Anchorage Cab Phone numbers

50 per miles and $38.00 per hours wait (Credit: Alaska Yellow Dispatch). Sightseeing tours typically from $15 to $30 include $20 to the city center (where the Sheraton and Hilton Hotel are located), $25 to the University of Alaska.

Not many taxis drive up and down the roads in Anchorage, a taxi that makes you wait a long while.

Full and part-time Anchorage contractor assignments give you the freedom to work as much or as little as you want.

Full and part-time Anchorage contractor assignments give you the freedom to work as much or as little as you want. That is why we work with tens of millions of locals who keep Anchorage in motion. Collectively, we strengthen the community's economies, help make roads safe from drunken drivers, and promote a less polluted world.

Package prices are applicable for non-stop journeys between certain places. During periods of strong market demands, our tariffs vary over the years to keep our cars available.

NO 403 PROHIBITED: REGISTERED AT HONIGPOT

You have either blocked the URL from which you accessed this Site for past conduct that was previously deemed harmful, or the activity you are attempting is deemed harmful to the good working of this system. All of your domain name and your domain name (if resolvable) have been recorded in a unique location, along with the referencing page (if any), QUERY, POST, User Agent, Acces timing and date.

Terminate access to this system. Book: Inquiry:: The Stripped Query:

citizens of anchorage for taxi reform from commonality of anchorage

Alaska Supreme Court. citizens of anchorage for taxy reform, appellant, v. municipality of legacy, and greg moyer, secretary, and anchorage taxicab permission owners association, appeals. Section 7 of section XI of the Alaska Constitution forbids the use of an action to create "appropriation". "Anchorage Citizens for Taxicab Reforms (Anchorage Citizens) filed an application with the municipality of Anchorage for an action obliging the municipality to grant a tax exemption to a skilled individual who pays an administration charge.

The City Secretary refused the application on the grounds that the adoption of the proposal would be in breach of Section 7 of Art. XI. Anchorage Citizens brought a lawsuit, and the community high courts issued a speedy order. As taxi regulations are not part of the general interest, we believe that the proposal would not constitute an "allocation of resources".

" We also believe that the idea is not outdated. Anchorage Citizens submitted a motion to the Anchorage community in February 2002 for a vote titled'Initiative petition 2002 Taxi, limousine and vehicle for Hire Reformation Act'. Pursuant to the agreement, the local authority will grant a taxi licence to any skilled person who pays an administration charge.

The citizens wanted the idea to be put to the vote at the next local elections in April 2002. The prosecutor cautioned that the suggested action would demand fair damages from the community in order to prevent unconstitutional rights of present owners of taxis and thus inadmissible use of community resources.

Angechorage Citizens lodged a petition with the Supreme Courts to demand a statement that the community and administrator Greg Moyer were mistaken in their refusal to endorse the petition, and a resolution setting the petition for the next local election day. A request for intervention was submitted by the Anchorage Taxicab Permit Owners Association (Owners Association) and the Higher Tribunal approved the request.

Anchorage Citizens and the Owners Association both requested a summative verdict, and the community endorsed the Owners Association's request. The Higher Regional Courts issued a summative ruling to the community and the community of owners in March 2003. First, the Anchorage Assembly would have to take over the property "unconstitutionally", which would necessitate acquisition by the Anchorage Assembly to provide "fair compensation"; second, the Anchorage Assembly would give away municipal control and permissions to the population.

Upon receipt of the non-appealable verdict, the law clerk ordered Anchorage Citizens to bear the legal expenses of the Owners Association in the amount of $3,292.39. The community of owners then applied for the lawyer's fee. The Higher Regional Court rejected the request and determined that Anchorage Citizens was a trial lawyer of common interest, but confirmed the allocation of charges against Anchorage Citizens.

Annex Citizens appeal against the granting of a summative verdict to the community and the costs order by the courts. The community of owners and the community have argued that the petition, although constitutional, is dead. The Owners Association also arguments that facilitation should be refused according to the teachings of salmon.

Anchorage Citizens claim that the Higher Regional Courts made a mistake when it came to the conclusion that the petition would make an acquisition. Anchorage Citizens has argued that taxi licences are not "public goods" provided by the venture. Anchorage Citizens also asserts that this tribunal does not have to rule on whether the approvals are proprietary, the receipt of which would demand fair remuneration.

As regards the latter point, a debate on unconstitutional revenues would be too early and could unreasonably interfere with the initiation procedure. Thus, the principal issue for us on our way of appealing is whether the proposed legislation provides for an allocation of resources, a matter that raises the issue of whether taxi authorisations are considered private goods.

