Bill that would regulate Georgia's booting industry passes Senate
Why it matters: Booting is used by many property owners to limit who can park in their lots to keep that space free for their customers, but the industry has come under increased scrutiny in recent years over its tactics.
Driving the news: The State Senate passed House Bill 551 with an amendment offered by Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Sandy Springs) that would require booting companies to follow the same regulations as towing companies.
It would prohibit booters from monitoring parking lots and ban "kickbacks," which are the fees booting companies pay to property owners for the right to boot vehicles from their lots.
The bill passed unanimously out of the Senate and now goes back to the House for a final vote.
What they're saying:"Right now, booters can basically camp out in a parking lot, wait for somebody to walk into a store, and then three minutes later, throw a boot on their car," McLaurin told Axios.
He also said the legislation doesn't prevent property owners from using booting services; it just prohibits companies from camping in lots and waiting for potential violators.
State of play: Unlike towing, which is regulated statewide, the booting industry is monitored via a patchwork of local ordinances approved by cities and counties.
Atlanta's ordinance, which went into effect in 2018, requires property owners to create clear signs about the parking policy, caps fines at $75, and provides clear identification for representatives of booting companies.
Flashback: The business of booting received fresh scrutiny when the Boot Girls in Buckhead began advertising their services to remove boots from vehicles.
Yes, but: Removing a boot from a vehicle without paying the booting company for that service can lead to confrontations that can quickly turn dicey.
In 2023, the Boot Girls shared a video showing a man placing his foot on a boot and threatening to call the police while one of the women was trying to remove it from a car.
Atlanta police previously said it does not get involved with booting unless a criminal issue happens.
Owning a boot key isn't illegal, but Atlanta police said a person could be charged with criminal trespass, theft of service, theft by taking or damage to property if they use a boot key to remove an immobilization device.
What we're watching: With Sine Die (the end of the legislative session) just a few days away, McLaurin said he's confident there are "a lot of House Republicans" who would support the regulations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bill Barr deposition kicks off House GOP's Epstein probe
Former Attorney General Bill Barr answered questions about Jeffrey Epstein in a Monday deposition with the House Oversight Committee that kicked off the panel's probe into matters relating to the late sex offender — an interview that fueled Republican defenses of President Trump while leaving the panel's Democrats hoping to call additional witnesses. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the panel's chair who was present for the first hours of the deposition, told reporters that Barr testified that he did not know of any information that would implicate President Trump. 'What Attorney General Barr testified in there was that he never had conversations with President Trump pertaining to a client list,' Comer said. 'He didn't know anything about a client list. He said that he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this, and that he believed if there had been anything pertaining to President Trump with respect to the Epstein list, that he felt like the Biden administration would have probably leaked it out.' Asked about reporting from the Wall Street Journal that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told Trump that he was mentioned in the Epstein files, Comer said Barr talked about how 'you go over everyone that you've ever been in communication with, or whatever, that doesn't implicate you, as far as being guilty.' Democrats on the panel who sat in on the deposition, meanwhile, asserted that they were taking the investigation more seriously than the Republicans. 'I think the Democratic side is doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't think we're learning much from the questioning from the House Republicans. It doesn't seem like this is something where they are truly caring about the victims and about trying to get to the bottom of what's happening,' Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) said. 'It seems like they are going through the motions, and they want people to believe that they are digging in,' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) added about her Republican counterparts. 