|
|
| Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 (303146) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (303155) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun Mar 1 20:49:58 2015, in response to Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Sun Mar 1 19:12:46 2015. The resulting litigation lasted almost a decade thereafter. The main issue in that condemnation litigation was whether or not the bus companies were entitled to compensation for their intangible assets. That is, the value of the business that they had built up, and their systems of operation, management, training, etc. The City claimed that no one would want to buy Fifth Avenue's antiquated and obsolete systems, and therefore they had no value. The lower courts largely agreed with the City (for example, the trial court held that there was no value to Fifth Avenue's investment in its operations planning system since it really requires no thought or effort to figure out that buses should go up and down Manhattan's avenues and main crosstowns). But the Court of Appeals ultimately held the City could not pick-and-choose; if the City were to condemn the bus companies, then the City would also have to pay for the intangible property as well. In other words, the value of the bus companies was not merely the sum of the value of the buses, garages, and real property, but had going-concern value as well. |
|
|
| (303157) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 1 22:35:11 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by BusMgr on Sun Mar 1 20:49:58 2015. However, couldn’t the city have merely done what mayor Laguardia threatened to do with TARS and simply refuse to renew the franchises when they came up for renewal? |
|
|
| (303160) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Andy on Mon Mar 2 07:42:59 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by randyo on Sun Mar 1 22:35:11 2015. Not in this case. A new management at FACO provoked the strike by dismissing 29 veteran employees on light duty because they could not drive buses due to injuries from accidents. The workers had a contract but the management ignored it. In order to restore the service quickly, condemnation was the most feasible solution. Mayor Wagner also disliked the new FACO management and was quite happy to be rid of them. |
|
|
| (303161) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by TheHat on Mon Mar 2 07:54:33 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Mon Mar 2 07:42:59 2015. Does anyone know about FACO management running away with the pension fund money, or is that a rumor/urban legend? |
|
|
| (303164) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by HART BUS on Mon Mar 2 08:30:43 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by TheHat on Mon Mar 2 07:54:33 2015. Also what happened to the monies that were received? After receipt FACC kept the name and became an investment company with a lot of litigation from the SEC.The name was changed to, I think, South Bay Investments ( or a similar sounding name ) and then the internet trail goes cold. |
|
|
| (303168) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 2 09:33:59 2015, in response to Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Sun Mar 1 19:12:46 2015. Whose drivers did Mabstoa start with ? |
|
|
| (303171) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Mar 2 10:07:09 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by randyo on Sun Mar 1 22:35:11 2015. No, they could not. Fifth Avenue Coach had mostly perpetual franchises granted many years prior, and in the absence of any recapture provision, there was not a need to "renew" the franchises. The only way that the City could get the franchises out of the hands of Fifth Avenue was to condemn the franchises.This was also the case with many street railways. Where the street railway company favored motorization on economic grounds (or where the City made life difficult for the company), the company gave up perpetual street railway franchises for bus franchises of limited duration (but in doing so, they were able to obtain 25-year bus franchises in exchange, and only on renewal were they reduced to the more-familiar 10-year franchises). |
|
|
| (303174) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 2 12:40:07 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Mon Mar 2 07:42:59 2015. The initial condemnation might have been necessary but at some point the franchises would have come up for renewal and with non renewal of the franchises, there would have been no “value” to the routes to sue for. |
|
|
| (303175) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 2 12:42:32 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 2 09:33:59 2015. The drivers who were currently employed by FACO and STS. |
|
|
| (303177) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Mon Mar 2 15:16:14 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by BusMgr on Mon Mar 2 10:07:09 2015. Fifth Avenue Coach argued that it had perpetual franchises for its Fifth Avenue routes. A judge finally ruled that the only perpetual franchise Fifth Ave had was Route 1 Fifth Avenue (Washington Square to 135th St.) All other routes were branch routes issued by NYC Franchises Bureau which could be revoked. So NYC got all the routes, except Route 1 which was never run by MaBSTOA. (Not to be confuses with Madison Avenue Rt. 1). |
|
|
| (303186) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Andy on Mon Mar 2 20:19:45 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by randyo on Mon Mar 2 12:42:32 2015. Correct. Everyone who worked for FACO and STS went back to work including the 29 fired employees. In 1963, the FACO, NYCO, and STS seniority lists were merged, and garage assignments modified to end the often illogical practices of the predecessor private companies.TA drivers were, and continue to be, on separate seniority lists. No TA drivers were reassigned to MABSTOA. |
|
|
| (303196) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by HART BUS on Tue Mar 3 08:50:51 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by randyo on Mon Mar 2 12:40:07 2015. But weren't FACC's routes awarded by the state. That's why they didn't have a borough letter as a pre-fix to their routes. |
|
|
| (303202) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Tue Mar 3 11:39:36 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by northshore on Mon Mar 2 15:16:14 2015. Yes, it was complicated as to which parts were perpetual, and which were not. If I recall correctly, the state legislature granted multiple perpetual franchises, and other parts came from the Board of Estimate (and managed by the Bureau of Franchises). I don't recall the state-granted franchises being exclusive, and in the absence of an exclusive franchise, other franchises can be granted for the same service. |
