To self-serve and protect -- our own interests...

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Does anyone know why the City would ticket Somerville's own residents for expired inspection stickers? -- Two tickets 3 days apart? If I owned a driveway, they would not have done this... Can't they stick to the spirit of protecting our residential parking spots from outsiders? How about a warning instead, or a friendly reminder? And then a few days to get a sticker...

And why do they ticket cars after the street cleaner has already passed? I don't get any of those tickets for that reason, but it seems silly to not be able to park after the cleaner has clearly already passed... Is anyone else interested in getting some of these unfriendly policies changed? Also, why do we pay an extra Internet fee to pay tickets and update parking passes for a service which clearly must save the city time and money from waiting on us in person? How does the city award the contract to an Internet company which is making so much money for so little service?

Does anyone have a list of local politicians that support these policies and another list of who would rather see changes made?

Thanks so much!

Comments

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Exactly, and we do vote... thanks for that response..

RE: Re: Re: *sigh*

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

You are right, I can't accept it in this case, with reason: I don't believe the policy is good. It doesn't help the community and a warning would have serve the same purpose as far as making sure cars are inspected.. There is evidence that it could contribute to gentrification and unfairly effect people who don't own driveways or who rent... Other communities have much more supportive policies in place. What changed in 2011 to make this new policy a benefit to the people of Somerville?

Do YOU believe this a good policy? Would you be apposed to changing to something similar to what Texas has: And if so why or why not? ... Calling me a whinner, whether I am or not, is not productive..

'Texas law (until March 2015 when the law will change) allows you to obtain an Administrative Dismissal of an Expired Inspection ticket if the following terms are met:

1) The Expired Inspection is remedied within 20 working days;
2) The Inspection Sticker was NOT expired for more than 60 days at the time of the ticket; and
3) You pay the $20 Administrative Dismissal Fee

edit, changed it from Texas registration policy to Texas Inspection policy...

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Not totally sure yet, but it seems that it will raise your insurance premiums regardless if you are driving or not... Several others have stated that:

http://johnsonandrohan.com/blog/?cat=7

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Except that Parking Control Officers don't issue traffic law violation citations, they issue parking citations, they're a different ticket. When I was ticketed in Boston for an expired inspection, it was a parking control officer (or whatever Boston calls them), and those tickets aren't reported through insurance channels like a moving violation is.

WhenI was rear ended in a car with a failure sticker, and I didn't have the actual inspection report with me, the State Trooper cited me for uninspected vehicle, and that did drive my rates up.

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Except that Parking Control Officers don't issue traffic law violation citations, they issue parking citations, they're a different ticket. When I was ticketed in Boston for an expired inspection, it was a parking control officer (or whatever Boston calls them), and those tickets aren't reported through insurance channels like a moving violation is.

Awesome, that is good to know.. ..

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[ron_newman]

I looked at your link and I see no reference to the ACLU anywhere in it.

[aerynne.livejournal.com]

I don't see what renting has to do with any of this. You have an entire month to get a new sticker. More, since you can get your car re-inspected early. I've certainly failed to get my inspection done before it expired in the past, but that was my problem.

You seem to feel that this policy is unfair because the way the law is enforced changed three years ago. The change was enacted through our city's democratic process and residents had the opportunity to attend the budget meetings and call their aldermen. In fact, you still do, if you'd like to advocate for another change. That's how this works. The money the city receives from these fines is going towards running the city-absolutely beneficial for all residents.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

This is part of why I did not buy a house in Somerville. In general, I don't really want to be a part of the city.

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Good question Ron, Craigindaville first brought up the ACLU in this thread...

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

I am assuming renters are forced to park out on the street more than owners... I could be wrong. People parked in driveways will probably discover their inspection sticker expired before Somerville gets to them...

That is really good advice about informing your Alderman and letting them know what you think. Thanks.

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Because you don't feel like your allowed to change policy and participate in these processes...? I kinda get that,. I don't have a lot of time to involved with everything and every detail and one of the standard responses to airing a concern is almost always that you could have gone to the meeting but you didn't...

