March 15, 2006
Parking Battles Continue
Discussions over the future of illegal Sunday parkers around places of worship have gone on for months now, with varying amounts of venom coming from all sides. Having heard the discussion, the District Department of Transportation has begun moving toward taking action. Yesterday, the DDOT released its "New Religious Parking Policy," and invited residents to comment on the proposals. According to the press release issued, DDOT proposes that it undertake the following:
-- Conduct a detailed review, in coordination with affected Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and neighborhood groups, of the existing parking supply and demand balance, identified by user groups. Based on this review, DDOT will pursue changes to parking and traffic regulations to meet these parking demands. -- Provide blanket public space permits for as long as a year for Sunday parking and for other agreed-upon church events. This revocable and renewable permit could allow back-in parking, double-parking and other additional spaces and would be in addition to the parking/traffic regulatory changes. The new spaces would not block fire lanes or create other safety hazards. This site-type of scheme has been successfully implemented on Capitol Hill around RFK for the baseball season. -- Encourage discussions with private parking operators or other parking facilities to open up more spaces for church attendees. -- Examine transit options, including shuttle service from large parking lots, such as the site of the old convention center site and the RFK lots, by Metrobus, the D.C. Circulator and private vans. -- Provide valet service to move vehicles blocking other vehicles. -- For three weeks before enforcement [of parking regulations] starts, projected to be around April 23rd, DDOT will work with DPW and the Mayor's Religious Affairs Office to distribute warning leaflets/brochures as was done last year in Capitol Hill neighborhoods at the start of the baseball season. -- After the warning period, parking enforcement will increase around places of worship. -- Similar steps will be taken to expand parking and step up enforcement in other neighborhoods where parking is tight because of religious events.
In response to the second item listed above (on provision of blanket parking permits), Todd Lovinger of Logan Residents for Equitable Enforcement of Parking Regulations noted that the proposal:
(1) violates the legislatively mandated prohibition against double-parking at all times in all places in the District; (2) provides parishioners (many of whom do not live in the city) with greater rights than tax paying residents ... especially at a time when the district is seeking to increase fees for residential parking permits which would essentially have no value on Sundays (one of every two weekend days and one of every seven days of the week) as a result of this proposal; (3) demonstrates (as does the entire proposed policy) illegal and unconstitutional favoritism toward certain religious groups ... in particular, christians who worship on Sunday ... over other religious groups that worship on other days (such as Jewish people) in direct violation of the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution; (4) creates unfair, undue and unnecessary superior rights for one group over all other businesses and groups; (5) leaves the door open for continuation of the same problem that community groups have been protesting ... specifically, the continuation of safety hazards from reduced vision of drivers and unfair burden and inconvenience to local residents from the blocking of legally parked vehicles by double-parked cars; (6) reduces the number of spaces available to tax-paying residents (who also pay for parking permits) in favor of non-community members; and, (7) essentially defeats the whole purpose of creating a new parking policy by creating a huge loophole that, instead of offering a deterrent for double parking, actually gives people a gift through parking permits that can last "for as long as a year." (The people who double park merely have to get one permit per year and illegally park when they want to do so on Sundays. There is no hardship in getting a permit once a year. That is not a deterrent against illegal parking.)
Undoubtedly, the DDOT is trying to get the churches into compliance while also being diplomatic, but it is difficult to understand the deference they continue to show to illegal parkers. None of us have gotten weeks of warnings before receiving tickets for parking violations, and the offer of parking amnesty to attendees is a slap in the face to all District residents who've taken the time and effort to procure a legitimate residential pass. Moving cautiously is one thing; placing a very specific group of worshippers above city residents and above the law is quite another.
The DDOT indicates that comments on the proposed policies be sent to Miss Ann Simpson-Mason, DDOT Policy and Planning Administration, 671- 2740, Ann.Simpson-Mason@dc.gov.
Picture taken by andertho.
|
the new policy is an outgrowth of the logan circle parking bruhaha that raged for months (if not years)
the logan specific solution is explained below:
http://dcbubble.blogspot.com/2006/03/cooler-heads-prevail-in-logan-circle.html
Absurd. Absolutely absurd.
I cannot fathom how they can be talking about giving blanket permits to allow double-parking. That's bullshit, pure and simple.
Hey, I don't live in the district! Can I get a free, one-year parking permit? You know, it isn't that I need it on a Sunday, but I really need one on Friday nights for one or two of the places where we really need to park illegally to be anywhere reasonably close enough to where I am going. Because, you know, a lot of people just park illegally there anyway.
That, or maybe the city could offer me free shuttle or valet service to the door of where I need to go. 'Cause you know, it is always really hard to find parking in Georgetown, Dupont, Adams Morgan, U Street. So many places really.
Really, I maintain that the churches should have their congregants volunteer to do valet for their own if they have troubles parking close enough to be able to walk. I am sure that lots of attendees do lots of things to help out the church, why not this? And why don't the congregants metro or take the bus anyway? Why aren't they like everybody else? I feel for you DC. This is a weak solution.
