PREEMPTIVE STRIKE!

I guess I don't see what the big deal is. Let them park, it's pretty much standard operating procedure in other cities, especially those cities that have a large concentration of churches in one area. BUT, the churches need to be better neighbors too. Welcoming the new neighbors and stop spewing anti-gay rhetoric when someone wants to invest in neighborhood buildings and businesses, and don't play the "I was here first, so this is mine, all mine" card.

Bill Howland is the DPW director and Michelle Pourciau is the acting DDOT Director. Please fix your post.

I was going by the press release. That's changed now.

I was ticketed for parking near a synagogue on Yom Kippur (highest holy day) in a restricted zone (several thousand people attend that synagogue so parking was slim in upper NW). I've been appealing since October, and included several articles about how tickets are not given in front of churches. Anyone else ticketed in front of a synagogue, where clearly more laws are enforced than in front of churches?

anon, have you tried contacting one of the local media outlets? I know the Washington Post has run articles about this situation and your experience would probably interest those in the business. Providing special treatment for one religion over another tends to rankle some folks.

Well, if that recent forum is the Ward 6 Straw poll, then at least one of the candidates was pretty definitive. Brown was quite willing to say "The churches were here first." ARGH.

As a new resident (one year) with a car, living right near Metropolitian Baptist, I am still perpelxed as to how this is such a big issue. It's three hours on a Sunday morning. Its not much different than parking somewhere else for street cleaning. If you simply anticipate Sunday morning, there is no problem. The chruches have been providing life to the community for years, why not let them double park?

Because it's a legal freebie the rest of us wouldn't receive, and because it's dangerous, because it impedes the movement of emergency vehicles.

Exactly, cbc! It wasn't the churches who turned around Shaw and Logan, it was the people who moved in, renovated houses and dealt with the trash and crime until things changed who made the neighborhoods better. These parishoners moved out, leaving the neighborhoods to the drug dealers, vagrants and hookers. Now that things have changed, the churches want credit for everything they've done to improve the neighborhoods.

This sense of entitlement disgusts me.

Is it very dangerous, Ryan? I doubt that church-oriented Sunday double parking on U Street grossly affects emergency personnel, even though U is one of the primary arteries for emergency vehicles. I hope Lovinger has some data to back his claim; complaining that others are receiving treatment that is neither particularly special nor desirable is a kind is kind of kindergarten and legalistic.

As for churchgoers being out-of-towners: When they're not shutting down liquor license applicants, they're good neighbors. In the best case, they don't use many resources, they contribute services to the community that municipalities don't provide, and (in the case of the church across the street from me) they play bitchin gospel music on Sundays.

Kriston,
Neighborhood walkthroughs conducted on Sunday mornings with ANC reps have found blocked fire hydrants and obstructed side streets. I'd consider that dangerous.
And, you know, there are lots of entities in the District that provide services to the city, including bitching music, and that make good neighbors, and they don't get a free pass on illegal parking.
And, I think the very fact that churches are willing to continue this practice puts the lie to the statement that they're good neighbors. And you don't think immunity from parking laws is desirable?

I have lived within a block of a large Cap Hill church for the past 6 years, and "illegal" parking is not always the problem. If churches make an effort to mitigate the impact, like "illegally" parking around the otherwise 'no parking' restricted Stanton Park, this has virtually no impact on traffic or safety. It's also preferable to congregants roaming the residential neighborhoods to poach limited spaces, and parking near corners, hydrants, driveways, etc.) In Logan/Shaw, some areas have diagonal Sun. parking to accomodate church goers.

Let's face it -- DC land isn't cheap and most of these congregations predate the premium on parking in our neighborhoods. Churches could arrange satellite parking and shuttle their members -- however, many churces already operate shuttles to provide transportation to elderly and disabled members. I'm generally willing to look the other way on the technical law if people show my neighborhood and its residents a reasonable amount of respect, regardless of what state their plates read.

If commercial street-side parking doesn't exist, how do businesses receive their deliveries? Certain parts of the city (especially downtown) don't have back alleys for deliveries and must rely on street-side parking for goods. Of course, in many instances the delivery trucks just park illegally, but without any designated delivery spaces the problem would be much worse.

Mr. Sinha and Ryan,

Although I apprciate the rationality of your posts (it makes sense to obey the law!), there is obviously another, more subtle aspect to what is going on around these churches.

It would seem to me, that this whole argument has a lot more to do with the racial and ecnomic shifts that are vastly changing the demographic of these areas than it does with parking on Sunday morning. All you need for proof of that is to look closely at language like "entitlement."

