YANML, LA City Parking Edition
December 11, 2014 11:46 AM Subscribe
As much as I like to support my local government, I prefer to do it through taxation or other more-or-less straightforward revenue-collection practices. Parking enforcement, to me, is a completely irrational form of revenue generation. So, on the basis of pure principle (and $73), I ask: if the city issues parking citations for vehicles parked on street cleaning routes, (presumably) because such parked vehicles cause the city injury (or whatever, you know, tangible bad thing) by impeding street cleaning, what is the method most likely to succeed of challenging a ticket issued after street cleaning has concluded, on the basis that the city suffered no injury?
It would seem to me that the City of Los Angeles has kind of opened the door to this with this web page: http://bss.lacity.org/restricted_parking_sweeping_routes.cfm. On it, you can check if a particular street that is normally scheduled for street sweeping will not be street-swept that day. Also, the City is issuing or has issued refunds to people who were issued tickets on posted street-sweeping days if the street sweeper never actually showed. So it would stand to reason that if a ticket issued to a car parked in a designated street-cleaning zone on a specific date when the car will be no hindrance to the street sweeper is invalid, that an argument could be made that a ticket issued to a car parked in a designated street-cleaning zone at a time that the car will be no hindrance to any street sweeping vehicle is also unjustified.
It would seem to me that the City of Los Angeles has kind of opened the door to this with this web page: http://bss.lacity.org/restricted_parking_sweeping_routes.cfm. On it, you can check if a particular street that is normally scheduled for street sweeping will not be street-swept that day. Also, the City is issuing or has issued refunds to people who were issued tickets on posted street-sweeping days if the street sweeper never actually showed. So it would stand to reason that if a ticket issued to a car parked in a designated street-cleaning zone on a specific date when the car will be no hindrance to the street sweeper is invalid, that an argument could be made that a ticket issued to a car parked in a designated street-cleaning zone at a time that the car will be no hindrance to any street sweeping vehicle is also unjustified.
If I understand what you're saying, you are saying a car could be parked there briefly - during the window that street-sweeping is schedule but not while the street-sweeper is there - would in this case receive a ticket but not have actually been a hindrance. Is that the reasoning?
posted by vacapinta at 12:03 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by vacapinta at 12:03 PM on December 11, 2014
If the street has already been swept at 9, it's no hindrance to park there at 10:30. (i.e., "challenging a ticket issued after street cleaning has concluded".
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:03 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:03 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
what is the method most likely to succeed of challenging a ticket issued after street cleaning has concluded, on the basis that the city suffered no injury?
No method is likely to succeed. Don't even waste the court's time with this.
You can't expect the police to check the progress of the day's street cleaning every time they see a car in clear violation of the posted no-parking signs.
On preview, dness2 and vacapinta, the OP says that he was ticketed after the street-sweeping was already finished for the day, and therefore, he did not interfere with the street-sweeping.
posted by JimN2TAW at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
No method is likely to succeed. Don't even waste the court's time with this.
You can't expect the police to check the progress of the day's street cleaning every time they see a car in clear violation of the posted no-parking signs.
On preview, dness2 and vacapinta, the OP says that he was ticketed after the street-sweeping was already finished for the day, and therefore, he did not interfere with the street-sweeping.
posted by JimN2TAW at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
Did you park after the street cleaning vehicle had already gone by? If so, hell, try that. But be prepared to prove that you did so. Do you have time-stamped pictures of the cleaner going by with your car not there, then time-stamped pictures of you parked there afterward?
posted by Etrigan at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Etrigan at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014
The practice seems to be that an entire day is the enforcement unit, whether providing relief on days where street cleaning is cancelled or preserving flexibility for the street sweeping operation. Taken to its extremes, you're asking that an enforcement officer accompany each sweeper so that a ticket can be issued to any vehicle that is present for the 5 seconds it takes the sweeper to pass that spot; being present a second earlier or later is ok under your logic. That's inefficient for the City and hence not in the public interest.
posted by carmicha at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by carmicha at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think your premise is flawed: no injury — even in the broadest sense — to the city or to anyone else is required for the fine to be valid. Perhaps you are confusing it with a tort, which may require injury, but a parking violation is not a tort. Were you to challenge the ticket in court, the city would not have to prove that any sort of injury occurred, nor even show the potential for injury.
Also, the City is issuing or has issued refunds to people who were issued tickets on posted street-sweeping days if the street sweeper never actually showed.
I don't think you're accurately representing what the linked article describes. The article is talking about not ticketing vehicles parked on a street where cleaning was, at one point, scheduled, but then later cancelled (and refunding fines paid on tickets which were handed out in violation of that policy). That's not the same thing as cleaning being scheduled and the sweeper simply not showing up.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:32 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also, the City is issuing or has issued refunds to people who were issued tickets on posted street-sweeping days if the street sweeper never actually showed.