'But at the end of the day, I don't think that we've learned anything through the Republican questioning that you couldn't find in one of the articles that most likely your outlets have printed.' Comer in response said: 'It's unfortunate the Democrats are trying to, seems to me, politicize this, when you look at the basis of this, horrific crimes against young girls. And of course, the Democrats' goal is to try to dig up some type of dirt on President Trump.' The panel's Epstein investigation was spurred by the furor that followed the Department of Justice and FBI releasing a memo in July saying that it would not release any more information from the so-called 'Epstein files.' The announcement further fueled conspiracy theories that the government is shielding powerful individuals who may have been involved with Epstein's abuse of young women and underage girls. Barr is one of 10 high-profile former federal officials who the Oversight panel subpoenaed as it looks into the Epstein matter, pursuant to a Republican-led motion that came as Democrats on the panel also successfully moved to subpoena the Justice Department for the 'full, unredacted Epstein files.' Deposition dates are also set for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who, like president Trump, had socialized with Epstein — and other former attorneys general and FBI directors going back to the first prosecution of Epstein in 2008. Barr was attorney general in President Trump's first term when Epstein was arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking minors in 2019, and when died in his prison cell later that year in what federal authorities have repeatedly said was a suicide. He was also attorney general when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend and associate, was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2020. Maxwell was later convicted and is currently in prison. Crockett said that the questioning led her to want to seek more information from investigators in the Southern District of New York and from former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the prosecutor who handled Epstein's much-criticized plea deal in 2008 and was not one of the former officials subpoenaed pursuant to the Republican-led motion in July. Comer indicated he was open to calling more witnesses when asked about the possibility of bringing in Acosta. 'We'll bring in everyone what we think can add information to the investigation. This is a serious investigation, this is a sincere investigation. I hope this will be a bipartisan investigation,' Comer said. The next deadline in the panel's investigation is Tuesday, the date by which it directed the Department of Justice to deliver all documents and communications relating to its Epstein investigation. Comer indicated that the Tuesday deadline could be pushed back. 'We're having really good conversations. You have to understand how many, you can imagine, how many documents there are,' Comer said. 'I think we'll receive the documents very soon,' Comer added, saying 'we're working together in a good faith effort.' Crockett said that if the DOJ does not comply with the deadline, Democratic leadership will talk about how to respond. 'I fully anticipate that they should at least try to substantially convey the vast majority of the request,' Crockett said. 'Because that is one of the things that the court will look at, if we have to go so far as to try to seek enforcement on this, is whether or not there was substantial compliance.' The Oversight panel has also subpoenaed Maxwell, but Comer has agreed to delay deposing her until after the Supreme Court considers her petition to overturn her conviction for sex trafficking. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has made new efforts to reveal previously unseen information — despite the president himself dismissing the Epstein saga as a 'hoax.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sat down with Maxwell to try to get new information. The DOJ also made motions to unseal grand jury testimony transcripts from the Epstein case and from Maxwell's case, but both were denied.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Congress must correct an injustice facing combat-injured veterans
This month marks the fourth anniversary of a dreadful event — the attack at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan where 13 service members were killed and 45 wounded in our disastrous withdrawal from that country. The event also serves as a reminder of an injustice that effects our injured combat veterans — an injustice that Congress must correct now. Under current policy, 54,000 combat-injured veterans who are forced to medically retire with less than 20 years of service lose a dollar of earned Defense Department retirement pay for every dollar they receive in Veterans Affairs disability pay — an unjust offset that essentially serves as a ' wounded veterans tax.' Reducing the retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran to save money in the Defense Department personnel account is simply wrong. Saving money on the backs of our service members is not how a nation should treat those who volunteer to represent their country and risk life and limb. This injustice can be remedied by passing the Major Richard Star Act. The bill is named in honor of Major Richard Star, a U.S. Army veteran who died after being diagnosed with lung cancer linked to toxic burn pit exposure. Military retirement pay is earned through years of service. Disability pay is compensation intended to help make up income veterans might lose in the future due to service-related injuries or health conditions. Reducing one because a combat-injured veteran receives another is not in line with the purpose of either earned benefit. Many detractors of the Major Richard Star Act say the bill is too expensive at an estimated $8 billion over 10 years. This represents 0.1 percent of the current Defense Department budget — a small price to pay for compensating veterans. 'Let me say this to the 'cost cutters' of the world,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a strong supporter of the act. 