I think that Todd summarizes the issues with this press release beautifully. It really amazes me how this loophole just was thrown in and has taken away the agreed upon solutions between the community and the church. In regard to the loophole, there is no mention on whether these permits will have a price. Government resources are being utilized to print, enforce, and administrate this loophole that benefits non-district residents.
JCH
So the DDOT needs to draft a "new religious parking policy"? ...i still fail to get the connection: Why should folks be permitted to double-park because they believe in spirits?
I'm starting a new religion that meets only on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights in Adams Morgan. We can lobby for double parking rights on 18th Street.
DC Bubble sympathizes with all the folks who say things like "I am starting my own religion that meets on Friday and Saturday nights." I too have made similar comments.
But hold on these parishioners made their own spaces and double-parked in front of each other for decades without serious complaint. true things have changed but that does not mean we forget everything that happened before 2000.
In logan double parking wont be allowed, we are told.
www.dcbubble.blogspot.com
Hell, let's just cater to the self righteous "Churchies" like we do for all the damn tourists!! I know, let's raise taxes so we can kowtow to all those who blatantly refuse to abide to the laws that we DC residents are held to!
This is not a solution to the problem. This is a limp handshake provided by a Government to cover up another growing problem in the District. It's basically saying that if enough people disobey the law for a long enough period of time, the Government will not only make exemptions, they'll also provide one with FREE services (paid for by those who are inconvenienced)!
The notion that "these parishioners made their own spaces and double-parked in front of each other for decades without serious complaint" has several flaws including that (1) it acquiesces in the concept that parishioners are somehow above the law and entitled to greater rights than everyone else, including tax-paying residents of the affected communities; (2) it disregards the fact that parishioners do not only block in one another but in fact past practice has shown that many, many residents have been illegally blocked and had their activities disrupted; (3) it ignores the fact that these parking violations create significant safety hazards by blocking intersections,limiting driver visibility, interfering with emergency vehicle access, and so forth; (4) it does not address the issue that churches ... like all businesses and groups in the city ... should act responsibly to address parking issues created by the large volume of congregants that they bring into residential neighborhoods and that it is inappropriate for these tax-exempt churches to expect the city and taxpayers to use our hard-earned dollars to provide parking for them; and, (5) it ignores the fact that the DC legislature has mandated that double-parking is illegal and unlawful at all times in all places in the city without exception.
On a separate note, I would point out that the proposed policy is blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional in that it addresses the needs of only one religious group while ignoring the parking needs of other religious groups. For instance, Jewish people worship on Friday evening and Saturday ... yet, the policy does not address increased parking demands during these times at all.
Finally, the provision for "blanket Sunday permit exemptions" essentially defeats the whole purpose of creating a new parking policy by creating a huge loophole that, instead of offering a deterrent for double parking, actually gives people a gift through parking permits that can last "for as long as a year." (The people who double park merely have to get one permit per year and illegally park when they want to do so
on Sundays. There is no hardship in getting a permit once a year. That is not a deterrent against illegal parking.)
dcbubble, am i misreading the DOT statement? You say double parking will not be allowed in Logan. DOT says, "this revocable and renewable permit could allow back-in parking, double-parking and other additional spaces and would be in addition to the parking/traffic regulatory changes."
Sounds like they're leaving the door open on that one.
Does anyone have a link to the DDOT press release?
Does anyone know the boundaries of where they will implement this new solution? I'm betting I'm a block outside the boundary, and police will let folks park on my sidewalk and in my yard if they want to on Sundays.
No tax money to create special Church parking permits until our schools are fixed!
(However, spending tax money to enforce existing parking regulations in my neighborhood on Sundays would be greatly wonderful)
Ok, this is pathetic. First a loophole you could drive a truck through, then the suggestion that the city provide bus services for private religious organizations? Come on....
Anyway, let's get the real issue out in the open. The issue here is not about DC citizens being inconvenienced. The issue is about race.
These are black churches, in a black-run city, and no politician who expects to get re-elected is going to come down too hard on the illegal parking. It may be galling, but it's especially true since the complainers are, for the most part, white folk.
Politicians in this city see the black churches as able to deliver votes. They don't want to get on churches' bad sides, because they value their jobs more than they value their constituents.
The only thing that's a shame is that Anthony Williams, who doesn't have to worry about reelection, won't stand up to these folks. "city living dc style" takes on a whole new meaning when you get parked in all Sunday and the cops won't enforce the law. It's sure to be a real incentive for all of those suburbanites to move into Logan.
In response to the earlier question from "CD," the DDOT press release can be found on the home page of the agency's website at www.ddot.dc.gov. The press release includes information on how to submit comments, which should be done electronically by writing to both bill.rice@dc.gov
and to ann.simpson-mason@dc.gov.
Amazingly there are other churches in the neighborhood where parishoners have managed to not double park, do engage in carpools, have their own limited parking lots, use metro and have church vans pick up the elderly. The bad actors aren't the only churches in the area but they give all a bad name.
