Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
In D.C., No More Due Process for Parking Tickets
In an attempt to stem the loss of revenue from motorists contesting parking tickets, cities are effectively eliminating the traditional due process rights of motorists to defend themselves at an impartial hearing. By the end of next year, Washington, DC's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will not allow anyone who believes he unfairly received a citation to have his day in an administrative hearing.
"DMV will complete the phase-out of in-person adjudication of parking tickets in favor of mail-in and e-mail adjudication by December 2008," the Fiscal Year 2008 DMV plan states.
The move is intended to allow automated street sweeper parking ticket machines to boost the number of infractions cited well beyond the 1.6 million currently handed out by meter maids. As one-third of those who contest citations in the city are successful, the hearings cut significantly into the $100 million in revenue tickets generate each year.
Under the DMV's plan, motorists will only be able to object to a ticket by email or letter where city employees can ignore or reject letters in bulk without affected motorists having any realistic recourse.
And this is cute:
In Boston and other cities in Massachusetts, motorists cannot challenge a $100 parking ticket in court without first paying a $275 court fee. If found innocent, the motorist does not receive a refund of the $275.
|11.12.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Can't this suit be solved simply with our pal the Seventh?
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the
rules of the common law.
Thank God the Bill of Rights isn't inflation adjusted.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 10:18AM|#
IANAL, but I would think this could be easily challenged in
court and defeated.
The rapacious nature of the government seems to be increasing at an
exponential rate. I suppose that's good, because people won't react
until the government seriously overreaches, and the slow approach
is in its favor.
|11.12.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Mo, it's not a suit and because it's an administrative action where there is no possibility of jail time they get around all kinds of niceties we chumps have come to expect as American citizens.
|11.12.07 @ 10:32AM|#
It seems ,due to the wide scope of law,every one is now a law breaker.The trivial are the most enforced due to the huge pool of money received in fines and costs.The law is now a tool to make money for cash strapped cities.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 10:34AM|#
I know you guys think that parking tickets are simply a revenue mechanism, rather than, in this case, punishment for getting in the way of street cleaning. So in the real world, where the city continues to own and clean the streets, how do you propose to actually enforce parking rules?
Danny|10.15.09 @ 2:01PM|#
In the "real world," street sweeping isn't necessary on a daily basis in an area without a high amount of foot or car traffic.
A coworker who, on the very first day the street sweeping law went into effect on his block, had his car ticketed and towed to another illegal parking spot, where he received another ticket...all before he came home from work and realized it.
I absolutely believe cities have the right to ticket unlawfully parked cars, but DC is resorting to Guerrilla tactics.
rho|11.12.07 @ 10:36AM|#
IANAL, but I would think this could be easily challenged in
court and defeated.
Except for our fine tradition of judges simply ignoring laws that
inconvenience their delusions of grandeur.
|11.12.07 @ 10:37AM|#
So in the real world, where the city continues to own and
clean the streets, how do you propose to actually enforce parking
rules?
No one is saying we shouldn't enforce parking rules.
I think the point is that when the enforcement is done incorrectly,
we as citizens would like some recourse other than "bend over and
take it, sucka!"
But I guess that's not really a popular idea anymore, as Radley has
pointed out again and again...
Jozef|11.12.07 @ 10:40AM|#
What D.C. needs is more heavy smokers, in order to increase cigarette tax revenues. Remember, kids: smoking is your patriotic duty.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 10:46AM|#
I think the point is that when the enforcement is done
incorrectly, we as citizens would like some recourse other than
"bend over and take it, sucka!"
True enough; I suppose the presence of cameras on the trucks
probably makes them think they can do without that due process
stuff.
No one is saying we shouldn't enforce parking rules.
I have read here time and again that parking fines are a tool for
raising money and nothing else. How do you enforce parking rules
without fines? Or are the fines too high? I don't think are; or
else I wouldn't see illegal parking on every block.
Mr. X|11.12.07 @ 10:47AM|#
I'm interested in challenging it, if and when it's
enacted.
Assuming I still live within easy driving distance of D.C., that
is.
Pepe|11.12.07 @ 10:51AM|#
"I know you guys think that parking tickets are simply a revenue
mechanism, rather than, in this case, punishment for getting in the
way of street cleaning. So in the real world, where the city
continues to own and clean the streets, how do you propose to
actually enforce parking rules?"
I don't know how it is in other cities but in San Francisco it is
definitely more about revenue than actually getting the streets
clean. The parking enforcement people show up 5 minutes before the
no parking time begins. The second the clock hits the prohibited
time they slap tickets on every vehicle. The street sweeper may not
be by for another hour but it doesn't matter. And if you park your
car after the sweeper has left and parking enforcement comes by
they will still give you a ticket.
Add to this the fact that you have to pay for a residential permit
just to park on your own street and the fact that they will give
you a ticket for not blocking your wheels even on a very slight
grade and it's normal to spend hundreds of dollars a year just to
park your car on a street you are already paying for with
taxes.
Oh and most of the streets are filthy.
|11.12.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Obviously, the fines for illegal parking are not high enough. A ten thousand dollar fine and confiscation of the vehicle would fix the problem.
|11.12.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Thank you D.C. Whenever I'm getting down in the mouth about my hometown, Washington D.C. always comes to the rescue. I know things could be worse.
|11.12.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Pepe's comment reminded me of seeing the vast fleet of NYC towtrucks headed up the West Side at 5:59AM.
|11.12.07 @ 11:01AM|#
FTOYHK, WTHI IANAL?
Aggh! iih is possessed and speaking in tongues! Quick! Grab some
holy water!
Bill|11.12.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Northport NY will give multiple tickets to the same car. They leave a ticket on the car, one hour or so later when they pass by again, they leave another, and at the end of the day there can be several on your car. If you go to court you will hear "you could have moved your car after the first ticket", which is of course absurd because no on continuosly checks their car fo tickets.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:04AM|#
FTOYHK, WTHI IANAL?