B. The Initiative wouldn't take municipal property. There are currently three categories of Taxiicab licenses in Anchorage:'transferable general' licenses,''limited' licenses and' non-transferable' licenses. Transmissible general authorisations may, with the consent of the Anchorage Transportation Kommission, be transmitted, rented, traded or subject to the imposition of safety rights.

At present, 24 There are 158 general authorisations that can be transferred at ?There . These approvals were recently rated at up to $125,000 each. Restricted and non-transferable licenses may not be resold. The Local Council Rules provide that the Committee must grant supplementary authorisations, whether restricted or non-transferable, if "the best way to fulfil the purpose and need for publicity is to grant one or more supplementary authorisations to ?".

"?The The Community ?The makes no claim, and Anchorage Citizens does not dispute, that the Community has granted four non-transferable and no finite licences since 1994. The non-negotiable authorizations were granted in a competitive tender; each was purchased at ?each for between approximately $30,000 and $45,000. According to the community, taxi licenses are "resources under the control of the community and thus government property.

" It corresponds to this petition of those we considered in Pullen v. Ulmer to be unconstitutional,27 and proposes that the revenue-increasing aspects of the taxi cab licensing system make the licenses themselves communal property. However, the local authority does not claim that an action that affects the authority of the local authority to authorise would be an annex.

Therefore, 28 We examines only whether the licences themselves are publicly -owned at the time of their transfer from the local authority to the licencee. C. The Initiative is not obsolete. In addition, we have already stated that "[b]ecause the Alaska Constitution retains the capacity of mankind to legislate through initiative and pass legislation, and ? Tribunals must give legal and Constitutional provisions of initiative wide, open reading.

1 ) An Ankorage venture must be subscribed and currently recorded by voting individuals "at the moment[they] sign[ ] the Petition; " and and (2) the Pedition must be presented to the electorate "at the next scheduled elections that take place at least 45 calendar nights after the date of registration. "Moreover, the period for fulfilling the second condition has not yet expired, as the local authority has not yet issued a certificate for the project.

If the community does this in custody and presents the petition to the electorate for the next ordinary elections, the "qualified voters" of the community are rigorously adhered to. We are also urged by the community and the Owners Association to take the stand of the California Supreme Court in Gage v. Jordan, which found that an action that was unsuccessful because it did not have the necessary number of signs could not be revived two years later by reducing the number of signs needed for accreditation.

Gage is distinguished by the fact that the proponents of the initiatives did not "let the matter rest" like the Petenten in Gage. Instead, Anchorage Citizens requested the authentication of its own motion in good time and immediately lodged a lawsuit with the Supreme Tribunal after the clerk's refusal. We therefore come to the conclusion that the scheme is not obsolete.

D. It is not allowed to allocate expenses against anchoring citizens. The Higher Regional Court of ?The ruled that Anchorage Citizens is a trial attorney of general interest, but confirmed the writers' ruling on the trial fees to the Owners Association against Anchorage Citizens. Anchorage Citizens argued that it was a mistake to allocate expenses against it. The local authority and the community do not dispute the Supreme Court's ruling on the position of an intervener in the general interest of Anchorage Citizens, nor do they investigate whether the Supreme Court has legitimately allocated expenses to the community after finding that Anchorage Citizens is an intervener in the general interest.

As we overturn the judgement below, the community of owners is no longer the dominant one. However, we point out that in the interest of the general good the litigators do not have to bear the counterparty's expenses or the lawyer's fee. Because it is not disputed at Because that Anchorage Citizens is an intervener of general interest, it should not have been subject to legal proceedings even if it was not the dominant arbitrator in the Supreme Tribunal.

Now that Anchorage Citizens are the dominant political group, they can demand the predominant charges and expenses for pre-trial detention. Given that the Taxiicabitiative does not contravene the provisions of Section 7 of XI, Restriction of Unsolicited Applications, we return the judgement below. We also INTEND the allocation of expenses against Anchorage Citizens.

We RECALL the registration of an altered judgement instructing the local authority to confirm the petition and present it to the electorate at the next local elections. Taxicab 1 Taxicab allows business owners to use a expensive and important local resources - road infrastructure - for personal purposes. As such, they offer those who obtain them immediate acces to a precious and finite common resources.

In legal terms, this cannot be distinguished from the licences in dispute. At Pullen, we annulled an action that would have instructed the State to favour non-commercial salmon over commercially licensed fish. We have recognised that "the State does not own wild animals exactly as it possesses common property", but we have described the real problem as "whether the State's interest in wild animals is so great that it can reasonably be described as appropriable State property".

