We seem to be becoming a nation of adult children who get frustrated and throw tantrums when the bad man or the bad lady give us a summons for illegal parking. 

I do not own a car and mostly get around by public transportation and by walking. Double parkers deserve no sympathy; it is a particularly selfish offense. More than half the time when I see a double parker with an operator behind the wheel there is a fire hydrant available within 100 feet (where it is legal to stand provided the operator is behind the wheel). But they want to double park right in front of the store their passenger is in. The worst are the people who stop and stand double parked at a bus stop. Off with their heads! This is just pigish selfishness. Thus, I think Betsy Gotbaum is choosing the wrong case to come to the aid of motorists aggrieved by the parking ticket war on car owners.

What Betsy Gotbaum should be doing is bringing a stop to the illegal practice of TEAs filing parking tickets issued for no standing and when the operator moves the vehicle before the TEA serves the parking ticket on the operator. Presently, even though the failure of proper service of a parking ticket is fatal to the jurisdiction of the parking violations bureau to adjudicate liability, the City directs the TEAs to file these tickets in violation of state law and the PVB assumes jurisdiction over these alleged parking violations. The “notice of outstanding parking violations” (received by the registered owner of the vehicle around forty days after the summons is issued) is the first notice the owner receives that he may be held liable for a parking offense committed over a month ago, perhaps many miles away from his home, and perhaps by a person otehr than himself. That the car drove away is some evidence that it was not standing. I have seen cases where TEAs issue summonses for “no standing” at a location where no signs post any parking regulation and where the motorist drives away before the TEA was able to obtain the registration expiration date (a mandatory element of a parking ticket the absence of which requires its dismissal) or even got within 35 feet of the vehicle. I have seen PVB ALJs uphold these so-called “drive away” summonses in violation of state law. I have seen dozens of drive away tickets issued, was issued one when I used to own a car, and personally observed a TEA issuing one earlier this month. Now with the new “block the box” parking ticket, there will be an explosion in the prosecution of parking tickets issued but never served as required by law. And, to be clear, I very much support enforcement of “block the box” laws; I just oppose dispensing with prompt issuance to the motorist of notice of the offense charged.

It would be nice if the cyclist and pedestrian lobby didn’t throw a party every time a car is ticketed in this City. People are only responding to direct and indirect federal subsidies of the automobile industry that makes it economically foolish for them NOT to buy a car. More than 1/3 of all parking tickets contested are defeated by the motorist. Have mercy on the lot of your fellow man.

Sorry, the only “selfish elitists” are those who want to cram more automobiles into our towns and cities.

And please don’t bring your anti-Catholic bigotry into the discussion.

Long ago cities evolved by building multiple levels.

The same can and should happen for vehicles, but for the selfish elitists who hold the public benefit back for the sake of what really are counter reformation transportation policies.

This just might be the best thing Gotbaum did for the past seven years.

You guys have no right to declare what is “illegal”. Judges do that.
Judge not lest ye be judged. Innocent till proven guilty. All that boring stuff.

And it our duty, our duty, as citizens to fight what we perceive as an unjust application of the law by bureaucrats (TEA).

Perhaps if bikes began to get ticketed, you’d understand.

But, I forgot, you are opposed to bikes who may break the law being ticketed. How convenient.

http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/bx/response-to-complaints-from-nypd

They say they’ll “direct more attention to that block” –as if that block was the **only** thing we cared about.

I got this letter via the advocates office– their idea of “taking action” consisting of soliciting this tepid letter about the already dysfunctional “parking detail” assigned to the area. That one hydrant is no longer blocked but every other hydrant in the area is blocked. It’s like that gophers game they have at amusement parks. Smack one down and six more pop up.

At least baseball season is over– *sigh*