Let me clarify. Read: "For Those Of You Who Know, What The Hell Is
'IANAL'?"
As far as the tickets thing goes, after a consistent history of
parking, speeding, and numerous other types of tickets, all my
appeals (whether in MI, Canada, MA, or IL) have been rejected. So
why have the stupid system first place?
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:04AM|#
FTOYHK, WTHI IANAL?
Aggh! iih is possessed and speaking in tongues! Quick! Grab some
holy water!
:-D
|11.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
IANAL=I am not a Lawyer
Now, tell us what the hell FTOYHK is; it doesn't show up on a
Google search.
|11.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
What bothers me is the fact one third of contested tickets are thrown out.So 33% are getting tickets they don't deserve and the city wants to make it almost impossible to to get a day in court?This smells of revenue enhancement.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:07AM|#
IANAL=I am not a Lawyer
Now, tell us what the hell FTOYHK is; it doesn't show up on a
Google search.
Because I just made it up ;-) See my 11:04 comment.
|11.12.07 @ 11:10AM|#
What's all the fuss? If you get a parking ticket, and the cop
shows up and either lies or is their regular incompetent self, you
end up paying anyway. Is there anybody that believes those hearings
are fair and impartial?
The city should encourage more people to challenge their tickets,
and make a mint off of the court fees. Sure, it's a total
bastardization of due process and the American system, but what
isn't these days?
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:10AM|#
So, what, are these DCers now unhappy about their being stripped
of due process? To them I say:
1. it is not like you are enfranchised anyways, and
2. don't be crybabies, go ask the victims of the Patriot Act if
they like not having the right to due process.
(I am being sarcastic, there should be due process, even if lousy
and inefficient.)
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:12AM|#
What's all the fuss? If you get a parking ticket, and the
cop shows up and either lies or is their regular incompetent self,
you end up paying anyway. Is there anybody that believes those
hearings are fair and impartial?
Lamar, see my post at 11:04. Actually the only time I won an appeal
was in Ontario! MI once gave me back $15 of a $40 (double) parking
ticket.
|11.12.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Let me clarify. Read: "For Those Of You Who Know, What The
Hell Is 'IANAL'?"
I am not a lawyer
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:15AM|#
FTYOHK = For Those Of You Hoo Know?
I am gonna get you for that, but it is not like I-ANAL sounds any
better!!
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:17AM|#
OK, people, lets not threadjack this discussion. I seriously apologize. But that ought to teach people a lesson not to overdo the whole acronym thing. You know, there are those of us who are internets ignorant!
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 11:18AM|#
I still "owe" NYC some two grand in parking tickets.
In the city, they usually yearly publish an article in the Daily
News or the Post about people who owe tremendous amounts in parking
fees (wasn't there a Seinfeld episode related to this?), on the
order of $50,000. I was always amazed that they couldn't track
these few people down, but I'm glad they don't have that kind of
reach.
They also do the occasional story on how much different emabassies
and consulates owe in parking (they have diplomatic immunity and
ignore the tickets--NYC is their playground). It's quite a lot.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
You know, there are those of us who are internets
ignorant!
TANSTAAFL.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
The second the clock hits the prohibited time they slap
tickets on every vehicle.
Why not? They know they shouldn't park there--perhaps a ticket will
drive the point home. How hard is it to read a damn sign?
which is of course absurd because no on continuosly checks
their car fo tickets.
If I was knowingly parked illegally, I most certainly would be
checking continuously.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Episiarch:
How did you get away with that? I have been told that in MA they
will get you no matter what. MA has been described as a "Police
State".
|11.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#
And I read it as I'm anal. It's that Norman Mailer thread sticking in my mind I guess.
Urkobold™|11.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#
IANAL DOESN'T MEAN "I AM NOT A LESBIAN?" THIS DEVELOPMENT DISTURBS THE URKOBOLD AND MAKES HIM WANT TO DELETE SEVERAL POSTINGS.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#
How did you get away with that? I have been told that in MA
they will get you no matter what. MA has been described as a
"Police State".
I don't know how the Massholes do things. In NY, at least a few
years ago (it may have changed) parking tickets were administrative
and were not linked to your ability to re-register your car, renew
your driver's license, etc. That may have changed in order to get
people like me.
Also, there are a jillion cars in NYC and though there are a fleets
of tow trucks, for them to find a "marked" (tow it!) car is like
playing the lottery.
Then I sold the car that had the tickets, ditched the plates, and
that was that.
Allen|11.12.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I'm interested in finding ways to streamline the process. But
things like the $275 fee just don't make sense. Why challenge a
$100 parking ticket? It's not a moving violation. You're just doing
it over the money and / or the principle of it.
I don't want to see people's ability to have justice diminished.
But we do have to keep in mind there is a small group of people who
abuse the system. They'll fight any speeding ticket or parking
ticket simply in the hope the person issueing it doesn't show up
and they get off on that.
|11.12.07 @ 11:26AM|#
You know, there are those of us who are internets
ignorant!
*coff*google*coffcoff*
I keed, I keed :p
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:26AM|#
In Boston and other cities in Massachusetts, motorists
cannot challenge a $100 parking ticket in court without first
paying a $275 court fee. If found innocent, the motorist does not
receive a refund of the $275.
WHAT!!!!!!! I just sent in an appeal for a $40 parking ticket in
Boston! They do not say anything about a $100 ticket. In fact the
notice says very little! I read it carefully. That is plain
theft!
|11.12.07 @ 11:27AM|#
The current definition of U.S. federal, state, and local government: "[A] small group of people who abuse the system."
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Shem: Yeah, I agree, but it also ticks the hell out of me when you have to go look up every new (at least new to me) internet acronym.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:30AM|#
They'll fight any speeding ticket or parking ticket simply
in the hope the person issueing it doesn't show up and they get off
on that.
