Ticket collector whines

[Gob]

A 21-year-old woman owes £11,000 after being fined 160 times for illegal parking outside her home.

Carmarthenshire council said Charlotte Williams had refused to pay £30 for a residents' parking permit in Llanelli and also parked on double yellow lines.

It has called in bailiffs to retrieve part of the debt and legal fees accumulated over two years.

Miss Williams said she felt "targeted" as fines were being added daily.

She said her car was registered at another address so she could not buy a permit.

She also said she moved into the house on Old Castle Road, which belongs to her father, after becoming unemployed so she could not afford a permit anyway.

Since October 2008 she has been issued with 160 fixed penalty notices, including five in five days earlier this month, totalling £9,600.

The council said it had written to Miss Williams 381 times and made a lot of effort contacting and speaking to her personally but she would not co-operate.

With legal and administration fees her total bill is now £11,000.

Executive board member for transport Philip Hughes said: "It is unfair for the woman to get away with paying the fixed penalty notices.

"This is taxpayers' money. Other people who park illegally are expected to pay their fines."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sout ... s-11829823

Ok, WTF?

(This is in the next street to the one in which I grew up....)

[Scooter]

WTF indeed. Why couldn't she change the address on her registration so that she could buy a permit? £30 would have saved her £11,000.

[Gob]

Nice to be singing from the same hymn sheet again mate.

[Andrew D]

Charging people for "permits" to park their cars in front of their own homes is an abominable practice. Except in circumstances requiring that no vehicles be parked (e.g., street sweeping), the fact that the car was in front of her house should be an absolute defense to the "charges" against her.

Of course, charging people for "permits" to park their cars in front of their own homes has absolutely nothing to do with parking per se. Hughes let the cat out of the bag:

"This is taxpayers' money."

That's all it is: a way for the government to get its hands on more money.

The government should have to pay her 11,000 pounds.

[Long Run]

In many urban neighborhoods with businesses or other attractors of cars if there were not a permitting process, the resident of the neighborhood could never find a place to park. Hence, the permit is a good idea since it makes it more likely residents can park near their home. It takes some money to administer the program, so a reasonable fee makes sense (the 30 quid seems reasonable if it is an annual fee). After all, the residents have chosen to live in a neighborhood that is crowded and (for those that need a permit) without off-street parking; it makes sense they they pick up the tab to administer the permit program. I guess you could argue that Ms. Williams can pick up the tab for everyone since she didn't bother to do her paperwork. Maybe there'll be the department of common sense to reduce her fine.

[Andrew D]

Well, one can say that those who live in residential areas where there are "businesses or other attractors of cars" should bear the burden. I say that the "businesses or other attractors of cars" should bear the burden.

I am not (at least, not now) objecting to the "permits" per se; I am objecting to making people pay to park in front of their own homes. The "permits" should be issued for free; the revenue from the tickets issued to people without the permits would more than make up for the administrative expenses of the "permit" program.

In my experience -- for some of the many years that I lived in San Francisco, I was forced to endure a "residential parking permit" program -- the whole business of residential parking "permits" does not inure to the benefit of the residents. If I had three cars, I could park them in front of anyone's house in my "permit" area. (Between my then-girlfriend and me, we had three cars.)

And even the business thing didn't add up. On the nearby business strip (West Portal, for those who know the area) and the blocks surrounding it, the parking meters -- another evil that should be eradicated; every time someone chops the head off of a parking meter, I cheer -- were set for a maximum of one hour. There was a movie theater on that strip. Does anyone seriously think that it benefitted the movie theater to have all the nearby parking restricted to less time than it takes to watch the movie?

The whole thing is nothing but a revenue-raiser. When San Francisco hit a budget deficit lo, those many years ago, its first response was to hire more parking whores enforcement people. San Francisco's Department of Parking and Traffic does not exist to facilitate parking or to facilitate the flow of traffic. It exists to make money. As such, it deliberately makes parking as difficult as possible and obstructs the flow of traffic every chance it gets.

That's the bottom line: The local government of Carmarthenshire didn't give a rat's ass whether Williams parked her car in front of her house for a day or a week or a month or a decade. It saw an opportunity to make money. Nothing more.

[rubato]

Charging people for "permits" to park their cars in front of their own homes is an abominable practice. Except in circumstances requiring that no vehicles be parked (e.g., street sweeping), the fact that the car was in front of her house should be an absolute defense to the "charges" against her.

