Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Johnson vetoes taxi bill; council considers override

Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson has issued his second veto in eight years -- this time nixing a bill that won unanimous support from the County Council to expand the number of taxis in Prince George's.

Johnson said in a two-and-half page letter to the council that he liked the general premise of the bill but wasn't happy with the details, which he said could backfire against elderly riders and prospective taxi drivers, many of whom have been waiting for several years to get one of the coveted Prince George's medallions. And some drivers who were in line to get medallions would lose their spot under a new system in the bill, Johnson said in his message.

The law would add 400 permits to the current 775. Drivers have generally favored the legislation, which has been opposed by taxi companies.

The council would need six votes to override the veto. A vote is scheduled Tuesday.

Johnson's only other veto was in 2003 on a park tax measure, and the council overrode it.

By Miranda Spivack  |  August 6, 2010; 3:13 PM ET
Categories:  Miranda Spivack , Prince George's County  | Tags: jack johnson taxis, prince george's council, prince george's taxis  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: O'Malley touts progress on arrests from DNA
Next: First Click, Maryland -- Jobs, other stuff, other stuff

Comments

There is an embarrassing error in the above article, but before correcting it, I would note that The Washington Post seems to be viewed as a hostile, alien operation in Prince George's County. For example, any mentions of the Post at a recent NAACP candidate's forum drew catcalls, boos and other expressions of disdain, giving the impression that the Eagles or Cowboys get a better welcome at FedEX field than the Post gets in nearby county neighborhoods. Apparently, the Post isn't doing a very good job, or is just out of touch beyond the District line. Now, the Post seems to be so engaged in its own concept of the world or in notions being spread by the candidate it endorsed for County Executive that it can't tell the difference between current County Executive Jack Johnson and a candidate for the office, Sheriff Michael Jackson. So in the above article, "Johnson," in the first graf, becomes "Jackson" in the rest of the piece. Or can't you tell the difference? Meanwhile the candidate the Post perenially endorses for county executive has lost twice to Johnson and probably will lose again this time to Jackson. But this still does not mean Johnson and Jackson are the same person, or twins separated at birth -- or whatever other fantasy the Post's favored candidate wishes to dream up. The Post owes residents of the county and candidate Jackson more than an apology. How about a greater effort to find out and report what's really going on in Prince George's County so the boos and catcalls will stop?

Posted by: jmyers8331 | August 7, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Before I address the reasons Johnson vetoed the bill and why I agree with his veto as a resident of the County, let me just tell you how utterly embarrassed the newspaper and the writer should be at the political stunts you are using to constantly refer to County Executive Johnson as Jackson. Are you just rude to think people would not catch your name substitutions? Do you not proofread your work? Or do all Black men just look alike to you? Prince George's County residents are not stupid and ignorant as your above story suggests.

You're rooting for Rushern Baker, the Post Editorial Board's choice for OUR community's leader. People in the DC Metropolitan area know the Post also endorsed Adrian Malik Fenty. Look at what a disaster he has been in so many ways, to include yelling at his opponent and holding onto the microphone at the Ward Four straw poll. Prince George's County does not need your interference in our community so stick to advocating disasters in DC. Stop trying to make certain Mike Miller and Doug Peters are able to get Rushern Baker in. Baker hasn't managed one successful business yet and he has gotten more than $2 million in "loans" and donations. How in the world can he manage an entire County?

As to Johnson's, not Jackson's, veto in order to protect seniors and to prevent the amount of permits for cabs, I support it. Why would the City Council want to do anything to harm senior citizens or flood the cab industry to derail drivers who have waited to get into the system?

Tom Dernoga, candidate for State's Attorney, and Sam Dean, candidate for County Executive, support this legislation. We also need to check their campaign donations. After all, Sam Dean received 23 gifts last year, more than any other council member. Rumor has it Dernoga has ticketed with Rushern Baker, the Post's boy.

It's all coming to light. Keep on with your biased reporting Post because you're looking rather obvious. In the future, just make sure you can tell candidates apart and use their correct names. Geesh, get it together.

Posted by: southyrndiva | August 7, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The NAACP crowd hates the WaPo because the WP did not support PG's version of Marion Barry, Jack Johnson.

Now that the County Gov't is full of Jack-flaks, Jack's many benefactors are worried they'll be out on their ear if Michael (the dogs had it comin') Jackson isn't elected.

As far as the use of "Jackson" rather than "Johnson" in the blog, not much excuse for that kind of error.

Posted by: pgeagle | August 7, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Instead of calling you out for the obviously glaring tactic of trying to interchange Michael Jackson's name with Jack Johnson's in the article..I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since Michael Jackson will be the next Prince Georges County Executive, you were just getting an early start on referring to him as such. Looks good in print, get used to it. Thanks!

Posted by: wendyham | August 7, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Twice now The Washington Post has referred incorrectly to the number of bill vetoed by Mr. Johnson. A quick search of the COunty's Legislative Information System (available to all on the internet) shows 4 previous bills that were vetoed. Please see CB-32-2003, CB-73-2003, CB-11-2005 and CB-81-2005. One was overridden; one failed to gain enough votes to override; two were allowed to be sustained without a vote. Is is too difficult to check real sources for real facts?

Posted by: ralphgrutzmacher | August 11, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company