Board of Appeals delays decision in Prop K medallion revocation case

George Horbel, a 74‑year‑old San Francisco taxi driver who told the Board of Appeals he drove cab for 43 years, asked the board on Sept. 1 to reverse the Municipal Transportation Agency’s decision to revoke his Prop K medallion. Horbel testified he is “fighting for my economic life” and said the medallion represents his retirement security.

Horbel’s lawyer argued that Proposition K requires an applicant to declare an intention to drive, not to impose a perpetual, mandatory driving obligation. “It says the applicant shall declare an intention to drive,” counsel said, urging the board to consider context, federal ADA protections and the history of enforcement.

SFMTA lawyers and staff answered that the Transportation Code and federal and state court decisions impose a full‑time driving requirement on Prop K medallion holders. Deputy City Attorney Jim Emery told the board the code provision at issue “imposes a full‑time driving requirement” and that the Taxi Division has discretion to enforce that requirement.

Commissioners pressed both sides on the agency’s enforcement history. SFMTA officials said they began an internal review in 2019 that identified medallions out of compliance and led to notices; the agency estimated roughly 250 notices and about 45–50 appeals resulted. Several commissioners said they were troubled by the appearance of sporadic enforcement after long periods with little action and wanted better data before deciding the individual appeal.

Public commenters urged the board to consider disability protections and the era when medallions were distributed. Multiple speakers described the medallion program as a career retirement instrument and said sudden revocations risk impoverishing elderly or disabled holders.

To give the board a fuller picture, Commissioner Lopez moved to continue the matter to Nov. 17 and to require SFMTA to compile enforcement records showing revocations or nonrenewals tied to lack of California driver’s licenses or A‑cards (to the extent electronic records allow, and with reasonable efforts to find older paper files). The motion passed 4‑1. The board directed staff to consider postponing similar upcoming cases so the same evidence can be shared with commissioners.

Next steps: The case is continued to Nov. 17, 2021, at which point the board expects SFMTA to present the requested enforcement data; the appellant and counsel consented to the date.