearly thinking about the ramifications. The bottom line is (and I think we agree) the whole case was mishandled but, I think it is the responsibility of the decision makers to ensure it does not happen again, and that citizens are protected from those who wish to harm

Regards,

[Poster]

Me:

Mr. [Poster],

I understand your strong feelings on this matter – they are widely held and I won’t try to dissuade you from them. I will, however, offer a little perspective:

Under this new law the next cab driver accused of sexual assault will almost certainly have his or her license revoked with the only relief if they can prove a negative – they didn’t commit the crime – to the transportation inspector.

I note you work for an oil field services firm. Recall that a Gulf of Mexico accident by BP resulted in suspension of all off-shore activity and now Shell is similarly forced to prove the negative – they won’t have a blowout and, if they do, it can be contained (and to a higher standard than those who’ve resumed drilling in the Gulf of Mexico).

History is littered with knee-jerk responses with unforeseen consequences (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin resolution) and, while I am not perfect, I try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Regards,

Patrick Flynn

[Poster]

Mr. Flynn,

You have done a very effective job of proving your point. I now see it from your point of view… Thank you for responding to me when you really didn’t have to.

So, for better or for worse, there you have it – my basis for standing alone.

Regards,

Patrick