Uber Drivers Urge NYC To End Advertising Ban On For-Hire Vehicles while getting ready to put tire tread on ny pml sec 109 at the expense of nassau otb, andrew cuomo& other infidels , see ny const art 1 sec 3. we shall bet santa anita in ny. we read bossert and thedaily news
Monday, January 20, 2020
Sunday, April 12, 2020
| Track Code | Track Name | Entry | Scratch | 1st Post ET | 1st Post Local | Time Zone | Stakes Race(s) | Stakes Grade | T.V. Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA | SANTA ANITA PARK | 72 | 48 | 3:00 PM | 12:00 PM | PDT | |||
| SUN | SUNLAND PARK | 168 | 24 | 2:30 PM | 12:30 PM | MDT | Mt. Cristo Rey H. | ||
| TAM | TAMPA BAY DOWNS | 72 | 0 | 12:35 PM | 12:35 PM |
Thanks for the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy, if you give me a mailing address.
Claude Solnik
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348
Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
NEW YORK (WCBS 880) — Uber and Lyft drivers on Wednesday urged New York City lawmakers to reverse a ban on rooftop ads for for-hire vehicles.
According to WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb reports, a pair of City Council measures would undo the 20-year-old Taxi and Limousine Commission ban against advertising inside or outside for-hire vehicles.
Aziz Bah drives for Uber and Lyft, and says his fellow drivers are in tough shape financially.
“The advertising really is gonna save the day in a sense, because I'm getting paid extra to do the same exact thing that I would otherwise do every single day,” he said. “I don't see the reason why they are telling me to have it.”
Taxi and Limousine Commissioner Bill Heinzen is gently skeptical.
“Whenever companies come with a solution that's gonna promise money, we're always nervous because we've seen this in the past where they've come and the drivers haven't benefited or vehicle owners haven't benefited,” he said.
Drivers say the advertising would add $300 per month to their income.
Justia Opinion Summary
WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment