April 24, 2006
Churchgoers Protest Parking Enforcement
Written by Andrew Wiseman
The Logan Circle churches may have a new argument in the battle over parking enforcement: religious freedom. The neighborhood echoed with calls of "newcomers" and a lack of respect this Sunday as local pastors and politicians addressed at least 100 churchgoers in the latest salvo of the Logan Circle parking controversy. Behind a banner saying "Rally for Religious Freedom, Saving the Soul of the City" pastors and parishioners from Logan Circle and Shaw churches (and other churches around D.C., according to buses parked on the circle) tried to get their voices heard. Being a (white, non-car owning) Logan Circle resident for about a year, I hadn't heard about the rally, and just happened to stumble upon it about midway through. The event didn't seem to attract many people besides those from the black churches, though there were a handful of white people, a couple of reporters and photographers, and a mounted police officer who left early.
While D.C. Council Chair Linda Cropp, one of the last speakers, didn't say much aside from basic politician-speak, other religious leaders (largely black, though there were a few white pastors who may have spoken before I arrived) talked about being "disrespected" by the "newcomers," the now-well known euphemism for white gentrifiers. One pastor was unhappy that it took parking tickets to bring the religious community together, when AIDS and other things couldn't. Many others talked about the contributions the churches provided to the community, especially help for the homeless, and cited how long their churches had been in the area -- 58 years, for example. Another pastor quoted the First Amendment's passage about freedom of religion and said the churches were not being allowed to practice, warning that churches could be run out of the city. Pastors also cited D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams' recent delaying of parking enforcement as a "concession" and part of the "solution." Council-member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and mayoral candidate Michael Brown (and a lot of his signs) were on hand too, though I didn't see either one speak.
Afterwards, I spoke to Brown, who said that this isn't going to get solved with an adversarial relationship between the churches and the residents in favor of the parking laws. He cited his college years as an example, when black and Jewish students argued continuously whether slavery or the Holocaust was worse, with no hope of either group convincing the other. He noted that as we live in a city, it's going to be hard to find parking, and that both groups need to work together to find a solution – maybe more parking, Metro use, or a valet service. Unfortunately, since there were very few people there in favor of parking enforcement, I didn't hear their opinions of the rally, but one can assume they would not be pleased.
The Post and the Washington Times both covered the event, and you can find their respective stories here and here. Similarly, Terry Lynch, Executive Director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, penned an editorial on the matter yesterday in the Post's Outlook section.
|
Ugh. What an ungodly collection of straw man arguments. Enforcing traffic and parking rules is NOT TANTAMOUNT to an abridgement of religious freedom. That is the argument of a con artist. What IS an abridgement of Constitutional rights, however, is when a religious authority seeks to unlawfully impose itself into the public arena or uses religion as the sole basis for creating a class of people who get to be above the law.
It's too bad DC doesn't have the Virginia Statute On Religious Freedom. (Though likewise, it's equally bad that Virginia doesn't seem to respect that important document enough.)
And that whole, "...it took parking tickets to bring the religious community together, when AIDS and other things couldn't" thing. Seriously. That made me vomit in my own mouth.
I still fail to understand how telling everyone they need to obey the laws of the city with regards to parking impedes religious freedom. No one is saying they can't worship- just that they can't double park and create a traffic hazard in order to worship. It's not like there isn't tons of metro access and bus access within just a few blocks of there.
I'm a Logan area resident, and I was there at the rally for the first 30 minutes. It was starting to drag at that point, and I had errands to run, so I left. I wish I could have seen Cropp speak, it would have been interesting to get a politician's view first-hand. Regardless, the whole thing was quite theatrical, if you ask me. The entire issue of parking was kind of danced around without directly addressing it. People talked about 'religious freedom', but that wasn't the core issue here. Churches don't want to have to follow the law, plain and simple. OK, fine. Then either get the laws changed (which, to my non-lawyerly brain, would seem to lead to laws favoring religious practice, which I believe is un-constitutional), or banish parking laws altogether. I believe that would be an interesting pilot program. Anarchy would be an interesting alternative to what happens currently.
In all honesty, lets wait and see how the extra 150 or so parking spaces that have been created in the neighborhood work out first. If the spaces on Vermont, 11th, and Rhode Island are utilized correctly, I think it'll basically render this whole issue moot.
Its not about relgious freedom; its about obeying the law.
First I'll close the italics.
I've argued in this space that bending the rules on parking is pretty typical in cities with large church-going populations -- Chicago, San Francisco, Boston -- and so I'm all for a "solution" that allows either parking in the middle of the road or some other Sundays-only policy.
That being said, this whole "religious freedom" argument is pretty ludicrous. Unless the 11th commandment is now -- thou shalt drive to church and park where you want -- or they are all worshipping at Our Lady of the Double-Parked Car -- I'd say that argument is not going to fly in the court of public opinion.
This whole debate drives me nuts. No one has a "right" to park on the street -- resident or churchgoer.
I've lived in my own neighborhood in Dupont for 12 years and I don't get a special longevity pass, nor does my neighbor who just moved in and paid 5 times what I did. Its the cost of living in the city.
Parking a car has nothing to do with persecution or religious freedom. I love that it truly creates a "holier than thou" effect, though. I go to church, so I can break the rules, becasue I am holier than you.
Personally I don't think its a big deal to bend the rules on for worshipers, as long as it doesn't creat serious hazard. But it should be applied and allowed for all services.
The city should look to raising its revenue not through ticketing, but requiring these institutions of faith to apply for a permit and or pass to allow for this type of indulgence.
The below memo was sent out this morning by a local resident. It raises some interesting points and suggestions:
At yesterday's rally protesting the enforcement of parking regulations outside of churches, it was announced that the city has agreed to delay such enforcement for at least 4 months while yet another task force studies the issue. It was not immediately clear whether or not the delay impacts Logan Circle.
Regardless, it is recommended that everyone email city leaders to protest this unnecessary and unreasonable delay. Your comments should be sent to William Howland, Director of DPW, and Michelle Pourciau, Acting Director of DDOT, at the following email addresses:
William.howland@dc.gov
michelle.pourciau@dc.gov
In addition, the following email addresses should be copied:
douglas.noble@dc.gov
ann.simpson-mason@dc.gov
Ramona.Burns@dc.gov
ann.simpson-mason@dc.gov
mayor@dc.gov
george.carr@dc.gov
marco.santiago@dc.gov
charles.ramsey@dc.gov
oag@dc.gov
desi.deschaine@dc.gov
Herbert.Tillery@dc.gov
Some questions to be raised include:
1) Why is the city creating a new task force when the issue has already been studied for 4 months by a task force of city officials (including police, ANC members and DDOT), church leaders, and residents? Isn't this a blatant disregard of the work and agreements of that task force? Given that the Mayor's office and the acting DDOT director have gone out of their way to meet on many occasions with local church leaders to discuss this issue but have refused every request to meet with local residents or even have the courtesy to respond to their December 2005 petition that initially raised the issue, will the task force take into account the views of and include participation by affected local residents ... or are the views of churches the only concern?
2) Isn't the Mayor's office and the Executive Branch violating separation of powers requirements by disregarding lawfully enacted regulations by the DC legislature?
3) Isn't the Mayor's office violating the separation of church and state requirements and engaging in blatant discrimination by providing this benefit (the right to literally disregard lawfully enacted parking regulations) to a single, select religious group (churches) while actively ticketing and enforcing these same regulations around synagogues, temples and other non-church religious institutions in the city?
4) How does the Mayor's office justify allowing parishioners at Logan churches ... approximately 80% of whom are admittedly not DC residents ... to disregard parking regulations afer residents, DDOT and church leaders have created over 150 new parking spaces in the community for use by parishioners, have extended the DC Circulator, and have begun making arrangements for the use of a local high school's parking lot by parishioners? How is this justified when yesterday morning over 50 "sunday-only" parking spaces sat completely vacant just 2 blocks away from these churches while parishioners continued to park illegally?
5) How does the Mayor justify disregard of the safety and welfare of local residents created by the blocking of fire hydrants, intersections, cross-walks, driveways, and so forth by parishioners? Is convenient parking less than 2 blocks from church more important than the health and safety of his constituents?