Most of the chruch goers are black. Most of those frustrated by the parking issue are not. No one's talking about that.

All of the tensions surrounding these neighborhood shifts seem like there are finding a voice in the chruch parking issue. Ryan, is this really about safty? If safety is really a concern, then perhaps we should be going after the way cabs drive, or putting guardrails on the edge of all metro platforms. I mean, safety is an issue is all cities, all the time, everywhere.

I hardly think that the city is "facilitating faith" by allowing folks to park on Sunday morning any more that it is "facilitating" secularism by encouraging bars to open up all over the city, thereby creating a parking problem on Saturday night.

I live (and park) in a NW neighborhood near a big church. Until about a year ago residents here were able to park on a quiet street that had no signs on it related to parking regulations. Usually, I wasn't able to finding parking there on Sundays because it was filled with churchgoers.

Then one I day I got a parking ticket. Thinking it was a fluke, I continued to park on the block. The next week I got another ticket, and realized something was going on. A few days later signs went up and now the block is restricted to church parking on Sundays! It's maddening!

I don't mind if churchgoers park there on Sunday, but it would be great if residents could park there the rest of the week. I'm also pretty sure the only reason the signs went up in the first place was that the residents were actually using the spaces (egads!) that the church wanted "reserved" for them on Sundays...

Anybody know who I would contact about this?

Is there going to be a counter-protest? I'd love to walk around with a big poster that reads, "Double-parking makes baby Jesus cry!"

Quite frankly, the Common Denominator article makes me sick. The arrogance of these churches is beyond belief. Maybe....just maybe..if the churches and their parishoners had been as vital to the survival of DC neighborhoods as they claim to be, then residents would consider turning a blind eye to a seemingly small problem.

But let's face it, these churchgoers turned their backs on DC's black community and fled for the 'burbs when the going got tough in our city. And now that they see DC's center city neighborhoods rapidly changing for the better, they're bitter, spiteful, and reaching for every trick they can think of to stem the onslaught of young professionals moving into the neighborhoods they abandoned.

A law is a law. The churches certainly aren't willing to cut local businesses (like Vegetate!) any slack when it comes to interpretation of city statutes.....so why should they get a free pass???

I encourage everyone to counter-protest on Sunday!!!

I have been a DC resident for 3 years, and I have to say that it is not the double-parking in and of itself that bothers me. At 6th & M streets, NW, the United House of Prayer for All People has a particularly involved congregation. They have meetings many nights during the week, and a marching band practices on their sidewalk in the summer. When the band practices, the children throw trash all over the street. Whenever there is a meeting of some kind at the church, there is illegal parking. Not double parking, just illegal parking: parking between the corner and the sign where legal parking begins. This practice makes making turns quite difficult, but no one seems to care. This form of illegal parking is probably the most dangerous. Also, if double parking was only for a few hours, say 9am - 1pm on Sundays, this would probably be OK. The problem is that it begins at 11am and goes until 6 or 7 pm some Sundays.

These people do have a sense of entitlement, an "above the law" attitude, and the reason is that the laws aren't enforced. Most of the police in the area probably have connections to the churches, so there is favoritism. When I call parking enforcement, especially after 6 on a weeknight, they never come. And this has nothing to do with "2 hour non-resident" this has slely to do with ILLEGAL (i.e., parked in a no-parking zone) parking. I am afraid to say anything to the drivers for fear of retaliation to my car.

One final thing: note that most of these churchgoers, and the pastors of the churches, have money (note the shiny new luxury cars and SUVs, nice suits and dresses, etc.). So these people can obviously afford nice things, so why don't they collect their money and either buy property for parking lots or buy buses that can shuttle the congregation from legal parking or public transportation? Laziness, greed, and entitlement again surface. And I know that some of these people are old and should have parking close to their place of worship, but it is the responsibility of the church to provide for them. I have seen some of the people parked illegally, and they are not handicapped. They are simply too lazy to park down the block and walk and they know they will not be punished.

Maybe there are some ways to combat this, although it could be dangerous and it would be time consuming: picket in front of churches, loudly with megaphones, on Sundays. We don't like our lives being disrupted, I'm sure that they don't want their church service disrupted. Do it often. Do it whenever someone is parked illegally. Do it en masse, with police backup if necessary, because I'm sure many of these so-called 'christians' are not opposed to violence and other unpleasant acts. Encite them to react, get it caught on tape, and expose them for what they are: hypocrites.

