Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[jack]

Mostly the Parking Enforcement folks have figured out that cars parked beyond the "no parking to intersection" signposts may be legally parked. (I doubt that they understand the restrictions to that -- the block must be designated RPP, and the car must have the appropriate RPP zone sticker.) There are exceptions, of course, presumably as new people come on and think that the signposts are definitive.

Last July we got such a ticket, which I denied by mail, with my standard argument, and a photograph confirming that the car was more than 25 feet from the intersection. It took five and a half months, but the successful dismissal of the ticket arrived in the mail earlier this month. I've got lots of those now.

-- Jack

[jack]

And still, the bogus tickets come, most recently from a hyperactive MPD officer, one "B. Davis", with nothing better to do than write parking tickets. Lucky me, I got one too. Very annoying, as we've been fighting this battle for several years now, and every new MPD officer or Parking Enforcement officer has to be instructed anew about the 25/40 law.

Anyone who has gotten such a bogus ticket lately, deny it by mail, citing the law, with a statement that your car was 25 feet or more from the intersection (assuming that it was). I'm 4 for 5 on such denials.

Lieutenant Pate has responded to my request that he instruct his officers, and in particular "B. Davis", about the law:

Mr. McKay,

I have looked into this matter as we discussed previously. As of today all PSA 301 officers have been informed about the additional 15 feet allotted for vehicles with residential parking permits. This should eradicate the problem. The officers were notified on January 21, 2010, at approximately 11pm. However, if any other tickets of this kind are receive please contact me immediately.

-- Jack

[jack]

If this is your Camry, parked this morning on 19th at Lamont . . . you may disregard the parking ticket issued by the MPD.

Mr. McKay,

I have spoken to the officer that issued this ticket, and the ticket has been rescinded. You can tell your neighbor to disregard the ticket.

Thanks

Micah A. Pate
Lieutenant
Third District
PSA 301
202-506-0743

[jack]

Making further progress with getting this law recognized by the MPD. -- Jack

After the following events that took place over the last week and the vital information provided by various citizens over list serve and emails, we were able to determine that there was indeed a training issue that needed to be addressed for this specific area. As a result, I have initiated an immediate phase of in-service, roll call training to cover this issue and a few more. Over the next 24-48 hours, all members of the Third District are being reintroduced to this matter and the proper way of dealing with the residential parking permits and intersections. Thank you to everyone that provided information and together, we will work through the kinks...

Captain Aubrey P. Mongal Third District PSA's 301/303/305/308 Vice / Warrant Squad 202-671-6775

[jack]

I've lost count of how many of these tickets I've gotten dismissed. It would be better if these bogus tickets weren't written in the first place.
-- Jack

[bdweller]

any suggestions as to language in an appeal letter for these types of tickets? I got another one last week. The first one I got months ago, I appealed and was denied.

[jack]

[jack]

I continue my crusade to have the District Government respect the law allowing us to park to within 25 feet of an intersection, versus the signpost placement at 40 feet. This is in the current issue of "themail", by DCWatch. -- Jack


Does the DMV Know, or Care, What’s Actual, Current Law?
Jack McKay, [email address removed - log in to view]

In the July 1 issue of themail, I complained that the Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Adjudication Appeals Board cited, in rejecting my appeal of a parking ticket, a law that was repealed almost four years ago. I refer to the “Parking Enhancement Amendment Act of 2006,” sponsored by Councilmembers Schwartz, Ambrose, Graham, and Brown, passed by the District Council in July, 2006, published in the DC Register in August, submitted to the usual Congressional review, then made District law L16-0186, effective November 16, 2006. This act adds this item to Title 18 of the Municipal Regulations: “2411.21 Vehicles displaying a valid residential parking permit may park at all times, within a designated residential permit parking zone, twenty-five (25) feet or more from the intersection.” That’s “at all times,” not “between 10:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.,” as the DMV Appeals Board wrote in their June 14 letter rejecting my assertion that my car was legally parked. Concerning that specification of hours during which such parking is permitted, the act of council is terse: “Subsection (a) is repealed.” What part of “repealed” does the DMV not understand?

I complained about this behavior to a neighbor, who rolled her eyes and asked me, “How long have you lived in the District?” Essentially, incompetence is an accepted standard of performance at the DMV, and I’m being really naive in imagining that anybody downtown cares about their being years out of date in their knowledge of traffic and parking laws. Indeed, my July 6 E-mail to the Director of the DMV, Lucinda Babers, copied to a member of that Adjudication Appeals Board, protesting this ignorance of the law, remains without even an acknowledgment of receipt, much less a reply. They don’t care.

[jack]

Got another one of those 25/40 tickets. This time I happened to be there right after the Parking Enforcement officer wrote the ticket, and I pointed out to her that the car was legally parked. "Not after 8 A.M.", she said, referring to the law repealed in 2006. I said no, that 25-foot provision is valid "at all times", since that 2006 law. She said that her supervisor "had never heard of that".

Well, I gave him a copy of the 2006 law, and an example of my several successful denials of these tickets, citing that law to confirm that the car was legally parked. I trust the young lady's supervisor has "heard of" that law now.

I pressed this also through the top, via Bill Howland, Director of DPW. I think they are slowly getting the message: the law was changed in 2006, and it's about time Parking Enforcement got the message.

And into the mail goes yet another denial of a bogus parking ticket. I'm five for six on those denials, so far. A photo of the car, and a citing of the 2006 law, generally does the trick.

-- Jack

[jack]

[machpost]

Are there any plans to actually move the signs to the 25 foot mark?

[jack]

[jack]

[Subcity]

Congrats, Jack. Here's a related matter that also seems absurd: When the city "suspends" the alternate-side parking rules in certain months, it results in people parking on both sides of the street because the signs say one thing while the "secret" temp rule says another.

Has anyone ever explained the (supposed) logic behind these un-posted rules (which actually contradict what is posted)?

It's like "double secret probation" in Animal House, but at least that was entertaining.

[jack]

It's been six years since we won the right to park as close as 25 feet from an intersection, vs. the 40 feet where the signposts are put. It was a great struggle to get the MPD and Parking Enforcement to understand this odd law, that allows cars to park beyond a "no parking" sign, but that seems to be understood now. It's been more than a year since my last bogus parking ticket. (I'm 9 for 9 on getting these tickets overruled.)

But being allowed to park beyond the no-parking signpost doesn't mean anywhere we want beyond the signpost. A vehicle must remain 25 feet or more from the intersection. For most cars, being parked with the front bumper close to the no-parking sign is adequate. If your car is a Ford Explorer, 17 feet long, then even that isn't sufficient. You've got to maintain 25 feet distance to the intersection, to avoid obscuring vision for drivers approaching the intersection from the side.

An example, illustrated below. It's about four feet from the no-parking sign, and the SUV adds 17 feet, so this is way beyond the 15-foot allowance.

-- Jack