6) Yesterday morning, Dee Hunter -- a neighboring ANC commissioner -- parked his car on a striped, no parking zone (right below a large no-parking sign) at the corner of 12th Street and Vermont Avenue and then placed an "Official Government Business" sign in his window before going to church services. This area just before the intersection is clearly marked as a no-parking zone to provide safety and allow a clear line of sight for on-coming traffic from the intersecting roadway. The fact that a government official would blatantly disregard the safety of the residents and misuse his government status to find closer parking for a personal activity such as going to church is unjustifiable. The fact that he would do this when he sat on the ad-hoc committee addressing this problem and is therefore well aware that parking is legal and plentiful only 2 blocks away is shameful! Is it the policy of this administration that government officials may disregard city laws and abuse their power while engaging in personal activities?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't many of these same relgious leaders refuse to meet with area residents to try and work out a compromise solution, namely something in the way of valet service/carpooling/parking planning/renting a lot?
It's not entirely beyond reason to say it could be an infringement of religious liberty. Say, for instance that a city started ticketing cars around jewish temples for trivial violations, like tail lights, etc. (no car, even fresh off the assembly line is in perfect compliance with every law of every jurisidiction). I think we could all agree that that would be troublesome, at the very least. Enforcing the law can be a pretext for religious or political persecution, even if the law is technically on the side of the persecutors.
That being said, I don't think that that is the case here. No one is prevented from or punished for going to this church. No one is suggesting that extraordinary parking enforcement take place. They just want the same rules applied.
Also, it is pretty well established that creating Sunday only parking around churches is not unconstitutional, even if it only benefits churches on Sundays and not Temples on Saturday.
I am dismayed that Cropp and Brown would weigh in on the churches' side (although I'm not at all surprised to see Norton there). There may come a time for a politician to explicitly represent "newcomers". Like Boss Tweed, he could stand at the opening of every new loft, handing out free half-caf-mochas, securing their vote indefinitely.
Ok, I am with the pastor who was upset that it took parking enforcement to bring the religious community together. Oh who cares about DARFUR or the AIDS in the city and around the world, what really matters is whether or not they have to walk an extra block and a half and whether or not the city is willing to bend to their will. They feel that they are, afterall, somehow better and more deserving and legitimate citizens of the city and the neighborhood than the "newcomers" who have cleaned the place up.
I constantly think about moving back into the district, and things like this make me think I might still prefer the Silver Spring suburb, where they also hate newcomers but at least the politicians do not succumb to pandering (too much) to the demands of those who claim religiousity and longevity as power over others and the law. There seems to be an understanding of urban planning and that new development dollars are needed to revitalize rundown areas.
And lastly, whether she was saying anything of substance or not, I think it is too bad that Linda Cropp was speaking at the rally. If I move back before the election, this alone will keep my vote from her. I just hope that there would still be somewhere for a non-religion pandering vote to go.
Interesting, DC is having an issue with insufficient parking for teachers. Do they let teachers park illegally? Absolutely not. But, illegal church parking is fine...because wouldn't it be awful to suffer for your God by walking an extra few blocks? Or taking the metro?
Once again the city screws its residents that actually care about making a better life for themseleves. Every politican in the city is pathetic.
I'm not surprised at all the bluster from the churches. Predictable.
However, I am really dissapointed in Mendelson and Cropp. Though I'd hope they'd stick up for DC residents, at the very least they should adopt a neutral, conciliatory stance. They just lost my votes.
Where's Fenty on this? Propably wisely steering a mile away from it.
I'm not surprised at all the bluster from the churches. Predictable.
However, I am really dissapointed in Mendelson and Cropp. Though I'd hope they'd stick up for DC residents, at the very least they should adopt a neutral, conciliatory stance. They just lost my votes.
Where's Fenty on this? Propably wisely steering a mile away from it.
Oh, and one other point. Adding an extra 150 street side parking spaces is the OPPOSITE direction that a city should go. In order to open up street life, we need to look at ways to reduce street side parking, not increase it. We want to open up the sidewalks and encourage more walking and outdoor culture, not less. This also small shops to open, stay open, or reopen. This allows people to see and maybe even interact in with their neighbors. This allows more street side trees and gardens, as they are not then trampled by people getting out of their cars. This promotes greater lawn and house decoration and care, as people can better see the houses they are walking/biking/driving past. This incentives the bus and the metro. This allows parking lanes to become rapid transit bus or trolley lanes. This allows two way streets where now they are only one. This allows more bike paths, and does not cut into the existing walkways. And in the end this increases our air quality.
It is a long way to getting rid of street side parking, but it is a positive goal that we should move towards, not destroy on the altar of appeasement of those who can only seem to get exercised about having to exercise.