I have tried that twice in MA, and never got off on it. The last
one I got, I just paid the damned thing.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:31AM|#
And I read it as I'm anal. It's that Norman Mailer thread
sticking in my mind I guess.
Exactly how I read it.
Thelonious_Nick|11.12.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I have received a dozen or more parking tickets in DC, some of
them deserved (parking is terrible in most parts of the city), many
of them not. At least one was for disobeying a sign that was not
visible due to vegetation. I have never contested one but I can see
why many would want to. In the late 1990s, parking tickets seemed
to be the only part of the DC government that actually
functioned.
A meter maid once informed me as I was waiting in my car (in a
legal spot) that I had numerous outstanding tickets that I needed
to address. Not being aware of these alleged outstanding tickets, I
spent half the day on the phone trying to find more information on
these tickets. I went through a dozen or more DC government people
before somebody was finally able to tell me that I did not have any
outstanding tickets and the meter maid had been mistaken (or
lying).
DC has made great strides over the past decade but remains a city
that is fundamentally unfriendly to citizens, both its own and
commuters and visitors.
Jozef|11.12.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Why challenge a $100 parking ticket? It's not a moving
violation. You're just doing it over the money and / or the
principle of it.
For some of us, it is over the money. Here in Georgia, I pay less
than $100 annually for car registration and ad valorem tax. $100
gets me a month worth of gas. To randomly spend another $100 per
parking ticket, especially if it was issued by mistake or malice,
is not an option for me.
|11.12.07 @ 11:39AM|#
But we do have to keep in mind there is a small group of
people who abuse the system. They'll fight any speeding ticket or
parking ticket simply in the hope the person issueing[sic]
it doesn't show up and they get off on that.
Sorry, a few people gaming the system a little is NOT an excuse to
give away our (few remaining) rights.
Pepe|11.12.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"The second the clock hits the prohibited time they slap tickets
on every vehicle.
Why not? They know they shouldn't park there--perhaps a ticket will
drive the point home. How hard is it to read a damn sign?"
My point was that it's about revenue not street cleaning. If it was
about street cleaning they would only ticket cars that were
actually in the way of the sweeper not ones that were parked there
an hour before it came by or an hour after.
When you live in an extremely densely populated city, parking
illegally is unavoidable. When I get home from work I generally
have to go 5 blocks away from my apartment to find a spot. And the
spot is often one that has street cleaning the next morning. It's
not that I can't read a sign, it's that I park in a different spot
every day and the times and days for street cleaning change from
block to block.
360 days of the year I remember to move my car if I need to but the
5 days I don't = $200 for the city. The same city that forces me to
buy a permit to park on my own street and also taxes me for it and
that can't police the street enough to avoid my car being broken
into 4 times in 1 year. Not to mention that the street is really
dirty despite the weekly street cleaning.
You seem to think that the majority of people are deliberately
parking illegally. Most of the time it is forgetfulness. Between
the tow away zones, loading zones, construction zones, street
cleaning, etc. it's pretty damn hard to find a parking space you
can actually leave your car at overnight. And if you don't drive
your car every day, and it's parked 5 blocks away, it's very easy
to forget which day you need to move it.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:44AM|#
But we do have to keep in mind there is a small group of
people officers who abuse the system. They'll
fight issue any speeding ticket or parking ticket
simply in the hope the person issueing[sic]
receiving it doesn't show up and they get off on
that.
That is fact in MA as police friends tell.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
"That is fact in MA as police friends tell." ---> "That is fact in MA as my police friends tell me."
|11.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
"Sorry, a few people gaming the system a little is NOT an
excuse to give away our (few remaining) rights."
Sorry, this is how the system was set up. Notice how there is no
proof required? No photographic evidence? Whenever the system
relies on an officer's good word, it is going to be corrupt and
biased. Most officers justify lying and many are just flat out
incompetent. Magistrate judges are usually burned out hacks who
need nothing more than a lying cop to put any particular case in
the 'adjudicated' bin.
The system was bullshit to start with. Removing it is just more
honest.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Rhywun -
To me it's simple:
There should be absolutely no criminal matter, and no civil matter
with a dollar value over $20, decided without a jury trial. Only
the defendant should be able to waive a jury trial.
Period.
The state should also not be able to assess a court cost fee to a
defendant, even one that is found guilty. Doing so is just as
outrageous [or even more outrageous, really] as charging a fee to
vote.
If the statute or rule being enforced is not worth the expense to
the state of maintaining a court of law, then get rid of the
statute or rule. That may make it inconvenient or expensive to
enforce parking regulations, but I honestly don't give a damn. If
the state has set up a public parking system that can only be
maintained by dispensing with jury trials and setting up kangaroo
courts, well, that was just bad planning by the state. Next time
set your parking system up differently.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Lamar:
But the people have entrusted these officers. They do represent the
people of the state! How dare you, sir, accuse the people of
choosing bad police officers! They have been hand selected. They
are infallible.
|11.12.07 @ 11:56AM|#
I'm pretty sure that the only way to avoid a parking ticket in Washington DC is to get a building permit.
|11.12.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Pepe, you just made a great case for living in the burbs. Will the last one out of NYC, Phila., D.C., Boston and other such hellholes, please turn off the lights.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
When you live in an extremely densely populated city,
parking illegally is unavoidable.
It's totally avoidable if you don't have a car, which is quite easy
in an extremely densely populated city. If you must have
one regardless, then you have to live with the consequences of very
limited parking.
If it was about street cleaning they would only ticket cars
that were actually in the way of the sweeper not ones that were
parked there an hour before it came by or an hour after.