Of course, charging people for "permits" to park their cars in front of their own homes has absolutely nothing to do with parking per se. Hughes let the cat out of the bag:

"This is taxpayers' money."

That's all it is: a way for the government to get its hands on more money.

The government should have to pay her 11,000 pounds.

Overall I agree but in some cases it is the only way for people who live there to be able to park at all. We have areas which are permitted to prevent people from leaving their cars on the street and taking the bus onto campus to avoid paying for parking on campus. Campus residents would leave their cars there for months at a time.

So it is an occasionally necessary evil.

But in the case of S. Pasadena it is just a way of extracting more money from people who cannot afford to own houses with garages, in that area are many 'garden apartment' complexes where no offstreet parking was supplied.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Why don't they just tow the car and sell it for the fines?

Problem over.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I'm in complete agreement with Andrew on this one....

[Gob]

That's the bottom line: The local government of Carmarthenshire didn't give a rat's ass whether Williams parked her car in front of her house for a day or a week or a month or a decade. It saw an opportunity to make money. Nothing more.

That's one way of putting it.

Another way would be that, like it or not, parking permits in residential areas close to municipal services and town/city centres have parking permits for residents, this woman refused to buy one, and was punished for breaking the law.

This is no different to her parking in a metered zone and refusing to buy put money in the meter.

She does not own the road outside her house.

This link should give you a view down the street. (Yes I know it's a shithole, it's where I grew up.)

[Scooter]

So let me see if I've got this straight....

Those of us who don't park on the street, because we shelled out the money to buy a house with a driveway, or an apartment in a building with a parking garage, or some other form of offstreet parking...

should be happy to see the tax dollars we pay to build and maintain roads going to subsidize those who do park on the street...

because the fact that they have chosen not to spend the money to acquire offstreet parking entitles them to park on the street for free.

Is that about right?

[Andrew D]

I understand that it's the law. What I am saying is that it is an odious law. The government should not charge anyone for parking her or his vehicle in front of her or his house.

In those areas where residential parking permits are actually necessary -- a tiny fraction of the places in which they are imposed -- a person should get such a permit, at no charge, simply by demonstrating two things: "I own this vehicle, and I live here."

(And I don't understand this: "... her car was registered at another address ...." Where I live, a vehicle is registered to the person(s) who own(s) it. The person's driver's license, of course, shows the person's address, but the vehicle is registered to the person, not to an address.)

At bottom, parking restrictions are overwhelmingly about raising money. Why does the government make it so that all the parking near a movie theater is restricted to one hour? Because the people making the policy know that movies last more than one hour. The government does not want people not to park there for more than one hour. Precisely the opposite: It wants people to park there for more then one hour so that it can issue citations.

Why do governments use parking meters that accept only quarters -- no other coins, no bills, and no debit or credit cards? Because they want people not to be able to pay the meters, even if those people would like to pay them. They want people not to have exact change, because that increases the number of citations they can issue.

Why do governments construct major public-transit hubs without providing adequate parking? Because they want people to park illegally. That makes governments money.

Why would a government make it illegal to park in a metered space if the meter is broken? It's a perfectly good parking space, but the law requires it to remain vacant simply because the government can't be bothered to maintain its own meters. Why? Because the government wants people to park in that space: It's another opportunity to make money.

In San Francisco, the Department of Parking and Traffic has two principal functions: making parking as difficult as possible and obstructing the flow of traffic in every practicable way. 99% of what the DPT does is nothing but a money-making scam.

In one notorious incident, a person overstayed his allotted time in a metered space. He challenged the citation, because he was being held hostage by a crazed gunman when his time expired. The DPT did not dispute the facts, but it refused to withdraw the citation.

I was once cited for allegedly parking in a particular space during one of two time periods in which parking was prohibited. The citation itself showed the time at which it was issued; that time of issuance was not within either of the time periods in which parking was prohibited.

I utilized the object-by-mail procedure. I explained that the time shown on the citation was not a time at which parking was prohibited, and I sent DPT a copy of the citation. (As if I should have to prove what the DPT's own citation said.)

The DPT responded by telling me, without any explanation: "Ticket still valid."

So I appealed that determination by going to the DPT in person. The hearing officer understood what I was saying, but proclaimed himself unable to issue an immediate withdrawal of the citation, because I had failed to bring a photograph of the sign.

It was the DPT's own sign. But according to the DPT, I had to prove to the DPT what its own sign said.