To all those of you complaining of the uppity "sense of entitlement" on the part newly suburban parishioners: Give me a break. Three hours of double-parking on Sundays and all you can do is whine on about how you are the real residents of Shaw/Logan and pay taxes and shouldn't have to deal with any inconveniences in the sparkling "new" community you have appropriated over the course of the last decade. That smacks of entitlement to me. With a healthy dose of revisionist history.

Certainly, concerns about public saftey (parking in front of fireplugs, etc) should be taken into account. But why all the agita about special treatment for Christians. I am one of those secularist, Bertrand Russell-loving carpetbaggers newly arrived in Shaw, but I don't grudge a long established church community whose members have been recently displaced (largely due to economic reasons) its precedent of playing a little loose with traffic laws for a couple hours a week. Nor should any of you. In fact, I would urge you to go to some services yourself and see what it is about these churches that would make people want to commute to them. I suspect it has something to do with the strong communal and fraternal bonds

Folks, you got to embrace the community into which you move. When in Rome do as the Romans do, even if the city has been bought out by German invaders. If you want to live somewhere where there is not any gritty, fundamentally urban give and take--where the letter of the law is more important than its spirit--I suggest you buy property in a gated community along Route 66.

Also, let's don't pretend my comments can be dismissed or reduced with that heavy-hand bludgeon of "you're using the race card!" This is not a meaningful phrase beyond its use as a tool to deflect any claim that brings the dynamic of race into the argument. This parking issue is the result of demographic (and skin tone) change in our neighborhood and I believe that, no matter which side of the debate you stand on, intellectual honesty requires that we address it as such. This is not equate black/former resident with right nor white/new resident with wrong--it is merely to situate the issue in the appropriate context.

there is a photo of the double parkers over here:

http://dcbubble.blogspot.com/2006/04/good-news-no-one-is-happy-in-logan.html

LotusEater says, "But why all the agita about special treatment for Christians."

For me, it's the fact that Christians have a long history of reacting to special treatment as if it were their due. The current meme making the rounds about Christian persecution is the result of that special treatment. As a gay man, the fact that my legal marriage in Canada remains illegally unrecognized here in the states is the result of that special treatment. I could think of many more examples of how that special treatment for Christians affects me personally in many different ways and in many different capacities. With that in mind, I see no reason why Christians deserve the special treatment, or why their (dubious) claims of community involvement means they have earned it.

This seems to me to be an issue that could be helped, at least in a small way, by having open primaries. With open primaries, all DC residents would be eligible to vote in the only elections that really matter. Therefore, the candidates would be forced to appeal to a wider spectrum, rather than their core base.

Perhaps this would still devolve into a white vs. black thing, and since there are more black people in DC, open primaries wouldn't matter much. However, I think people are not divided solely on race lines over this. And those outside the core Democratic voters may not see fit to bestow special status on these churches.

As it is, a large minority of residents' vote is ignored during the only vote that matters. Thus candidates only have to appeal to the core Democratic voters.

If there were only a viable second party, no matter what its name, it would go even further in breaking up standoffs like this.

TheLotusEater,

Should new residents just accept a culture of drug use and dealing in a community as well? If something is wrong or illegal I say people have a right to change it. Far too long the powerful political elite have screwed this city and I say its time for people to stand up. No longer will residents accept politicans who look the other way why basic city services are not carried out. The double parking is just a prime example of what had been going on which was stupid politicans running the city into the ground.

Oh and I read that other cities allow double parking. Where is that? Not New York. You ass gets towed if you pull any of the crap church goers around here do.

There is a serious and disturbing inversion of political logic going on here. One of the major causes of the "urban crisis" was WHITE flight, not the flight of black church-goers. The District's semi-colonial political conditions are the result of anti-black discrimination in national politics, not a grudge that Congress holds against young professionals who just moved to U Street. Generally the phrase "far too long the powerful political elite has screwed this city" has been used to draw attention to the class- and race-bias that reproduces black powerlessness and poverty. To claim that somehow a powerful black elite is screwing powerless white young professionals requires a lot of chutzpah, to say the least. This similar to the upside-down logic of oppression and oppressor that has dominated national politics since Reagan.

The appropriation of the language of justice by an economically dominant group of gentrifiers is simply outrageous. Settling this particular issue would be a lot more straightforward if the "newcomers" actually considered the larger set of power relations in the District--or less optimistically, if they showed just a little bit of humility.

Settling this particular issue would be a lot more straightforward if the "newcomers" actually considered the larger set of power relations in the District

Considering the commanding and unwavering majorities on DCist for both enforcing parking restrictions and DC statehood, I think there's a big bloc of "newcomers" doing exactly that.

Eh?