Again, it comes down to reading the sign. You may think it's not
fair that the city doesn't expend the extra time and effort
required to follow the sweepers around and only ticket those cars
that are directly in front of the sweeper. For them it's obviously
easier, faster, and less expensive to just follow the rules on the
sign and ticket everyone breaking them. Of course, if they put
cameras on the street sweepers then they could do what you
want if they so choose.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I pity city dwellers.
Yeah, living without the expense and hassle of a car, and within
walking distance of almost everything I need sucks. Thanks
for thinking of us!
|11.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Instead of just an uncontestable fine, there should be more done
to halt the plague of rampant overparking that threatens the
security of our nation and our nation's children.
Any car left in a no parking zone should be crushed into a metal
cube by a mobile car crusher, then ticketed in place. The owner of
said vehicle should then be charged towing and recycling fees to
remove the crushed car.
|11.12.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Why any city's residents put up with street sweeping is beyond
me. You know what, I know how to use a broom thanks. I'll keep that
portion of taxes, not pay parking tickets and towing fees, and just
sweep my own damn street.
Thank god I don't have to deal with it at the moment. But my two
years in New Haven were hell. I'm sure the tow truck lobby had the
whole city gov't on bribe-payroll.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 12:34PM|#
just sweep my own damn street
And when your neighbor can't be bothered, and the garbage that
collects there blows over to your area, and brings rats, don't come
complaining about the increased court costs required to settle such
disputes :)
lurker 29|11.12.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Pro Lib: The current definition of U.S. federal, state, and
local government: "[A] small group of people who abuse the
system."
Me so happy, me want to cry.
|11.12.07 @ 12:35PM|#
I pity city dwellers.
The Big Leagues are scary for players who don't have the bat
speed.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 12:43PM|#
This isn't about cleaning the streets.
If the object of parking tickets was to get cars out of the way so
that the street sweeper could get by [or any other utilitarian
concern related to roads or their maintenance] then any system that
had high enough fines would provide the proper incentive for
drivers to move their cars.
If clean streets were the object, it wouldn't matter if the city
made money or lost money adjudicating the tickets, as long as the
tickets were issued and people moved their cars.
Taking away the right to contest the ticket therefore has
absolutely nothing to do with the utilitarian end of the ticket
policy, and everything to do with making sure the city makes money
on issuing tickets.
The Boston policy is similar. A $100 ticket would seem like a
sufficient incentive to get people to feed the meter. The only
reason to structure the court cost that way is to make it
irrational to contest the ticket, even if you're innocent. There
can be no other motivation for the city to act in this way but to
make sure people don't show up and fight their tickets, so that the
revenue stream will exactly equal the number of tickets issued and
so that the city can avoid paying the expense of having sufficient
court space and personnel to actually adjudicate its laws in a way
that's compliant with the Constitution.
ed|11.12.07 @ 12:52PM|#
The Big Leagues are scary for players who don't have the bat
speed.
City life sounds like the Negro Leagues to me.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 1:04PM|#
So is city life versus country/suburban life a new GO TEAM GO
thing?
There are positives and negatives to these different lifestyles,
that's why different people choose them. Being a city dweller does
not make you super-special-sophisticated, nor does it make you an
idiot for dealing with the hassles.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 1:11PM|#
If the object of parking tickets was to get cars out of the
way so that the street sweeper could get by ... then any system
that had high enough fines would provide the proper incentive for
drivers to move their cars
The fact that cars continue to litter the path of street sweepers
(and that double parking, speeding, and every other fine-able
offense is still rampant) would seem to indicate that the fines are
not a deterrent. Which is weird, because most people don't
have wallets overflowing with cash but when it comes to parking
& traffic violations they sure behave as if they do. I
suspect what's really going on is that many people think they can
"get away" with it--perhaps based on previous experience
Being a city dweller does not make you
super-special-sophisticated, nor does it make you an idiot for
dealing with the hassles.
Nope. But it does make you shit upon by 90% of the posters here.
And from my point of view the hassles are far fewer than in the
sub/ex urbs. Providing this point of view which is foreign to
almost everyone here is my raison d'etre (how's THAT for
sophisticated?). Hah.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Oops, I got sidetracked...
I suspect what's really going on is that many people think they can
"get away" with parking and traffic violations--perhaps based on
previous experience getting away with fighting a valid ticket or on
friends' tales of getting away with it.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Rhywun,
Many posters here live or have lived in the city--I was in
Manhattan for 7 years. No offense, but spare us the persecution
complex. Just because one or two posters go "u must be an ijit for
living in da citeez" doesn't equal 90%.
|11.12.07 @ 1:29PM|#
The Big Leagues are scary for players who don't have the bat
speed.
joe, Liked it. A lot.
|11.12.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Adding fuel to the fire. I'm a city dweller. If I had kid's, I'd burn rubber on my way out.
|11.12.07 @ 1:41PM|#
My biggest gripe about parking tickets is they are less about
easing traffic congestion and all about making money.
One of the offices I used to work in was on a street that
prohibited parking after 4 PM. The spaces were metered for other
times during the day.
Based on my observations there was plenty of confusion about this
rule (there were a couple signs posted but obviously many people
didn't see them) and after 4 PM I'd be out front of my office and
routinely watched cars getting towed daily.
The purpose of prohibiting parking after 4 was to ease traffic
congestion, but of course that was totally negated with the
onslaught of tow trucks tying up the right lane confiscating
everyone's vehicle which only made the traffic worse.
The solution to the problem wasn't a real solution, it was just a
money grab for the city and the impound yard.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I was in Manhattan for 7 years.
And you've complained about how awful it is many times, to general
agreement from the peanut gallery.
spare us the persecution complex
I'm merely providing some perspective. No "persecution complex"
here--90% is a reasonable guess of the proportion of anti-city
commentary I've read over the years.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Still waiting for Rhywun to explain to me why the state should
be able to impose its fines without the benefit of a jury
trial.
