[OldNorth] Parking Permit abuse

[sheryl lynn gerety]

Valerie and Vann (plus ONDNA list):
   Several weeks ago Z Smith, Steve Tracy and I sat down with the City  
Planner, Jim Antonen, the City lawyer, and several folks from the  
police, planning and traffic departments to try to work out a solution  
to Old North Parking problems.
   We did this because we, like others, were surprised to receive the  
postcard poll asking if we wanted the standard parking district, the  
very kind featured in the SacBee story on inner Sacramento parking  
problems.  The parking study request initiated by the ONDNA last year  
was always coupled with the request we find a means of solving the  
residents' problems without creating an exclusive zone like those found  
elsewhere in the City.  Our wishes to try something different somehow  
were lost to standard procedures.
   In the meeting, we offered several possible solutions, including that  
of reserving and marking one spot per property (i.e., there would be a  
spot in front of my house, the street painted and with a sign, saying  
the equivalent of "This parking space for the resident of 602 C Street  
only."  Everyone would get such a spot and the balance of street-side  
parking room would be open to public use.   Although not strictly  
illegal by any law that could be located, the City attorney also could  
not find law suggesting that such an approach was _legal_, and was  
unwilling to pursue it.  Instead, she offered and everyone found  
workable the following alternative:
   We would create a restricted zone in ON, with spots equal to the  
number of properties, within an otherwise unrestricted zone.  So, for  
example, there are twenty houses on the two sides of C Street between  
6th and 7th.  Twenty spots, scattered along both sides of the street,  
would be painted for a restricted zone; permits to be purchased for a  
fee like that of other parking zones in Davis (approx. $10/yr).  The  
balance of the spaces (another 20-30) would be unrestricted and could  
be used by residents who held a permit, residents who did not hold any  
permit, or anyone else, including downtown employees or students.   
Permit holders would not have rights to a _particular_ space (that is  
the element that the City Attorney can not accept, because it would  
privatize public domain), but would likely find it easy to locate a  
zoned spot near their home and by convention, over time, it would  
presumably be the one nearest their house.
   A key feature of this system: a property could obtain at most one  
zoned permit.  Any other automobiles they wished to park on the street  
could go in unzoned spaces.
   This system would do several things:  it would solve the melting  
ice-cream/crying baby scenario in which ON  homeowners can find no  
parking within blocks of their houses mid-day when UC-Davis is in  
session; it satisfies the city;  it does not exclude downtown employees  
and others truly in need of parking by emptying our streets of everyone  
but ourselves; it does not even require residents purchase a parking  
permit to park street-side in the neighborhood, including pakring  
adjacent to their home.  There are other problems it avoids that are  
associated with other schemes (e.g., the number of signs required to  
effect enforcement).
   Perhaps as interesting, it forestalls or, more accurately, severely  
limits, abuses like those cited in the SacBee article: homeowners who  
obtain and then derive hefty profit by selling their visitors permits  
to non-residents.
   It was quite a victory to get the diverse opinions and interests at  
the meeting to agree on a solution, but this one found consensus and we  
will be working on it with the City.   Among the first steps is  
estimating the cost of curb paint and signs.  More information will  
follow when ONDNA meetings crank up again later this month.  The City  
will require a poll of the neighborhood in which at least 67% respond  
and 50% are in favor, so we have some work to do, an information  
campaign and neighborly lobbying.  These are hard numbers to achieve  
given low political participation by renters, absentee owners, those on  
vacation, etc.  But, we got the City to agree not to poll until we had  
a chance to thoroughly explain the plan to the residents of ON.  Please  
stay involved and be ready to help with the details are worked out.
   Z and Steve. . .if I've missed something important here, please add  
your comments.
            Bruce

On Jul 3, 2004, at 6:35 PM, Valerie Vann wrote:

> http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/traffic/story/9871218p 
> -10793493c.html
>
> A look at Sacramento's old residental districts' problem with
> restricted parking; abuse of visitor parking permits.
>
> Note that our proposal is to charge for both resident and visitor
> permits, and make resident permits specific to the vehicle.
>
> Still, there could be some similar abuse of the visitors' permits
> unless enforcement is strict and/or penalty for abuse high enough.
>
> Valerie Vann
>
> _______________________________________________
> oldnorth mailing list
> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>
>
Sheryl L. Gerety


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5138 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20040704/5a45e56d/attachment.bin>