Just as the humans of Alaska have an interest in equitably distributing the finite animal resource of our state, so the humans of Anchorage have an interest in equitably distributing the use of finite and publically financed roads for business ends. Today's statement also suggests that the scheme cannot be an adoption, as "Taxicab licences are granted not to fund the community but to fulfil a regulating role.

There are both ends, as the handling of taxi regulations by the Anchorage municipal regulations shows. It obliges the local authority to consider "public utility and necessity" when issuing permits6 and demands that new licenses be auctioned at the "public auction" ? to the "highest bidder". "?Consideration For the purpose of increasing efficiency and need for services of general interest, the regulation role is to be performed by the regulator, while the requirement that authorisations be auctioned off to the highest bidder is to be performed by the revenues enhancement role.

Since 1994, the community has published only a small number, which does not indicate how today's statement "assumes" that collection of revenues is not a goal of the Bible; rather, it proposes that the community has weighed diligently two non-exclusive goals, regulatory and collection of revenues. Eventually, today's statement approves a "give-away program," no less than the initiative found at the Pullen and Alaska Action Center to be illegal.

Rather than limit the number of licences needed by reason of expediency and need, the ?Rather website calls for the introduction of a "licence to be awarded to each eligible applicant". "?And And, instead of demanding that the licence go to "the highest qualifying bidder" And at a "public auction"," , the suggested option would demand that the licence fees be restricted to administration costs,16 about $825 and not the $45,000 mark.

In Staudenmaier v. Gemeinde Anchorage,17 we have stated that a compulsory disposal of a communal property - also at fair value - is a purpose of this property. Here the foreclosure - for $825 - of an estate for which the community could win up to $45,000 at bidding corresponds to a give-away of the estate.

Given that the idea of "the way in which the Anchorage Assembly will use local assets", "?", would result in an allocation of resources. The ?The website explains in the section relevant: The proposal: The municipality issues a non-transferable general taxi certificate to each qualifying claimant. Charges for the issuing or annually renewing taxi, sedan or rental car approvals are common.

The grant or extension fee necessary for any of the abovementioned authorisations shall be equal and calculated so as to recover only the actual cost of administration of the grant and submission and not so as to constitute a significant obstacle to admission. Exempt from this law is that for cars that are fully handicapped accessible, no charges are made on taxi registrations.

The Municipality is not entitled to set tariffs for saloon or limo services, nor for the use of our services. Every car shipping company approved by the municipality is entitled to ship any car. We therefore do not here determine whether the taxi licences are privately owned, the receipt of which would require fair remuneration, nor do we determine whether the initiatives would lead to such receipt.

Our finite scrutiny is in line with the notion that an action can be scrutinised before it goes to the electorate only to "ensure respect for the specific legal and regulatory requirements of the Constitution". Government v. Trust the People, 113 p.3d 613, 626 (Alaska 2005) (citing Alaska Action Ctr. Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 84 p. 3d 989, 992 (Alaska 2004)).

84 p. 3d at 992 (cites Brooks v. Wright, 971 p. 2d 1025, 1027 (Alaska 1999)). McCormick v. Reliance Ins. Co., 46 p. 3d 1009, 1011 (Alaska 2002). Rockstad v. Erikson, 113 p. 3d 1215, 1219 (Alaska 2005). Pullen v. Ulmer, 923 p. 2d 54, 58 (Alaska 1996). City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention & Visitors Bureau, 818 P.2d 1153, 1155 (Alaska 1991)).

Sea Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State, 122 S.3d 781, 785 (Alaska 2005). Thomas v. Bailey, 595 p. 2d 1, 3 (Alaska 1979). Dolls, 923 P.2d at 58. 84 p. 3d in 993 (to clarify that the ban on ownership by initiatives includes property and then to examine whether an action would be appropriate for that property); Pullen, 923 p. 2d in 58, 61 (to examine whether pollack are publicly owned and then to examine whether an action would be appropriate for that publicly owned property); ?Alaska Conservative Political Action Comm. v. icipality of Anchorage, 745 p. 2

936, 938 (Alaska 1987) (considering that a utilities company is a significant local authority property and that this action, which requires the local authority to make a $1 utilities company available, would be the provision of this property). Dolls, 923 P.2d at 58-61. See Thomas v. Rosen, 569 p. 2d 793, 796 (Alaska 1977) (advocates the concept of 'resource allocation', which involves the provision of 'public revenue').