So far all you've come up with it "fines aren't a deterrent when
there's a chance you'll be found not guilty", which is kind of a
douchebaggy kind of argument.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
And you've complained about how awful it is many times, to
general agreement from the peanut gallery.
There were great things about the city, and annoying things. Wow,
how complex.
There are a lot better things to get worked up about than a few
people slagging city life.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 1:57PM|#
There are a lot better things to get worked up about than a
few people slagging city life.
Yes, such as getting fined for parking in an area where you know
you are subject to fining :)
|11.12.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Now, tell us what the hell FTOYHK is; it doesn't show up on
a Google search.
Behold the awesome power of
teh Google . It does now.
A little scary, actually, how quick it is.
Episiarch|11.12.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Aww. I thought "IANAL" stood for "I'm A Nymphomaniac And
Lonely."
Sorry, it was supposed to be Iā„ANAL.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Still waiting for Rhywun to explain to me why the state
should be able to impose its fines without the benefit of a jury
trial.
I don't believe in removing the due process. But I wouldn't expect
a jury trial for anything under whatever it costs to raise
a jury--which is a lot more $20.
Jennifer|11.12.07 @ 2:19PM|#
I wouldn't expect a jury trial for anything under whatever
it costs to raise a jury--which is a lot more $20.
So what form of due process would you consider in lieu of a jury
trial? The current "your word against the cops and the cops are
always presumed correct" system doesn't seem to be working too well
on the civil-liberties front.
Paul|11.12.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Thank God the Bill of Rights isn't inflation
adjusted.
Mo, there was nothing in the constitution about parking
tickets.
*ducks*
|11.12.07 @ 2:37PM|#
I definitely do not agree with the way they are changing the
system and think it should rightfully be struck down in court. To
keep this from happening, here are some easy solutions:
1) Don't illegally park. Inevitable you say? BS! Walk the extra 5
blocks, God knows I can use the exercise, can't you? But you'll be
late? Start out earlier. The orld does not revolve around
you.
2) More convenient public transportation = no parking tickets for
the users, a cleaner environment, lower gasoline bills for users,
smaller roads = a win all around!
3) If you do the crime, pay the fine. Gaming the system may end up
benefiting you but it causes pain and misery for the truly
unjustified ticket receivers who now have no recourse because of
your selfish a**holeness.
Oh, and by the way, quit being so lazy that you can't write out the
whole word. You're not texting here and our language is under
enough attacks that you are not helping things. IMHO
(LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 2:37PM|#
The current "your word against the cops and the cops are
always presumed correct" system doesn't seem to be working too well
on the civil-liberties front.
You're right. I dunno.... raise the parking fine to $1,000? I can't
think of any other way to make it a deterrent without draining the
court budget.
iih|11.12.07 @ 2:40PM|#
ITA
And googled that one alright, too. Hell, this is an entirely new
language this internets thingy.
|11.12.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Finding out what tickets you have is easy, you just type your license plate number into the DC DMV web site. I've heard all sorts of bad things about the DC government but everything auto-related, registering/getting tags and parking permits, getting a license, paying tickets, etc, has been pretty easy. Not that I'm happy about the loss of due process.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 2:42PM|#
"I don't believe in removing the due process. But I wouldn't
expect a jury trial for anything under whatever it costs to raise a
jury--which is a lot more $20."
The jury trial system is not supposed to be convenient and free for
the state. That's not its justification. It SHOULD be expensive and
inconvenient for the state to exert its authority over the
citizenry. That might make the state more hesitant to try to
criminalize trivial matters.
"You're right. I dunno.... raise the parking fine to $1,000? I
can't think of any other way to make it a deterrent without
draining the court budget."
I would actually support you in this. As soon as people started
getting fined $1000 for being 5 minutes over on their parking
meter, they'd join together and burn down City Hall. Woo hoo!
|11.12.07 @ 2:44PM|#
The dodgiest thing about towing for street cleaning is that
private companies are also making out like bandits. Boston, for
example, has contracts with 11 towing companies that are free to
tow any car that the police ticket for street sweeping. They make
$200 a pop.
A couple weeks ago after the World Series, Boston put up signage at
7 PM the night before a parade allowing them to begin towing cars
at midnight. When I went to bed at 11, the parade areas were still
entirely full of cars, because the signs were put up after people
got home from work.
|11.12.07 @ 2:47PM|#
In 02/2007 I got a notice from San Diego that I had two unpaid
parking tickets.
Turned out they where rental cars, one from AVUS from 2001 and one
from Enterprise from 2005.
Their investigator said that they where mine and that I had to
pay.
I told him that I had never visited the place where the tickets
where issued, and that I have never rented from AVUS. He told me
that DMV gave him my info and that indeed it was I who had rented
the cars. So I told him why doesn't he take me to court and prove
it. Turns out that CA have these nice new laws that exclude parking
tickets from the court system. He said that if I could not prove
that it wasn't me, he could just get the money from my tax
returns.
Now I am from Sweden and live in CA since 1998. The name on the
tickets happened to match mine, first and last. I called both
rental companies and some how managed them to send me the rental
agreements. I mailed them to San Diego. They called my up and said
that they dismissed my case, but that they had already sent a
notice that would affect my credit. But they would send another to
remove it, should only take 6 months they said. He also admitted
that he did not expect me to go through all this to prove I was
innocent, he thought I would just pay the fines.
|11.12.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I just moved to Northern Houston, from Boston. I lived in a city
called Somerville. The street I lived on was public parking, but
had posted street cleaning times. Many of the people in the
neighborhood felt that it should be permit only and had everybody
sign up (I refused). The city decided that the street should be
permit only because of the request and without notice installed
Permit Only signs and ticketed everybody on the street. I suspect
they did it early in the morning because when I came out to catch
the bus the signs were new and I hadn't seen them the night before.
Considering the amount people pay for auto taxes in MA, and how
*horrible* the streets are I feel that its largely a way for the
cities to make money.