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

Bravo. You can use the search function. Although I don't see what's different about my position that a private company doing business in Somerville should adhere to the law (regarding weights and measures) and my feeling the residents should to the same (regarding vehicle ownership). In case you aren't aware, it's not legal to have a machine that is inaccurate. Just because they refunded my money at that instance doesn't mean they would fix the problem, which is why the city has an enforcement office. You know, so that people do what they're supposed to do, in ways that are enforced by fines and penalties. Which is how all of civil society operates, in case you haven't noticed.

Clearly I am not the one being irrational when you keep trying to make this about me rather than stick to the topic of whether or not this a good policy for the people of Somerville.

You want a special warning system implemented throughout the state for one specific type of enforcement mechanism because you personally feel it is wrong. And even though many people here have stated why it is good policy for the city, why we believe it isn't unfair, why it benefits society and the commonwealth as a whole, the fact is that YOU don't agree with those statements and so you continue this personal online crusade of inanity.

We get it: Concerned Troll Is Concerned.

Now either go do something about it or STFU. I'm tired of getting emails that you have replied yet again with the same arguments that make no sense and are really just about your personal reaction to getting a ticket.

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

Okay, last question:

Why aren't you as butthurt at the $20 "Administrative Dismissal Fee" as the $50 fine? Presumably that is per offense, so there could be multiple fees assessed. Why is this vaunted as the ideal in your mind, but the straightforward fine that is barely double that in MA isn't?

RE: Re: Re: *sigh*

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

Do YOU believe this a good policy? Would you be apposed to changing to something similar to what Texas has: And if so why or why not? ... Calling me a whinner, whether I am or not, is not productive..

Yes. As stated before, but you just don't like the answer, it encourages drivers to get their inspections done, which in turn helps ensure that cars driving in MA meet minimum safety and emissions standards. It is good policy. Period.

As also stated, creating a system where municipalities have to set up either written warning systems or appeals processes just for dealing with this would be a burden, and in the end wouldn't save the resident much money and would certainly waste time. Your beloved Texas still charges $20 just to appeal the ticket, and there would likely be an in-person requirement for waiving it which is time both of city resources and the resident's availability during business hours.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many on this forum, and the opinion of the Board of Aldermen, this is a silly use of resources for a straightforward fine that both encourages people to follow existing law and helps fund the city services that all residents and visitors to Somerville take advantage of.

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

Ron, your literalness always adds a touch of humor, intended or not, to discussions like these! :-)

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

Saw that my neighbor had a warning on Sept. 2nd. They can certainly do it.

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

I know when I was looking at zoning my building into a 3 instead of a 2 family, the way they count needed parking spots meant you would never get enough parking to meet the off-street requirement. A one lane driveway was considered a single parking spot, no matter how many cars it could hold.

Not directly related to this issue, but I could see how they could make it tough if they wanted to.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Then move to Texas if it's so wonderful.

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Are you insular towards changing the policy here? Or do you really like Texas?

History of these decisions being made in the dark?

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Is there a history of this?

"The Somerville Chamber of Commerce broke the news the next morning. Egg, meet face. Total PR nightmare. Somervillains were equally angry over the changes themselves - the potential impact on business and quality of life - and the way they were made: by an appointed five-person body in the dark of night. Not even most aldermen knew.

It was "unacceptable," said Davis Square alderman Rebekah Gewirtz. "They should've had a public community process."" http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/somerville/2010/06/by_danielle_dreilinger_globe_c_47.html

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[inkarn8.livejournal.com]

Is there a history of this?

"The Somerville Chamber of Commerce broke the news the next morning. Egg, meet face. Total PR nightmare. Somervillains were equally angry over the changes themselves - the potential impact on business and quality of life - and the way they were made: by an appointed five-person body in the dark of night. Not even most aldermen knew.

It was "unacceptable," said Davis Square alderman Rebekah Gewirtz. "They should've had a public community process."" http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/somerville/2010/06/by_danielle_dreilinger_globe_c_47.html

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

I really should stop, but this is too much.

The quote you post does not appear anywhere in the story you link to. It's completely out of context and could be about anything, or nothing, or be made up out of whole cloth. In fact, the article you link to refutes the very claim you seem to be making, including:

"Mayor Joe Curtatone's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget now projects a $1 million decrease in parking fines..."