I don't think you're accurately representing what the linked article describes. The article is talking about not ticketing vehicles parked on a street where cleaning was, at one point, scheduled, but then later cancelled (and refunding fines paid on tickets which were handed out in violation of that policy). That's not the same thing as cleaning being scheduled and the sweeper simply not showing up.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:32 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The permanently mounted street cleaning signs in LA declare a side of the street to be a no-parking zone for a certain window of time. I think it would be very difficult to fight a ticket issued during that window, regardless of whether the sweeper passed.
posted by hwyengr at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by hwyengr at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I used to be on the local government side of this in a professional sense and in my somewhat-informed opinion your challenge will go absolutely nowhere unless the city screwed up in some way, like by not having adequate signage or ticketing you after the posted no-parking hours. Your link seems to be saying that cops weren't supposed to issue tickets on days when sweeping wasn't going to take place and made a mistake in doing so. Arguing on the basis of "yes, I committed the violation, but I didn't actually harm or inconvenience anyone" is not something I have ever seen gain any traction in this kind of scenario.
You can try it, though. Worry about wasting your own time, not the adjudication officer's.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
You can try it, though. Worry about wasting your own time, not the adjudication officer's.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
How many times does or could the street sweeper come by? How do you know it is only one pass?
posted by 724A at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by 724A at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks for the feedback, folks. I'll wait & see what my document request turns up.
posted by univac at 1:26 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by univac at 1:26 PM on December 11, 2014
You're mis-reading what the city is doing. Los Angeles has a website that informs people when the normally scheduled cleaning will not be done. Say if there's a holiday a street that is normally swept on Tuesday will actually be swept on Wednesday. The ticketing is done by a different city department and and in some instances the city's website would say that it was OK to park on a street, say the day after Thanksgiving for a street that is normally swept Friday and people were getting ticketed anyway. Those are the tickets that the city is refunding.
posted by rdr at 2:07 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rdr at 2:07 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Parking enforcement, to me, is a completely irrational form of revenue generation
Traffic and the cleanliness of streets both contribute to the quality of life in a city. Parking guidelines are meant to improve both and there has to be some kind of deterrent for violations. Even if the city was just breaking even or losing a bit of money on enforcement, it is still rational to enforce them.
posted by soelo at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2014
Traffic and the cleanliness of streets both contribute to the quality of life in a city. Parking guidelines are meant to improve both and there has to be some kind of deterrent for violations. Even if the city was just breaking even or losing a bit of money on enforcement, it is still rational to enforce them.
posted by soelo at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2014
Parking enforcement, to me, is a completely irrational form of revenue generation
The primary purpose of parking enforcement is not revenue generation, but to encourage compliance with the law. Revenue generated through fines helps to fund the bureaucracy needed to enforce parking laws, but I doubt whether parking fines are a cash cow. Similarly, parking meters exist primarily to support local businesses by forcing frequent turnover in parking spaces. (If people were to leave their cars in the same spot all day on shopping streets, the businesses would die for lack of available parking.) Parking fines serve a public purpose far beyond the revenue they bring in.
If there were no fine for not moving your car on street-cleaning days, or if the fine were only say, a dollar, do you think anyone would bother to move their cars? How long do you think it would take the streets to descend into a sanitation nightmare?
Frankly, I think you're wasting your time with all this. Start paying attention to the street-cleaning regulations, and stop whining about sensible, productive laws that the rest of us follow without complaint.
posted by Leatherstocking at 2:58 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
The primary purpose of parking enforcement is not revenue generation, but to encourage compliance with the law. Revenue generated through fines helps to fund the bureaucracy needed to enforce parking laws, but I doubt whether parking fines are a cash cow. Similarly, parking meters exist primarily to support local businesses by forcing frequent turnover in parking spaces. (If people were to leave their cars in the same spot all day on shopping streets, the businesses would die for lack of available parking.) Parking fines serve a public purpose far beyond the revenue they bring in.
If there were no fine for not moving your car on street-cleaning days, or if the fine were only say, a dollar, do you think anyone would bother to move their cars? How long do you think it would take the streets to descend into a sanitation nightmare?
Frankly, I think you're wasting your time with all this. Start paying attention to the street-cleaning regulations, and stop whining about sensible, productive laws that the rest of us follow without complaint.
posted by Leatherstocking at 2:58 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
No, it's total revenue generation for a lot of cities, and they're very up front about it come budget time.
The street sweeping tickets here say "it is illegal to park during street sweeping hours EVEN IF THE STREET SWEEPER HAS ALREADY PASSED." (The all caps are theirs, not mine.)
posted by small_ruminant at 4:41 PM on December 11, 2014
The street sweeping tickets here say "it is illegal to park during street sweeping hours EVEN IF THE STREET SWEEPER HAS ALREADY PASSED." (The all caps are theirs, not mine.)
posted by small_ruminant at 4:41 PM on December 11, 2014
New York Iaw is explicit that it doesn't matter if the street sweeper actually comes by.
I think you're overthinking a plate of beans and over-valuing $73. You got a ticket because you didn't move your car when you were supposed to, and no amount of casuistry will change that. Pay up and move your car next time.
posted by spitbull at 6:07 PM on December 11, 2014
I think you're overthinking a plate of beans and over-valuing $73. You got a ticket because you didn't move your car when you were supposed to, and no amount of casuistry will change that. Pay up and move your car next time.
posted by spitbull at 6:07 PM on December 11, 2014
Point of interest: in SF you can park after the street sweeper had passed.
posted by alexei at 7:22 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by alexei at 7:22 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older What does "selected corn" mean on an ingredient... | Is there a language in existence that has... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dness2 at 11:59 AM on December 11, 2014