Although Rosen questioned whether a voter-approved bail proposal was a grant law within the terms of Section 15 of Section II of Section 15 of the Alaska Constitution, we have quoted Rosen consequently when we have stated that government revenues or funds cannot be granted by petition. See dolls, 923 P.2d at 58; Bailey, 595 P.2d at 6 n. 21.

See Bailey, 595 P.2d at 4-9 (state lands may not be acquired by initiative); see also Alaska Action Ctr. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 90-91 (Alaska 1988) (holds part of the action that would have carried over country from the University of Alaska to the new Fellowship College - an illegal appropriation). Lake Alaska Conservative Political Action Comm.

745 P.2d at 938 ("A utilities company with $32.7 million shareholders' is a significant local government asset."). See Pullen, 923 p.2d at 61. Id. under 63; see also City of Fairbanks, 818 P.2d under 1156 (noting that our cases concentrate on "two simultaneous objectives to prevent fundraising through the initiation process").

See Pullen, 923 p.2d at 62-63; ?see also Alaska Action Ctr. 84 p. 3d at 993-94; ?City by Fairbanks, 818 p. 2d at 1156. Bailey, 595 p. 2d at 7 (quotes V. Fisher, Alaska's Constitutional Convention 80-81 (1975)). McAlpine, 762 p.2d at 88 (focus in original); ?see also Alaska Action Ctr. 84 p. 3d at 994; ?City by Fairbanks, 818 p. 2d at 1156.

Transmissible general authorisations were granted before 22 February 1994 and temporary and non-transmissible authorisations have been granted since 22 February 1994. Municipalities can no longer grant general authorisations that can be transferred. Limitation of use to a certain period of use or a certain geographical area, as defined by the European Comission. Limitations and non-transferable permissions are confined to taxi riders who are both owner and operator of the taxi under the permission.

In taking this decision, the Honourable Member states that the decision may take into account, inter alia, the level of government support for the provision of extra services, the unmet needs for services, the appropriateness of the delay for services, the commercial effect of extra authorisations on the vitality of the current cab business and the nature of the authorisation that would cover the need for extra services.

Pullen v. Ulmer, 923 p. 2d 54 (Alaska 1996). At verbal point before us, Anchorage Citizens reasoned that the "right to grant taxi licenses" is an exercising of the community's policing powers, not a government property subjected to appropriateation. Dolls, 923 P.2d at 55. Because we believe that taxi licences are not common goods, we do not need to check whether the initiatives would be appropriate.

The Owners Association also proposes that the ten per cent rule could no longer be fulfilled if there were more electors in the April 2003 elections than in the 2000 elections. Kodiak Island Borough v. Mahoney, 71 P.3d 896, 899 (Alaska 2003); see also Pullen, 923 P.2d at 58; see Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173, 1181 (Alaska 1985) ("[A]ll Any doubt as to any technological defect or non-compliance with the precise procedures will be solved in favour of [preservation of the initiative].

"cited by Boucher v. Engstrom, 528 p.2d 456, 462 (Alaska 1974). Gage v. Jordan, 23 cal. 2d 794, 147 p.2d 387, 394 (1944). 8 p. 3d 351, 358-59 (Alaska 2000). Lake Alaska R. Civ. The Owners Association proposes that Anchorage Citizens delay the process by not trying to obtain a legally binding appeal verdict in good time before the April 2003 election.

The Owners Association's reasoning about prejudices also failed. It states that the delays since the rejection of the petition by the community "would affect the electorate of the community of Anchorage. The Owners Association also affirms the flimsy point that we made above. State, 931 P.2d 391, 404 (Alaska 1997); Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015, 1017, 1030-31 (Alaska 1996).

1. p. 2d 54 (Alaska 1996). P.2d at 60-61. The community owns the streets, and so the case that part of this land is provided on own accord is even less than in Pullen. This is only the value of the asset that may be diminished to the general population in the context of the initiatives in the foreseeable future. 1.

According to a sworn statement by James B. Taylor, an official of the Anchorage Taxiicab Permit Owners' Association, there are 160 general transfersable taxi cab licenses in Anchorage, each with a fair value of $125,000 per license. Town of Wrangell, 763 p.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1988) (possible verdict against the town for $25,000 or more constituted a "substantial amount of money").

See Fairbanks Fireighters Ass'n v. City Fairbanks, 934 P.2d 759, 763 n. 11 (Alaska 1997) ($4000 per annum were "a considerable amount of money"). Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 84 p. 3d 989, 993-94 (Alaska 2004). S. 3d 1259, 1262 (Alaska 2006). See also Alaska Conservative Political Action Comm. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 745 p.2d 936 (Alaska 1987) (Forced sales of communal property below fair value represents an appropriation).