Are you implying that U Street's black history means that whites are the victims in this case? The historic importance of U Street for the District's black communities would seem to suggest that whites moving there ought to be more sensitive to questions of race, power, and city streets, not less so.

I'll tell you what I'm implying, Diogenes: the discourse on race and power in a discussion of whether churchgoing people should be allowed to break the law is what is outrageous here. The issue, to me, seems more to be about religion and its inequitable power in a city that defines its diversity than by more than just the color of its population's skin. Or do you think that power is a linear force that only moves in one direction?

"suspects" s/b "expects"

N.B. If you use the words "race" and "discourse" please just go work on your thesis and leave real-world solution makers to the counter-protestors.

Also: if you snort at others because they missed your OBVIOUS JOKE, please just return to socializing with your insufferable, perma-insulted yes-men hipster friends.

This valuable contribution to the discussion has been brought to you by Usenet trolls.

Gah. Everytime someone uses the word "hipster" an angel loses its halo. Stop tossing around a made-up appellation for non-existent people.

Hipsters=straw men. STFU.

MS,

Until you brought it up, I had never really seen the deep, underlying connection between the urban drug problem and churgoers' parking habits, though I think I once read somewhere that Christianity was the opiate of the masses. What a useful comparison you draw! What extraordinary conclusions! Both are established patterns of behavior, both are "bad" for the community, therefore all established patterns of behavior are bad for the community. It is clear we must abolish all traditions.

Kriston, you don't seem to have any point. You seem to think it is quite acceptable that a certain group of people sohuld be allowed to violate the law with no consequences. And they think they should be allowed to do so not because they actually LIVE in this community (like I do), but because they feel they have some special entitlement because their church is located here.

Now, I'm personally not a gentrifier, nor am I new to the neighborhood. I've been here for the better part of a decade. And for the better part of a decade I dealt with the parking issue. Others around me dealt with the parking issue. Why? Not because we wanted to but because there was no way to get the city to listen to our complaints. Now all of a sudden there are gentrifiers who the city will listen to, and that's a blessing. This problem did not start when the gentrifiers showed up, it has been around a long time. It just now has a voice that the city can hear.

Actually, I think the cars remain, driverless, where they were at the moment of Judgement. But then again, it does make easy pickins of their CD players and Sirius units. So that's some consolation.

Kriston,

"Logan Circlers don't seem to recognize that churchgoers will need to park somewhere...." You are wrong on this one. Logan residents do understand the need for parking. Residents, along with church reps., worked on a committee to bring into Logan more parking spaces. This was done on the free time of many who felt that, although the parking laws clearly state double parking is illegal, they should try to ease any burden that church goers would have when ticketing began.

I find funny that people would allow certain actions to take place that they normally wouldn't do. If these church goers are shopping (for instance at Target on Jefferson Davis) and don't find a space do they just double park other cars in? Should I be able to go to their community in VA or MD and block their driveway if I am visiting a friend and there is no parking spaces within a 2 min. walk?

You see the ANC and Logan residents have done walk-abouts around Logan Circle during Sunday church time and have found SPACES AVAILABLE. If only some church goers would walk 5 mins, which is something every DC resident has to live with everyday. Walking 5 mins once a week would not kil these church goers. Most are healthy middle aged people who can walk themselves to church. The ones who can't could use the church parking lot which is right next to the building, but you know what? At a resident/church meeting that discussed parking solutions, the church rep. said that such a system could not work because that parking lot is "first come, first serve." Reasonable efforts and solutions were offered by Logan residents, but most of the time they were shot down by the churches.

They don't want accommodation. What they do want is the status quo. That isn't goind to happen and if they just would have compromised 3 or 4 months ago instead of fighting they would have been in a better situation right now.

Kriston, why can't they Metro?

Wardfiveguy,

The resident/church commission got DDOT & DPW to do a walk through the entire community to find parking spaces. That effort brought about an additional 70 plus spaces into the community. On Vermont Ave., angle spaces are available 7 days a week for residents and church goers (I believe about 20 or 25 ). Then on other streets we got weekend angled parking going in.

DCist Ryan,

The metro option was discussed at the meetings but the churches refused to consider paying for shuttle service despite the fact that we did a study of other area churches parking situation and found that they do offer shuttle services or actually pay for parking in nearby underground garages.

Its funny that while conducting the church survery I found alot of churches were upset with the Logan churches. Basically, it comes down to some churches who refuse to be good neighbors are giving all churches a bad name. The churches who do compromise with the community do not particularly like the ones who don't.