The residents dont help though and in the winter actually make it
harder to keep the streets clean (by putting their snow in the
street, which is then pushed into cars and back into their
driveways by the plows) its not like the plows remove the snow,
they just push it out of the street.
When I lived in San Francisco, my big problem with their parking
tickets was that parking enforcement is too lazy to get out of
their truck and usually put the ticket in the space between my hood
and my fender *NOT* under a windshield wiper. Half of the time I
wouldn't even know I was ticketed until I got a late fee
notification in the mail, at which time I'd send the amount for the
original ticket without the late fee and I'd never hear from them
again. Which proved to me that it was simply a way for them to cash
in.
And yes, I move too much.
iih|11.12.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Rieux:
I got a ticket on the day of the World Series game for literally 2
minutes and came out to find a $40 ticket. They were like hiding
somewhere waiting for someone to commit a parking violation. And
that was on one of the side streets a couple of blocks from the
park. The officer handed me the ticket without looking me in the
face. She must have felt like she's steeling something from someone
because I was clearly made a very very minor infringement. They are
nothing but opportunists. Where are they when there is no World
Series Game?
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 3:03PM|#
That's not its justification. It SHOULD be expensive and
inconvenient for the state to exert its authority over the
citizenry. That might make the state more hesitant to try to
criminalize trivial matters.
Fair enough, but parking enforcement is not a criminal matter. And
to those people who follow the parking and traffic rules, the
annoyances caused by the large number of people who choose to
ignore them are not trivial.
As soon as people started getting fined $1000 for being 5
minutes over on their parking meter, they'd join together and burn
down City Hall. Woo hoo!
I see it more as a way to get selfish, inconsiderate people to
realize what assholes they are by hogging space and causing
everyone else to circle the block and tie up traffic, but if the
result is the same....
Anyway, as for parking and traffic enforcement in general, I don't
see much difference between opportunism and deterrence. How do you
deter infractions without being seen as an "opportunist"?
|11.12.07 @ 3:06PM|#
I arrived at the local Police Station to pay a ticket and
noticed that their clock indicated I still had 18 minutes of
parking left from the time the Officer "ticketed" me.
I politely pointed this out to the Desk Sergeant who just as
politely informed me, "Buddy, it's a hell of a lot easier to get a
$100 bucks from you than it is to find a new policeman...just pay
up and walk away."
I promised to be back in 18 minutes when I was "officially" guilty
and he laughed. It has been 12 years...I wonder sometimes if he is
still waiting...he looked old at the time the way most Desk
Sergeants look...retired or dead now maybe??
|11.12.07 @ 3:08PM|#
iih, reminds me of the time I was riding my bicycle through Cambridge. I went through a redlight (there was no traffic and I slowed down to look). Considering that people jaywalk and ride bikes through intersections all the time I figured it was the norm. A bike cop stopped me and started threatening me with a ticket. A pedestrian who saw what I had done started yelling at the cop because clearly they were not doing their job properly. There was a car double parked across from where they were sitting and had stopped me for well over 10 minutes. The pedestrian went on to say that if they were so concerned with the traffic why hadn't they ticketed the double parker? The pedestrian was then threatened by the cop and I was given a warning.
Anvilwyrm|11.12.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Rhywun,
I guess I am still confused. Are you really saying that if the cost
of the fine is low enough, you should have absolutely no recourse
at all? None?
In that case I fine you $20. Send it to my house.
|11.12.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Quoting.....Anvilwyrm | November 12, 2007, 3:10pm | #
Rhywun,
I guess I am still confused. Are you really saying that if the cost
of the fine is low enough, you should have absolutely no recourse
at all? None?
In that case I fine you $20. Send it to my house.
PLEASE ALSO SEND ME $45 each and I will absolve you of all FUTURE
parking violations!!
Anvilwyrm|11.12.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Should you be able to contest it if the penalty is only 1 day in jail?
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Are you really saying that if the cost of the fine is low
enough, you should have absolutely no recourse at all?
None?
No, I'm saying you get five minutes in front of a judge. That's the
way it works now, right?
R C Dean|11.12.07 @ 3:16PM|#
I thought "IANAL" stood for "I'm A Nymphomaniac And
Lonely."
Depends on the website you where you see it, Stevo.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I never said you should get no recourse. I said a trial by jury was too expensive for the fines levied.
iih|11.12.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Jeremiah:
I yelled at a cop once for a similar double standard but can't
remember the circumstances. It was not Boston police, though. I do
not have the guts to face these dudes.
|11.12.07 @ 3:36PM|#
City life sounds like the Negro Leagues to me.
Thanks, ed. It usually takes a little longer to get that out of
city-bashers.
miche|11.12.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I took the little one to court this morning over a speeding
ticket. She'd pleaded not guilty and the case was set for trial
today. We were told that there was no time for her trial and
offered deferred disposition and a fine. She is already on
probation for a speeding ticket and we explained that she wasn't
guilty of this one. They offered deferred anyway, reduced the
amount of the fine that they originally offered and said that the
conditions of the first probation would satisfy the second.
We ended up taking the deal because it was a sure shot at avoiding
a guilty verdict if the trial was rescheduled. A sure shot at
keeping two tickets off her record made me throw principle out the
window. Insurance rates for a 16 year old are expensive without
violations.
|11.12.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Yeah, living without the expense and hassle of a car, and
within walking distance of almost everything I need sucks. Thanks
for thinking of us!
Invariably this is the only response I ever get when I ask people
why they live in cities (besides people who do so because they need
to be close to work or college). Those don't strike me as
compelling reasons to put up with being elbow-to-asshole with
strangers, bums, filth, noise pollution, smog, and 24/7
commotion.
ed|11.12.07 @ 4:19PM|#
You forgot gangster city governments, Jim Bob.