(The DPT conducted an "investigation" to ascertain the contents of its own sign. After the weeks that it took the DPT to accomplish that monumental undertaking, I got my money back.)

And nowhere along the line was there even the slightest acknowledgment that when a sign says "no parking 8-10 AM and 2-6 PM," the DPT "officer" who issued me a citation for violating that restriction -- a citation which proudly announced that it had been issued at "12:02 PM" -- had wronged me. Why? Because in the eyes of the DPT, the "officer" had done her or his job exactly right: The job is to issue citations without the slightest regard to whether the person cited has actually done anything wrong.

Why does the DPT behave that way? Because it knows that most people will pay a wrongly issued citation rather than lose a day's pay (or more) by fighting it.

Residential parking permits, parking meters, etc. -- almost all of it is nothing but a scam. Every time a parking meter has its head chopped off or a parking whore gets spat on, heaven rejoices.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Have you guys on the left coast started getting the "red light camera's" yet? Supposedly they are to get people not to run red lights and make the roads safer (a noble gesture) but studies have shown accidents have not gone down at those intersections and on some they actually have gone up (oh shit red light camera, slam on brakes, get rear ended). Now teh pols always point to the safety issue, but in the same sentence they mention how many millions of dollars in fines they are bringing in.

[Scooter]

In my city, intersections with red light cameras are clearly identified with signage, so there is no "gotcha" element involved. Claims that accidents increase at these intersections are also misleading. There may or may not be an increase in minor rear end collisions (the data is mixed), but there is a marked decrease in more serious t-bone crashes, such that deaths, serious injuries and vehicle damage costs have all decreased.

Also, I don't know how they work in other cities, but here the camera is not activated unless a car enters the intersection while the light is red. So if, say, the light turns yellow as they are approaching the intersection and they can't stop safely, and for some reason they can't clear the intersection before the light goes red, the camera will not activate. So (a) there's no reason for anyone to be slamming on the brakes in order to avoid a ticket, and (b) I have no sympathy for them or whomever is following behind and should not have been so close as to be unable to avoid a collision (and I live in a city where bumper to bumper traffic is an all day phenomenon).

[oldr_n_wsr]

They don't mark the intersections where the camera's are here on Long Island (but there is a list running around the internet not from official sources. I don't know about in the city as I very rarely go there and when I do I usually take the train.

I agree, T-bones could possibly be reduced but are the overwhelming majority from red light runners? Most times when I read about a T-bone it's caused by someone trying to make a left hand turn in front of someone going straight.

[Gob]

I understand that it's the law. What I am saying is that it is an odious law. The government should not charge anyone for parking her or his vehicle in front of her or his house.

Andrew, take a look at the image I linked to. Notice that on one side of the street there are office blocks, on the other residential houses. This street (Old Castle Road*) is next to the town centre shopping area.

It is in the residents interest to have the "residents parking only" section, and for that to be delineated and patrolled.

They should contribute the small fee ($46 US) to enable this.





*There never was an "Old Castle" in this area, the nearest one, at Kidwelly, is 9 miles away.

[loCAtek]

Have you guys on the left coast started getting the "red light camera's" yet? .

We're slowly getting them, but as a 'technical' solution to a lower police force, due to state budget cuts.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Have you guys on the left coast started getting the "red light camera's" yet? .

We're slowly getting them, but as a 'technical' solution to a lower police force, due to state budget cuts.

Well, truth be told I would rather get a ticket from the camera than a cop. The camera tickets only affect my wallet for the price of the ticket. A ticket from a cop is not only the price of the ticket (plus some kind of "bonus" charge that increases if you have gotten any other moving violations in the last 18 months) it also means points on your license (I believe running a red is 3 points) which leads to auto insurance increases.

[Scooter]

The government should not charge anyone for parking her or his vehicle in front of her or his house.

Why not? Why should anyone be entitled to free parking on a public street, rather than securing offstreet parking (at whatever that costs)?

A spot in the parking garage under my building costs me $85 per month (a non-resident would pay $125). In condo buildings in the area where one must buy the parking spot, it would be something like $20,000. Why should any portion of

(a) the property taxes on my unit, plus
(b) my vehicle registration fees, plus
(c) whatever proportion of my parking space rental paid by the condo corporation in property taxes

go towards subsidizing someone to park free on the street that runs in front of my building? Why cant they pay for their own parking, either thru choosing a home that has its own parking, by securing parking elsewhere, or otherwise by paying the nominal cost ($100 per year in my city, if their house or apt has no parking attached to it) of a street parking permit?