What gets me is that the churches in the Logan Circle area, the residents of this area, and the DDOT were working together to come to a solution with this issue via the ANC.It seems to me that the actions by the mayor reduces the legitimacy of the ANC and their actions. Shouldn't the committee working for over 4 months on this issue and their actions be deemed official in the context of the city government? Where would the city (the Nation for that matter) be today if everyone had the same justification of 'because we have always done it that way'.
JCH
JCH: Interesting point.
It makes me wonder, what happened to Mayor Williams? He is starting to blunder in the ares of church parking, the DC library, the hospital (though he seems to be coming round on that), and the smoking ban. Who is this guy and what happend to the Tony Williams we used to know and love?
What is the over under when the race card will be played?
I see that Dee Hunter continues to prove that he is interested only in his own gratification, power, and convenience.
Is there nothing more frustrating than facing an opposing group whose positions make absolutely no sense (logically, legally, religiously) while realizing that you will still not win the argument?
No politician will take the side of the Logan Circle residents, at least publically. Based on his non-attendance at this event and established record of addressing actualy constituents' complaints, Adrian Fenty is probably the most likely to do something on this. But will he make a public statement?
I can understand why he and others are afraid to incur the wrath of "Ward 9 voters" by doing so, but really, in the last few district-wide elections, it seems the person who carried mostly white Wards (and black middle class Ward 4) always wins (Mayor Williams, Phil Mendelson, David Catania, Kwame Brown).
I don't want to see this city any further divided though, so maybe it's good no one is running on a pro-parking rules platform. Those city-wide candidates who have won by racking up wins in white and black middle class neighborhoods have not played any overt race or class cards (unlike their counterparts on the other side of the coin), so there's no need to start now. Just project an image of managerial competency and commitment to solving solvable quality of life issues -- let the others rail about class warfare, gentrifiers, and other boogeymen.
With luck, the city will survive these theatrics and real voters will make a change in September... parking tickets will quietly start showing up on double parkers' cars and sanity will return to my neighborhood.
Breathe deeply... it will all be over soon... breathe... am I kidding myself?
I for one support parking privileges for gays engaging in our own brand of worship (drinking, sodomy, faux-butch motorcycle worship and catty comments) in areas including but not limited to... well, wherever I damn well please. Especially in front of that church on 9th and P, the ... uh, the Mission...Baptist...Racist Snivelling Drivel Gospel of Easter Bunnies (And While We're At It We'd Love White Gays to Burn in H, and Could the Black Gays Go Back into the Closet and the Choir) -- or whoever the hell those crazy-ass religious people who hate liquor are. You know them, they're the ones with the security cameras outside their church (note: the other, "laid back" churches in the area have no such cameras, or no such worries, or less security funds maybe.)
In seriousness? That rally was a gauntlet thrown, and gives me full license to casually toss garbage on any car I see double parked on a Sunday near my house, thankyaverrmuch. Holy Sons of the Imaginary Friend, you have been warned.
We show time and time again that the District cannot manage it's own affairs and yet we want statehood. Our District leaders want a voice in Congress. Why? They ignore the wishes of their own voters so why expect more from the Federal government?
For ANC Chair Dee Hunter to post an "Official Government Business" sign in his car window so that he can park illegally when attending church services as a personal activity is a terribile abuse of authority. The city should at the very least address that type of behavior if it does not want to be seen as completely corrupt and inept.
RJ - the race card is already being played. Look at the banner from the rally -- "Saving the Soul of the City". Soul, of course, is code for blackness.
As JohnS astutely points out there is nothing more frustrating than trying to reach the middle ground someone who is completely irrational.
I doubt you can find a more openminded, inclusive liberal bunch than you in residents of Logan Circle and other effected areas. Yet, instead of recognizing and embracing those who may be their greatest allies in a rapidly changing DC, the churches have a tantrum and alienate them.
Talk about overplaying your hand. People just want the church goers to park legally and they - literally - scream that their religious freedom is being threatened. It is absurd.
Remember a few years ago when the church-parkers were tearing up a DCPS field. This was a case where the affected were not white and gay, but black school kids, yet they exibited the same mindbogglingly selfish entitlement.
It was nice to see significantly fewer cars double parked on 11th this Sunday.