Is it possible for individuals to purchase a car boot? I've heard of people doing this as a super-duper car theft prevention method, but how funny would it be to boot the person who parked in front of your driveway? They won't let you get out to run your Sunday morning errands? Fine. You won't let them run their Sunday afternoon errands.
White church, black church, all irresposible ingrates one and all. The most grievious parking on 14th street have been at Thomas Circle (already darned constrained anyway) by National City Church members who, last time I saw them, were the well-heeled melanin deficient variety. Up the street the crazy nutter "church" on 14th & T sold their building to condo developers and are moving to PG, where most of their members live anyway.
There are responsible churches, they just happen to not be as politically connected as a lot of other churches. Black churches may seem to be the target but it's sheer numbers: more urban and suburban black people are regular churchgoers than whites of the same stripe. It's a tragedy of the commons, and someone is going to have to bring in a shepard and get these oafs from tearing up all the grass for free.
Unreal, you hit the nail on the head. That is EXACTLY what this situation represents. There is no way any of our elected officials will come out against the Churches, even the ones who support the arguments presented in this forum.
Has anyone played the federal "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" trump card yet?
The one that basically says churches can do whatever they want regarding land use, zoning and municipal codes?
As soon as a church plays that card, it might be game over.
Brendan, I'm not too familiar with that Act, but I thought it means that Churches can do whatever they want with their own land and property, without regard to city codes, zoning, etc. For instance, if the Church wanted to use an empty lot it owned as a parking lot, it could do so even if zoning laws prohibited it. Does it mean that they can do whatever they want on PUBLIC property? YIKES! I'm going to join a Church. They seem to have all the power.
The act to which Brendan is referring neither gives churches the right to do whatever they want whereever they want nor does it give them the right to disregard city codes. In fact, a lawsuit filed a few years back to fight against parishioners illegally parking on an empty city lot resulted in a victory to the residents. Moreover, city agencies have already acknowledged that churches must abide by zoning ordinances and so forth ... even on land which they own.
Thanks for the clarification, TDL. Then what does the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" mean? Anyone? Anyone?
Frankly, Brendan, from the "solution" proposed by the DDOT, it sounds as if it already is "game over" for the residents. If the solution to the illegal parking is just to make it legal, it doesn't sound as if the tax-paying residents are going to get much accomplished.
I'm not advocating vandalism, but it seems as if the Churchies would be less prone to block residents' cars if they thought there may be some damage to their cars upon their return. That reminds me of when my friend's car was vandalized once when it was parked in southeast and the officer's response was, "Well, you parked down here. What did you expect?".
How about DDOT sends flyers to these churches asking them to encourage their parishoners to take Metro and then walk the rest of the way if need be. A lot of folks that go to the church near me look like they could use some exercise.
Mike B, there does seem to be a discrepency between what the press release says and what we were told about the logan cirlce situation explained here: http://dcbubble.blogspot.com/2006/03/cooler-heads-prevail-in-logan-circle.html
we're not sure if there is a special agreement applying to logan only
I really hope everyone who has commented on this post so far -- 25 comments, all against the proposed "compromise" -- will take the time to send another email to the DC government. Ann.Simpson-Mason@dc.gov is the contact -- just cut and paste the comment you've already made here if you're short on time.
Uhm. Do cars have gods? If not, then a "Religious Parking Policy" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Or at least one of them.
It would also be stupid, just stupid, if residents in the affected areas knew how hard it is to get lipstick off a windshield.
Valve stem removers are also very, very stupid. Oh, how stupid they are!
what's going on east of the new convention center?
6th and M united house of prayer
1112 6th st nw galbraith church
6th and P springfield baptist church
You are all so sadly naive. Do you not understand that there is a certain kind of Christian for whom the true meaning of Christianity is: "Jesus died for my sins and, well, sorry but the rest of you are just going to have to suffer a little so I can continue sinning." These are selfish people, indifferent to whether their actions might hurt others. Set aside the right of the residents to go about their daily business...what if there's an emergency and the ambulance or fire truck can't get through? Have these people even thought about that? Somehow I doubt it.
i'm just going to double park the double parkers for sport. you guys need to start looking into the silver lining on this. if you double park a legally double parked car, it's not triple parking, it's just parking. right?
what f'ing lunacy. everyone write the DC gov and tell them so.
I want to reiterate the calls to actually email DDOT with your thoughts. We can't let this parking situation continue in our city.
This is what I sent yesterday....
From:
To: Ann.Simpson-Mason@dc.gov
Date: Mar 15, 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: DDOT Policy - Sunday parking
Maybe you could put your two cents in on the following site:http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/03/15/parking_battles.php Many DC residents understand that the DDOT is taking a diplomatic approach to the current situation, but we are all are quite surprised by the propossed solutions. When will the rights and concerns of DC taxpayers be taken into consideration? Thank you.