(And I don't understand this: "... her car was registered at another address ...." Where I live, a vehicle is registered to the person(s) who own(s) it. The person's driver's license, of course, shows the person's address, but the vehicle is registered to the person, not to an address.)

And in this case the person did not notify the authorities that she had changed her address, so her registration indicated that she was still living at her old address (i.e. that she didnt have the right to a parking permit on the street where she was now residing.

Why does the government make it so that all the parking near a movie theater is restricted to one hour? Because the people making the policy know that movies last more than one hour.

Is the movie theatre the only business on that street? Perhaps parking has been restricted so that customers patronizing other businesses in the area can find a parking spot, go in and do their business, and then leave, rather than finding all of the parking spots in the area hogged by someone who leaves it there for hours at a time.

Why do governments use parking meters that accept only quarters -- no other coins, no bills, and no debit or credit cards?

Parking meters have been replaced where I live with kiosks which accept coin, bills, credit and debit cards and issue a ticket which can be displayed in the windshield (and also serves as a receipt for those who need to claim their parking costs for reimbursement or tax deduction). Perhaps you should lobby for your city to do the same.

Why do governments construct major public-transit hubs without providing adequate parking?

Because people let them get away with it? In Toronto and surrounding area, there are parking lots at key subway stops at or near the ends of lines, and at major stops on commuter rail lines. Perhaps someone should have paid more attention to the design of the transit hubs during the planning process, and raised some objections.

[Andrew D]

Newsflash: Guaranteed Parking Places and Residential Parking Permits Are Very Different

You seem to have lost sight of what is at issue, Scooter. What is at issue is the practice of forcing people to pay for a permit which allows them to park (not subject to the time limits imposed on those without such permits) in a particular residential zone.

You point out that "[a] spot in the parking garage under [your] building costs [you] $85 per month". But you're missing a critical difference: Your $85 per month guarantees you a parking space. But a residential parking permit does not guarantee anyone any parking space at all.

If someone gets a guaranteed parking space in front of her or his house, then, yes, it would be perfectly appropriate to charge that person for that guaranteed space. If the government had told me that by paying a fee, I could be guaranteed my own reserved parking space in front of my house, I would have snapped it up in a heartbeat (unless the fee had been prohibitively expensive).

But the residential parking permit which the government demanded that I pay for did not guarantee that I would be able to park in front of my house. It did not guarantee that I would be able to park near my house. It did not guarantee that I would be able to park anywhere.

It provided merely that were I able to park somewhere within my zone, I would not be cited for parking there from one day to the next. Great.

Anyone else who had a permit for my zone could park (likewise not subject to the time limitations imposed on those with such permits) in front of my house. And such people often did.

Would you pay $85 per month for a parking space that someone else could park in and leave you without anywhere to park?

I didn't think so.

The government magnanimously condescended to allow me to park (from, say, the time I got home from a long day's work at 2:00 AM until I departed for my next long day's work at 10:00 AM) somewhere within a half-mile or so of my house. I don't have topographic maps in front of me at the moment, but San Francisco is notoriously hilly. I lived on the southwest flat of Forest Hill (2 blocks morth of parallel to Taraval on its westward journey towards the ocean).

My "permit" graciously permitted me to park at the top of Forest Hill (assuming that I could find a space even there). Perhaps someone familiar with San Francisco topography can vouch for the fact that climbing that hill, especially in the rain, is no easy schlep.

That's what the government wanted to make me pay for: Being allowed to walk uphill a half-mile, give or take (the roads there are circuitous), in order to fetch my car. Or, if there were no parking available there, then to park God-only-knows where.

Oh, wait. If I park God-only-knows where, then I'm outside of my zone, and the permit I paid for doesn't apply. Lovely. I am forced to pay for a permit to park in front of my own house, there is no parking available in front of or anywhere near my own house, and if I park where there is some parking actually available, I get cited for parking too long -- i.e., while I'm desperately trying to catch up on my sleep.

Your purported analogy to a guaranteed spot in your own building simply holds no water.

You pay money, and you get a guaranteed parking space right where you live. I pay money, and I get the hope of maybe, just maybe, finding a parking space somewhere in the general area where I live. Do you really think that those things are rationally equivalent? I do not.