'We're coming together on a bipartisan basis. You can 'slash and trash' elsewhere, but not on the backs of our heroes.' Despite the Major Richard Star Act's widespread bipartisan support each year in both the House and Senate, the legislation has yet to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This year the proposed legislation currently has 76 Senate co-sponsors and 298 House co-sponsors. It remains one of the most co-sponsored bills in either chamber. Last year the proposed legislation had 74 co-sponsors in the Senate and 326 in the House. It's time for Congress to put these sentiments into action and move forward with this long-sought fix on behalf of tens of thousands of combat-injured military retirees. A few weeks ago, Blumenthal, along with Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), announced they are filing The Richard Star Act as an amendment to the annual must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. Blumenthal said passage of the legislation would correct one of the ' deepest injustices in our present veterans' disability system.' He said veterans 'are being penalized for being wounded….it's about simple justice and fairness.' How does a piece of legislation that will correct a clear injustice that has garnered so much support in both the Senate and House fall apart each year? There is an apparent 'say-do gap' for many lawmakers — lawmakers who 'say' they support the bill when it is proposed but who fail to raise their hand and vote yes and 'do.' Political leaders such as Blumenthal, Crapo and Warren are telling their colleagues to 'do' what they 'say' about supporting a piece of legislation. Hopefully, partisanship is not a consideration on this issue. Partisanship has absolutely no place in deciding how to properly compensate veterans who were injured in a war, doing what their country asked them to do. A perfect example is Army veteran Dan Nevins who was forced to retire after losing both his legs in combat in Iraq. After 36 surgeries and an 18-month stay at Walter Reed National Medical Center, and a painful and lengthy recovery process, Nevins soon discovered that he was prohibited from receiving both his full retirement pay and disability compensation. Nevins says his message to Congress is simple: honor the country's commitment to veterans. 'We should keep our promises,' he says. Keeping the all-volunteer force strong requires meaningful support of the warfighter. Those in uniform must understand that our nation will keep its promises and not attempt to cut costs by unfairly limiting their service-earned benefits. Passing this legislation would serve as a message that those in Congress intend to keep this promise — not just for current veterans but for future generations as well. Tom Jurkowsky is a retired Navy rear admiral who served on active duty for 31 years and a board member of the Military Officers Association of America. He is the author of 'The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.' He has served as an adjunct instructor at Anne Arundel Community College in Annapolis, Md.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas House signals it will ‘move quickly' on redistricting with Democrats back
The Texas House signaled it would move quickly on redistricting and other legislative matters after reaching a quorum on Monday afternoon following the return of Democrats who had fled the state in protest against GOP efforts to push through a new congressional map. 'No one here needs a reminder that the last few weeks have been contentious, but from this point forward, the rules of engagement are clear: Debate is welcome, but personal attacks and name calling will not be tolerated,' Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) told his colleagues. 'Let me also be clear about where we go from here,' he added. 'We are done waiting. We have a quorum. Now is the time for action. We'll move quickly, and the schedule [will] be demanding until our work is complete.' Texas House Democrats returned to the state after boycotting an initial special session called by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Republicans had moved to quickly pass a new GOP-friendly House map that aims to give Republicans five pick-up opportunities ahead of 2026. Democrats had signaled they would return to the state after two conditions were met: Texas lawmakers adjourning their first special session on Friday and California Democrats' introducing their own House map that looks to offset expected gains from Texas' new House map. Both of those things happened last week. 'When Republicans tried to silence minority voters through racist gerrymandering, Texas House Democrats answered the call,' the Texas House Democrats said in a post on X ahead of the Monday session. 'After rallying Americans to join this existential battle for democracy, we're returning to Texas on our terms — ready to build the legal record needed to defeat these unconstitutional maps in court. The fight continues,' they added. Monday's session lasted just under half an hour, with a number of bills being read and referred to different committees, including legislation around the proposed GOP House map. The congressional lines need to passed by each chamber's respective redistricting committee before the map can be teed up for floor votes in the House and Senate. Once passed in the state legislature, they will head to Abbott's desk for his signature. Burrows said that the House would next meet on Wednesday, with lawmakers who did not thwart the chamber's quorum being allowed to freely leave. Burrows said House Democrats would only be allowed to leave 'after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated DPS officer appointment under the rules of the House' who would ensure their return on Wednesday.