"Drivers learned quickly: The number of tickets issued is down 7 percent from fiscal 2009..."

"Excise tax revenue exceeded the original $4 million projection by about $300,000. The fiscal 2011 projection is slightly higher, than that, at $4.4 million. 'We make less money on tickets and we made more money on excise taxes,' Meehan summarized."

Amazingly enough, enforcing parking (or other rules/laws/regulations) leads to greater compliance. And, often, greater revenue for the city through bringing people into compliance (in this case the excise taxes that were being dodged by people not registering their cars in Somerville, as required).

Clearly you weren't living here when the new regulations regarding city-wide parking permits and extended parking hours were discussed. It was a very public, and long, process. So, once again, you aren't making a whole lot of sense. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with my question about your apparent love for a $20 fine but an irrational hatred of a $50 fine.

RE: How municipalities profit from poverty...

[avjudge]

> The quote you post does not appear anywhere in the story you link to.
> It's completely out of context and could be about anything, or nothing . . .

So google it, like I did. It's here:
"The parking epic Homer never wrote"
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/somerville/2009/10/by_danielle_dreilinger_globe_c_4.html

I'm curious how many people posting here lived here when this happened? Because there was never any doubt in anyone's mind that I knew of that it (all of it - requiring permits everywhere, extending meter hours, ticketing for expired inspections) was a revenue source pure and simple. Published articles (such as the one I linked to above) stated as much concerning the permits & meters. AND there was lots of griping that many of the decisions were made by an unelected board over which the elected representatives, let alone the residents, had no power. But that's the way it is, so we just live with it.

[grapefruiteater.livejournal.com]

That's not necessarily true. I was ticketed for an expired inspection sticker while driving, and the officer just handed me the ticket and let me drive away. They didn't make me get out of the car, the car wasn't towed, and I wasn't fined above the amount of the ticket itself. This was in 2012, so it's possible that things have changed, although I'd be surprised.

Late to this.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with the OP here. We used to get reminders in the mail that we needed to deal with this; then we got tickets, and getting a second ticket (or 4 or 5 right after when the law had *just* changed) on a car still parked in the same location, with the ticket still on it, is rather offensive. It is the law that this can be done; I agree wtih the argument that it should not be, and that it targets folks who already have less resources (an off-street parking spot, to start with) than it does others. And $20 is a lot better than $50; I'm not even sure why that would be an argument except to someone who does not have money issues (see below comment about privilege). I'm glad there are people talking about this who can afford to do so, because the folks disproportionaely hit are going to have less focus to do so, and that is how it is designed--hit folks less likely to be *able* to make a fuss over it. But then I think much of what the Somerville Parking folks do is evil, even more evil than this--but I'm certainly not going to dissuade someone from speaking up against something that they think is wrong when those disproportionately hit by these sorts of things don't have as much capacity for it. And the whole "there are things more evil than this, why this" argument does not fly with me; the more rules there are out there, the harder it is to summon the energy to get at all of them, and this kind of thinking supports that maneuver. I'm glad the OP is saying something here. As for the burden of figuring out how to keep track of warnings? I think this could be dealt with if it was important; I don't think only things that make money for the city are worth the bother; there is value in having Somerville be friendlier, which is the opposite direction it has been going in this manner, and we seem to forget that the people making these decision are theoretically working for *us*, so including our values in their job descriptions does not seem strange to me.

Also, thinking it is easy to have the focus to get this dealt with before a ticket happens is a form of priveledge, particularly when poorer folks have so damned many *more* things to look out for all the time as it is. I noticed the person above siding with you said that they'd gotten a ticket, but that it was their problem; it's not hard to miss these deadlines, and to say "it's on your windshield, you have no excuse" really does not take into account the realities of many, apparently including the person above siding with you, which is why they make money on it. I agree with friendlier policies. I hate what the parking situation has become here; where I live, there amount of parking available to me did not changed when the rules became more stringent; the changes were completely for revenue and just made even more hoops to jump through to have gatherings, especially when they were impromptu (one of the oringal appeals of this part of Somerville) and thinking this is fair and reasonable when it wasn't needed is a form of brainwashed denial as far as I am concerned.