And extortionist unions. I'm speaking of Northern cities, to be
fair.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Those don't strike me as compelling reasons to put up with
being elbow-to-asshole with strangers, bums, filth, noise
pollution, smog, and 24/7 commotion.
Well, owning a car shapes your entire life so those are pretty
compelling reasons. Just ask yourself if you could live without
one. You would likely have to re-arrange your entire life. Anyway,
I'm not much of a misanthrope, so strangers don't particularly
bother me. Bums? Ignore 'em. Filth and noise pollution--you got me
there. The suburbs are all over the city in that respect. Dead
silence bothers me more than a little noise, though. Smog? Don't
notice it. Commotion? Love it.
|11.12.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Yes, cities are a lot more dynamic that suburbs. You have to put
up with a lot more, and you get to experience a lot more. You see
more bums, you see more geniuses.
People have different levels of tolerance for novelty and
stimulation.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 5:06PM|#
"Fair enough, but parking enforcement is not a criminal
matter."
This is absolutely false.
If the state can compel me to behave a certain way or pay a fine,
it's a criminal matter.
"No, I'm saying you get five minutes in front of a judge. That's
the way it works now, right?"
Right, but:
1} This article is about municipalities that don't want you to get
that five minutes, and you're defending them; and
2) If 5 minutes in front of a judge is so fair, why don't we do
everything else that way?
"the annoyances caused by the large number of people who choose to
ignore them are not trivial."
If it's not trivial, the state can rustle up a jury, or it can defy
the Constitution.
Look, you may think I'm just fucking with you, but I'm not. In a
host of ways the modern state wants to micromanage its citizens'
lives in ways that require it to dispense with several
Constitutional protections. Your "Aw, come on, we can't run these
traffic courts if we have to do jury trials" attitude is duplicated
elsewhere, whether we're talking about asset seizure, drug courts,
tax courts, the FISA court, etc. I say fuck 'em. Do it the right
way or don't do it. You want your parking problem to simultaneously
be too trivial to warrant the basic protections of the Constitution
[or hell - the Magna Carta] but at the same time be this terribly
important matter to the citizenry that the state must act on. It
can't be both.
R C Dean|11.12.07 @ 5:37PM|#
We were told that there was no time for her trial and
offered deferred disposition and a fine.
"Deferred dispostion" usually requires a guilty and/or nolo plea.
Check the fine print, but I doubt the little one now has a clean
record.
Oh, and IAAL.
Rhywun|11.12.07 @ 5:39PM|#
This is absolutely false.
Ask yourself who is the plaintiff, and then tell me it's a criminal
matter.
This article is about municipalities that don't want you to get
that five minutes, and you're defending them;
No I am not. I NEVER defended that. What I did was bring it
slightly off topic by speaking against the common attitude around
here that parking tickets are merely for revenue enhancement.
If it's not trivial, the state can rustle up a jury
The state is not likely to waste time and money to raise juries for
comparatively insignificant civil matters. You obviously
think such matters are not important enough for the state to get
involved in. So tell me, how would you propose to settle them?
Please keep it within the realm of reality.
R C Dean|11.12.07 @ 5:39PM|#
People have different levels of tolerance for novelty and
stimulation.
Don't leave out the different levels of tolerance for high taxes,
crappy services, crime, shitty schools, and the rest.
Cities are great places for young people who are indifferent to
these things, and the very rich, who can lubricate their passage
through city life with cash. For everyone else, well, YMMV.
iih|11.12.07 @ 5:46PM|#
YMMV
How the hell am I supposed to know that this should mean "Your
Mileage May Vary"? I mean, come on people!
R C Dean- How come you know all that stuff and be a lawyer at the
same time. What, do you say "OYH" to a judge whenever you have to
object?
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 5:54PM|#
"The state is not likely to waste time and money to raise juries
for comparatively insignificant civil matters. You obviously think
such matters are not important enough for the state to get involved
in. So tell me, how would you propose to settle them? Please keep
it within the realm of reality."
The state could simply limit its parking rules to those that are
critical enough that it can tolerate the situation if X% of those
ticketed demand a jury trial.
Hell, I would bet that 99% of parking tickets written aren't
written for double-parking, or parking in front of hydrants, or
other things that actually impede traffic flow or jeopardize safety
- they're written because people exceeded the time limit for
parking, either at a meter or somewhere that parking is limited by
sign. The state could very easily stop writing those tickets or
manning those meters and all that would really change would be
space turnover. I don't find "increase space turnover in commercial
areas" to be a compelling reason to dispense with the right to a
jury trial, sorry. Oh, and revenue would change - both meter
revenue and fine revenue. But if it's not about the revenue we can
ignore that - right?
miche|11.12.07 @ 6:27PM|#
"Deferred dispostion" usually requires a guilty and/or nolo plea. Check the fine print, but I doubt the little one now has a clean record.
Nolo plea it was but it does keep it off her record if she gets no
more tickets. If she is pulled over again I suspect we'll be
screwed. She has to be very careful until the Feb. 10.
miche|11.12.07 @ 6:31PM|#
I would have hired an attorney if everyone that I talked to didn't seem like a complete jerk. Everyone of them said they would go for deferred on this ticket and that she would have been fully charged on the first for not meeting the terms of probation. (The part where she was to get no tickets before Dec. 4th.)
|11.12.07 @ 6:45PM|#
RC,
You've never lived in a city, have you? Tell the truth.
My taxes are about 1/3 of what people in the burbs pay. They have
to have higher taxes, in order to pay for the new schools they
constantly build in a losing effort to keep their classrooms from
being overcrowded.
People who don't know the first thing about cities always feel so
free expounding on what they're like.
|11.12.07 @ 6:47PM|#
But then, we have zany superintendants in our buildings, and their one-liners as we discuss the latest mugging we suffered in the park helps get us through the day.
|11.12.07 @ 6:54PM|#
Yes, cities are a lot more dynamic that suburbs. You have to
put up with a lot more, and you get to experience a lot more. You
see more bums, you see more geniuses.