|
|
| (303216) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Mar 3 17:37:13 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by HART BUS on Tue Mar 3 08:50:51 2015. I hadn’t heard about that, but I would imagine if that were the case, the state would purposely have stepped in and precluded the takeover. The STS routes operated by the company were definitely awarded by the city since they were the weapon used by Laguardia to force bustitution. As for the lack of a borough prefix, since all but two of FACO’s routes operated entirely within the borough of Manhattan unlike STS which had a significant number of routes in the Bronx the company, like NYC Omnibus probably felt no need to have a boro prefix. |
|
|
| (303218) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Mar 3 17:41:11 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Mon Mar 2 20:19:45 2015. Although initially no TA drivers were reassigned to MABSTOA, AFAIK, current union agreements allow OA and TA drivers to pick into each others depots that are represented by TWU. Queens and SI depots are excluded since they are represented by ATU. |
|
|
| (303226) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Wed Mar 4 08:44:42 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by randyo on Tue Mar 3 17:37:13 2015. As a point of history, FACO had 2 other outer borough routes briefly. Foute 12 Concourse and Route 14 Concourse-Hub were originally FACO with open top double deckersdrom 1924-26. STS brought a lawsuit against FACO and won. Thus we now have Bx1 & Bx2. |
|
|
| (303227) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 09:22:08 2015, in response to Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Andy on Sun Mar 1 19:12:46 2015. On this date, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) began a work stoppage against Fifth Avenue Coach Lines and Surface Transit, eliminating all Bronx bus service and about 95% of Manhattan's service. After 23 days it was ended, when NY City seized the company's buses and garages and began operating the buses under a new TA subsidiary, MABSTOA.There was no bus-chat at the time. I wonder how the actual mechanics of the takeover went? The city certainly could revoke the franchises. But the buses and the garages were owned by private companies. Yet the city re-started the service using FACO and Surface buses. Does anyone know more of the details? Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (303228) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 09:24:10 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by HART BUS on Mon Mar 2 08:30:43 2015. Also what happened to the monies that were received? After receipt FACC kept the name and became an investment company with a lot of litigation from the SEC.FACL continued to operate buses in Westchester County, namely Westchester street Transportation Company. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (303230) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Mar 4 10:24:19 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 09:22:08 2015. No, franchises cannot be "revoked" arbitrarily since franchises are enforced as a contract (unless, of course, there is a term in the franchise relating to revocation). To get a franchise out of the hands of someone, the government has to condemn the franchise. And even if the City had not condemned the company's franchise, the Court of Appeals held that the City would still have to pay the company for its franchise. "[I]n each instance where one of [the Fifth Avenue or Surface Transit] franchises was destroyed, an award must be made whether or not that franchise was the subject of a formal condemnation . . . ." Matter of City of New York (Fifth Ave. Coach Lines), 22 N.Y.2d 613, 626 (1968).In the case of Fifth Avenue, the City condemned the property of Fifth Avenue and Surface Transit (including their franchises). Government can do that (subject to the right of the condemnee to receive "just compensation" for any property taken), and in this case, it did. And that taking can occur right away, even before the value of the property is finally determined. Here, the litigation resulting from disagreements as to valuation did not finish until 1970, eight years after the property was taken! |
|
|
| (303231) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Wed Mar 4 10:31:53 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 09:24:10 2015. Yes Fifth Avenue operated the Westchester Street routes until 1969 for the Mount Vernon Division and finally 1970 for the White Plains Division, st which time it was all sold to Liberty Lines. |
|
|
| (303235) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 12:35:50 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by BusMgr on Wed Mar 4 10:24:19 2015. No, franchises cannot be "revoked" arbitrarily since franchises are enforced as a contractRegardless of the terminology used the city could and did revoke the franchise. To the best of my knowledge though the buses and garages were the property of the individual companies. How did the city resume the service with equipment that belonged to those companies? Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (303238) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Mar 4 13:34:32 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Mar 4 12:35:50 2015. No, the franchises were not revoked; the franchises were condemned. There's a big difference between the two. And as for the buses and garage, they, too, were condemned by the City. After condemnation, neither the franchises, the buses, nor the garages were the property of Fifth Avenue and Surface Transit; after condemnation, titled vested with the City. And thus, MaBSTOA operated using property belonging to the City, not to the private bus companies. |
|
|
| (303240) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Mar 4 15:02:24 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by northshore on Wed Mar 4 08:44:42 2015. Thanks for the info. I was’t aware of that. |
|
|
| (303243) | |
Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962 |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Wed Mar 4 20:33:26 2015, in response to Re: Bus Strike Anniversary - March 1, 1962, posted by BusMgr on Wed Mar 4 13:34:32 2015. Good answer. |
|
|