Council committee debates ordinance to curb predatory private‑property towing and require licensing, signage and registration

2557828 · February 26, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members and public safety officials spent more than an hour discussing draft ordinance language aimed at preventing predatory towing from private lots in Allentown, focusing on consistent signage, tow‑operator registration, limits on drive‑around practices, and fee rules.

Council members and public safety officials spent more than an hour discussing draft ordinance language aimed at preventing predatory towing from private lots in Allentown, with attention on consistent signage, tow‑operator registration, limits on drive‑around practices, and how to set fair fees for partial versus full tows.

Councilman Mike Napoli opened the item saying he had received multiple complaints and police reports of “predatory towing” that frequently targeted women and charged exorbitant fees, and he recommended strengthening the city’s private‑property towing rules. Napoli told the committee the proposed ordinance would not apply to city streets or Allentown Parking Authority lots but would affect tows arranged by private property owners.

“All of them say ‘your car could be towed,’ but many don’t list who to call,” Napoli said, arguing for a consistent signage requirement that names the towing operator and provides contact information. He also urged a registry of tow operators who are licensed and insured to operate in the city.

Chief Roca of the Allentown Police Department supported a reporting component so officers can quickly identify where towed vehicles were taken and confirmed the department will work with council on operational details. “It’s important that legislation is made to protect our citizens,” Chief Roca said.

Two people whose work intersects towing provided on‑the‑ground perspectives. Alex Tejara, owner of Tejara Towing, described operating costs for legitimate tow businesses and defended some cash‑only practices as protection against credit‑card disputes and fraud: “Our insurance cost is through the roof. Our equipment cost is outrageous. Our maintenance cost is crazy,” Tejara said, and he described a typical private‑tow fee he cited as $250 for a tow and about $75 per day for storage at his yard.

A resident who identified himself as Hunter described a personal encounter he said was predatory: “My car was hooked up on the towing bed. He told me I need to pay $425 in cash to get it off while I was still in the parking lot.” Hunter said he had searched consumer‑protection resources and could not find the tow operator listed there.

Committee members discussed a “decoupling” or partial‑service fee — a reduced charge when a tow operator is dispatched and the vehicle is not removed from the lot (for example, when the vehicle is hooked but remains on site). Members suggested setting that fee at roughly half of a reasonable full‑tow rate; Councilman Napoli recommended a decoupling fee equal to half the reasonable towing rate. City staff cited Easton’s ordinance as a starting model and said Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have different approaches.

The draft ordinance also would include penalties for violations and hold private property owners partly accountable when they contract with unlicensed or unreachable tow companies. Committee members discussed an enforcement path that could include fines and eventual suspension of a tow operator’s right to operate in the city after repeat violations; staff said the ordinance could allow suspension after repeated violations and that fines should be calibrated to state law’s requirement that fees be “reasonable.”

On payment practices, towing operators argued cash reduces exposure to disputes that sometimes lead banks to reverse merchant charges; council members expressed concern about cash‑only demands at odd hours and the hardship on customers who cannot obtain cash late at night. Operators said they typically release impounded vehicles during set business hours and may apply an after‑hours release fee.

No ordinance vote was taken in committee. Members directed staff to refine the draft language on required signage, registration of tow operators, decoupling fee calculation, permitted on‑site release hours, and enforcement mechanisms. Committee members requested follow‑up conversations with local tow operators and the police department to finalize the proposal before introducing a bill to the full council.