People have different levels of tolerance for novelty and
stimulation.
But novelty and stimulation aren't only found in cities, you know.
Try Antarctica: plenty of novelty and stimulation there, and
nothing around but pure white snow. I was cold, but I felt
alive.
|11.12.07 @ 7:04PM|#
And down here in the south we eat biscuits and gravy at the
white-only counter, as we discuss the latest antics of those uppity
Negroes and the damn Yankees messin' with our Southern Way of
Life.
joe, min' yo' business now. Heah me, boy?
|11.12.07 @ 7:07PM|#
People who don't know the first thing about cities always
feel so free expounding on what they're like.
I lived in midtown Atlanta for most of last year, joe. I didn't
like it much.
Is my opinion valid now, or do I need to bask in the divine light
of your Master's Degreeā¢ in order to have my opinion
restructured?
|11.12.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Like I said, some people have more tolerance of novelty and
stimulation than others. Some people see a crowd of people on the
street and feel invigorated, some people see a scary mob.
BTW, Massah Jim Bob, I didn't make any assertions about your old
Kentucky home at all.
iih|11.12.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Funny, I was talking about a Boston ticket that I got during the ALCS game. I got a letter in the mail today saying that the ticket is forgiven! :-)
|11.13.07 @ 8:17AM|#
Can't say I've ever gotten an erroneous ticket, but it's definitely a racket in the Northeast. Of course, city governments in the NE seem like a slightly more polite form of the Mafia.
|11.13.07 @ 10:54AM|#
See more geniuses? Huh? Maybe in Boston, but probably not in most of the rest of the country.
|11.13.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I learned what "prima facie" means, in the legal sense, many
years ago when I challenged two erroneously cited Boston, MA
parking violations. I challenged these tickets, first with a
standard hearing then with an appeal to a judge. The hearing
officer denied my challenge citing the MA law designating the
issued tickets as prima facie evidence which was further explained
in layman's terms thusly: the fact that the tickets existed was
unchallengable evidence that the violation had occurred. I pointed
out that I had witnesses who could attest to the fact that I and my
car were not in the city on the days I was issued the tickets. No
matter says he, prima facie! He did encourage me to appeal, in
front of a judge, a privilege for which I paid $100 (some years
ago). When I finally stood in front of the judge he interrupted my
defense to inform me that all I could appeal was a misapplication
of the bureaucratic process, not the tickets themselves; reason:
tickets are prima facie evidence! What of my $100 I asked? Gone
says he.
So I wrote an angry, yet civil, letter to the mayor the city of
Boston, Ray Flynn. I was out $100 and didn't feel any better.
Bastards!
|11.13.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Maybe that's what prima facie means in Beantown, but not in the
rest of the legal world.
Even if the city makes out a prima facie case against you merely by
issuing the ticket, you would still have the right to present your
defense. Except in Boston, apparently. It could be, however, that
Boston considers tickets to be an administrative "fine" rather than
a criminal penalty, and as such the usual rules might not
apply.
Simply reason #5238583 not to move to Boston.
db|11.13.07 @ 6:43PM|#
The state is not likely to waste time and money to raise
juries for comparatively insignificant civil matters. You obviously
think such matters are not important enough for the state to get
involved in. So tell me, how would you propose to settle them?
Please keep it within the realm of reality.
One might argue that the authors of the Constitution intended this
as a check against the state getting involved in "comparatively
insignificant civil matters."
I'd like to see a comparison of the average large city's budgets
for the following police divisions: Homicide, Parking Enforcement,
and Property Crimes. I mean a real, proper accounting. I don't
think it's going out on a limb to suggest that Parking Enforcement
might have the largest expenditures. It probably also generates the
largest revenues.
|11.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#
DC is not the only victim of blind enforcement of parking
regulations. Let me provide a recent anecdote from my own parking
ticket odyssey:
Last month I drove from my home in Winter Haven, Florida, to
Jacksonville for a trial that was to take place the next day. This
is a distance of about 4 hours, so I decided to stay overnight at a
house belonging to a friend who lives in Palm Coast, just north of
Daytona Beach. I have stayed at my friend's house before, sometimes
parking on the side of the street, and other times parking in his
driveway. His house is 2nd from the end of a cul-de-sac in a small
subdivision, and there are no houses on the other side of the
street.
He asked me to park on the street because he and his wife were
going to leave early for work the next day and he didn't want to
have to wake me up to move my truck, so I did. I parked my truck
mostly in his front yard, leaving about one foot on the road, so
that I would not block any other traffic.
The next morning I awoke to find a parking ticket in my windshield
for parking in the swale. I thought it must be some kind of joke,
so I drove to the Palm Coast Sheriff's sub-station to ask why I had
received the ticket. I was told that it was illegal to park in the
swale between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. by Palm Coast city ordinance. The
deputy there said that the law had been on the books for about nine
years now; it's even posted on their website. Of course, I am a
frequent visitor to the City of Palm Coast website, so I feel sort
of stupid for missing that one.
I did my best to nicely argue my way out of the useless (but costly
at $25) ticket, but I was told my only recourse was to make an
appearance at city hall to contest it. In the end, it was easier
for me to just pay the $25.00 than try to track down their evasive
city hall building or take a day off from work and drive 2 1/2
hours to Palm Coast for a case that I would probably lose
anyway.
Evidently the City of Palm Coast is making so much ticket money
that it can coerce county deputies into driving around in
subdivisions all night to write out tickets for completely
innocuous violations. It's amazing to me that deputies are out at
1:00 a.m. rigidly enforcing parking tickets, yet in ten years I've
never seen a single person stopped in my own subdivision for loud
soundmaking violations, which disrupt my evenings about 10 times
per night or more. It's funny what cities will or will not choose
to enforce.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245