What is this all about? When a policy or a policy debate arises, the first thing we should be asking ourselves is, how does this relate to money? Chances are we are going to find an answer.
My dad was a minister of a church, and one of the biggest worries was always, "How can we get the collection/tithe plate full."
On any given Sunday, the cars that double park, or fill available church parking lots are cars with MD or VA tags. Those people who live in the neighborhood walk to their church. I think those who have done well for themselves left the district for better schools, safer neighborhoods, better housing, and better jobs. Just look at the cars, most of them are not clunkers. So, if you are a pastor of a church, whose congregation is made up of people who come from outside the district, with their new cars, their bigger salaries, of course you want to make it as easy as possible for them to come. Why would you want to be involved in ANY dialogue that might result in inconveniencing those people.
From a financial standpoint, the church argument makes sense.
I'm not sure about political contributions, and maybe someone can address this. Cropp and Mendelson need money to run their campaighns right? Can people from MD and VA donate? They may not be able to vote for them, but the candidate with the biggest bank account often wins.
BTW, did anyone else notice the Vote For Brown posters that appeared all over the circle sometime before Sunday morning? I walked my dog there in saturday in the rain and didn't see them then.
The Brown posters went up early Sunday morning (sometime after 8:30AM) in every available non-paved surface surrounding the Circle. To their credit, his people also took them all down after the rally.
What the hell is "law" for, anyway, if Jesus-worshippers can improvise their own criminal behavior without penalty? Does this mean each religion is now granted amnesty for one crime? What, oh what will the Jews get to do? Or the ADF Druids? With so many potential laws to break, how can a young Buddhist decide?!?!?!
"What is the over under when the race card will be played?"
I'd say around...here-
"Being a (white, non-car owning) Logan Circle resident for about a year..."
"Bring it!"
"It's already been broughten!"
Let them take Metro. No sympathy here whatsoever. Nobody has THE RIGHT to drive and park wherever they please. Park and Ride, folks.
Interestingly, they're all MD and VA residents, so they don't give a damn about DC.
Your freedom of religion stops where my freedom of movement within my own neighborhood as a car-driving atheist begins. And for the sake of sharing limited resources and not overrunning the neighborhood, both of our freedoms stop where rational and reasonable laws that should be equitably enforced begin.
I've been here for 30 years. Wasn't born here, but I'm only 32 -- hardly a newcomer.
HIGH-larious how quickly Williams caved into special interest groups who (a) don't pay taxes in DC, (b) a majority of whose constituents don't live in DC, and (c) are the largest landholders of abandoned and vacant properties in DC. This is the same crowd that squawks about no liquor licenses for Vegetate, but every liquor store where the owner is the right color can serve as many forties as they want. I'm sure Mayor Williams will use this opportunity to conduct a "fact finding" mission to Paris, Hawaii, and Cancun to study how those cities deal with suburban church doubleparking.
I'm surprised the pastors didn't trot out that old Barry-era chestnut, "They're crucifying us like Jeebus!"
I wonder how many deflated tires it will take before MD/VA double parkers start obeying traffic laws? Heck, if they don't want to obey them, let them lobby to have the laws struck down. Oh, that's right, THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.
along with contacting councilmembers at their office, why not contact some of the mayoral campaigns and ask their stance on enforcing DC laws? (info@lindacroppformayor.com or teamfenty@fenty06.com)
Politicians need to understand that the VOTERS of DC can and will hold them accountable!
Kat makes a great point -- suburbanites flocking back to the District for church, mucking up traffic and parking, and the waltz back home after the service. If indeed there must be a hierarchy of longevity (and there mustn't, but suppose hypothetically), wouldn't "I don't even live here anymore and haven't in years" rank lower than us evil "newcomers?" Better, why not move the church, with a huge parking lot to boot, to PG, and solve all of the problems at once. Heck it might even solve the Vegetate issue as well...
Kat makes a great point -- suburbanites flocking back to the District for church, mucking up traffic and parking, and the waltz back home after the service. If indeed there must be a hierarchy of longevity (and there mustn't, but suppose hypothetically), wouldn't "I don't even live here anymore and haven't in years" rank lower than us evil "newcomers?" Better, why not move the church, with a huge parking lot to boot, to PG, and solve all of the problems at once. Heck it might even solve the Vegetate issue as well...