I am of two minds about this: As a regular churchgoer (at a church on 16th Street) and a Logan resident who parks on the street (but who lives on a block far enough away from the large churches in question to make it a non-issue for me, as far as my parking needs go) I understand the need for there to be available and convenient parking for elderly and infirm churchgoers. Meanwhile, I also recognize that churches should be good neighbors and try to work with their communities rather than pissing neighbors off.

What I don't understand is why the entrenched and embittered elements on both sides seem to be dominating the conversation here. The ministers who sent out the press release seem to be playing, albeit subtly, on notions of race, class and sexual orientation in their fervor. Meanwhile, much of the complaining of my neighbors reeks of entitled white kids used to getting their way all of the sudden, for the first time in their lives, experiencing what they think is oppression/injustice.

A useful solution would seem to be what the churches on 16th Street have done. For starters, nobody double parks in front of these churches or blocks fire hydrants, etc. (in fact, directly in front of the First Baptist Church at 16th & "O," there is *NO* parking allowed, ever -- I can only assume it is due to security concerns over the Australian Embassy next door).

First Baptist and Foundry Methodist don't have parking lots large enough for anything but a small fraction of their congregations on a Sunday morning, but they manage by renting garage space on P Street between 16th and 17th. Likewise, large portions of their congregations walk or Metro to worship. Similar situations obtain with National City Christian and Luther Place Memorial churches on Thomas Circle.

Why can't the historically African-American Logan churches find similar solutions without demanding the status quo? And why can't the angriest of the Logan residents find a way to work out designated double-parking zones for a 4-5 hour time slot on Sundays in front of the churches and avoid parking there if they know they will need to get out during that period? Why can't the city agree that violators who block streets, crosswalks and fire hydrants should be ticketed and towed, no matter when and where it happens? Am I just naive?

Robis, I think that what Kriston is suggesting is that a specifically demarcated area be established for double parking to happen on Sundays, as opposed to the current "Wherever the worshipper feels like parking" system there is now. If such a zone were established, it would probably follow, quite...uhm, what's the word I'm looking for...oh, yeah--ELEGANTLY, that folks who live in the hood will come to avoid those spaces like grim death on Saturday nights, and, come Sundays, it would only be the parishoners blocking each other in.

Such a system could possibly work, but the city would have to insist on mercilessly ticketing anyone who double parks out of the zone so that the current laissez-faire system wouldn't return.

I call double parking the elegant solution because it caters to the greatest number of problems most efficiently, not because it solves everyone's problems. Surely it's possible for the disabled woman you mention to use a different route (cross on the other side of the street?) during the 4 morning hours on Sunday in question, or for double parking to be streamlined so that cars do not occupy the sidewalk, or for a sidewalk to be installed if there is none in place? Your example provokes sympathy but it's not particularly difficult to solve.

It is far more efficient for you, of course, if churches employ expensive methods for ferrying their members back and forth, and for you to be able to park in front of churches on Saturday night as you would anywhere else. But that's not a compromise. Nor as I see it should your or my personal enmity (or empathy) for the political goals of churches enter in: they provide community services to some, so the city values them. So, yes, I think it's totally reasonable to provide for "church zone" double parking for a few hours on Sunday, and I think it's reasonable for churchgoers to recognize boundaries to which this parking situation applies.

And clearly you do have something to do with the controversy: if you live in the affected area and hope to park a car, you are competing for the same resources as the churchgoers.

But it doesn't cater to the greatest number of problems more efficiently, Kriston! The only problem it caters to is parking for the churchgoers who don't want to bother taking responsibility for their own parking issues. It certainly doesn't address that woman in a wheelchair(and really, why should she, when she is obeying the law be expected to find a different route but the churchgoers are given a pass when they are breaking the law? Do you really see no disconnect in your thinking here?). It certainly doesn't address the problems the residents face--in fact, it creates their problems. It certainly doesn't address the problems of the churches in question thinking they deserve special consideration, or the unfairness to other religious entities that don't get the same consideration.

If elegance is determined by catering to the greatest number of problems more efficiently, it seems to me that the most elegant solution would be for those churches to do what all other churches do: respect the laws we are all expected to follow, take responsibility for their own parking problem, and find a solution to that parking problem that does not require other people bear the consequences for how that problem is addressed. Yes, it isn't really a compromise, but it certainly is the most elegant solution (by your definition of "elegant, that is).

In all other situations, DCist Jason is the elegant solution.

Fortunately for all of us, Shiloh is not the only church in the area.

this issue seems to bring out the worst in some church members, a sense of entitlement, hostility, and lawlessness...