Portland, Oregon—
“What if tow operators (and drivers) were licensed to improve consumer protection? Why not ban commissions as a form of compensation for tow truck drivers?....”
In today’s newspaper (December 30, 2008), The Oregonian poses these questions, offered by reader Kevin Johnson of NE Portland.
Read and comment here:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2008/12/license_tow_truck_operators_ba.html
My comment on Mr. Johnson’s suggestions were:
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.
These bills empower the Attorney General and local governments to regulate involuntary towing, INCLUDING THE PRICE THEREOF, but little action has been taken to enforce the new laws.
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.
Mr. Johnson's suggestions are right on point. There is still work for the 2009 legislature to do regarding towing.
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
Contact your legislators here, both House and Senate:
www.leg.state.or.us
File towing complaints with the Attorney General’s Office here:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/finfraud/towing.shtml
==========================
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/
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
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 incident, 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 incident, 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 tow truck set on fire, domestic violence victim stiffed, insulted by Gary Coe
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 story is here: http://www.katu.com/news/35896334.html
Coe was not present at the scene and had no basis to make such a judgement, 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 a case 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 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/
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 story is here: http://www.katu.com/news/35896334.html
Coe was not present at the scene and had no basis to make such a judgement, 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 a case 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 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, December 2, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)