I think it's funny that one of the reasons pointed to for not enforcing the parking laws is because there is no safety concern. Really ? So, when I got a parking ticket because I parked for more than 2 hours in Zone 2 with a Zone 6 parking sticker, it was because they thought the Zone 6 gang was starting something with Zone Two-ers ?
being a non-driver resident of DC (a relative new-comer, going on 5 years now), I agree with what's being said here. I certainly have no problem taking public transportation. I've noticed, too, that this is the only viewpoint represented on the message board, which concerns me a little but which I'm guessing is just indicative of DCist readership.
However, I'd also like to point out that the problem is not unique to Logan. When I was a student at Georgetown there were always cars double-parked or in no-parking zones while their owners attended church at Holy Trinity.
That being said, a law is a law. Ticketing someone for disobeying the law is not unconstitutional unless you're targeting religious practice as such. I don't think anyone is suggesting we target churches, just that we enforce the law, and that I can stand behind.
I live in the Leumass, basically ground zero for this whole issue. I was looking out my window at the church-owned lot yesterday and came up with a solution. Rent four zipcars on a Sunday, 'illegally' park them in front of the three exits to the church-owned lot, blocking in all of the church cars. Conveniently 'lose' all of the keys for the cars and then claim 'religious freedom'. That would be a fun day!
Now I read that DC will hold off on enforcement until after some task force meets. I thought there was a compromise worked out on this issue. I guess if a church protests the Mayor caves.
I saw this at: http://dcbubble.blogspot.com/2006/04/round-4-mayor-punts-on-enforcement-of.html
I would like to know which residents will be allowed to be apart of this taskforce? I know of no Logan Cirlce resident that has been contacted. May the city thinks the churches can represent everyone? Why not cut out the middle man and just turn this city into a theocracy!
Remember, this is the same crowd that protested giving the National Marathon a permit for a Sunday marathon because it would block off parking and access to their church...but never have an issue with rundown buildings, crackheads on corners or massive crime. Gosh, healthy people running through a neighborhood poses such a danger! Just like the poster above-- I'm also zone 6- let's gang up on Zone 2 and ooooh, park in a legal spot for more than two hours. Now that's danger!!!
I think it's worth a $25 ticket to take up church parking.
Throughout mankind's history people have risked life and liberty to worship the way they choose. If walking a few blocks would deter someone from attending services than I have to question their commitment to their church and their understanding of the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus made in their name. If I were Pastor of one of these churches I would be ashamed.
Jesus would not park illegally.
Re: DC Dude
Who's up for making some custom bumper stickers and slapping them on the illegal church parkers? WWJP: Where Would Jesus Park?
Jack Evans is a joke. He needs to be voted out of office. His office basically said they don't have to invovle themselves in this issue. Taking a stand for the residents is what what the people elect officials to do. Its something that DC politicans don't do. Evans lost my vote on this issue and I hope others see him for the weak pathetic politican that he is.
I've lived in Shaw or Mt. Vernon Sq. for the last four years. Prior to that I lived on the Hill for another 4 years.
I have to pass several churches on my walk home from the convention center metro station. I'm all for their right to gather. However, whenever these houses of prayer have their gatherings, they spill out all over the neighborhood. It's not just for a few hours on Sundays. But it's typically all day Sunday, many Saturdays, Fridays, Thursdays, or whenever they feel like massing in my neighborhood. I see the car tags and they're usually all from Maryland. On top of that, I'm told all the time to "get our of their neighborhood" or "go back to China" even though I grew up in California and never set foot in China in my life.
Why can't these church goers just follow the law? When I go to service at St. Matthews on Rhode Island and Connecticut, I don't just double up in front of the cathedral and worship to my heart's content. I take the metro, my motorcycle, or drive around until I find a legal spot. I bet if I park in front of St. Matts for a couple hours on Sunday the meter maids would probably get me right quickly!
I've lived in Shaw or Mt. Vernon Sq. for the last four years. Prior to that I lived on the Hill for another 4 years.
I have to pass several churches on my walk home from the convention center metro station. I'm all for their right to gather. However, whenever these houses of prayer have their gatherings, they spill out all over the neighborhood. It's not just for a few hours on Sundays. But it's typically all day Sunday, many Saturdays, Fridays, Thursdays, or whenever they feel like massing in my neighborhood. I see the car tags and they're usually all from Maryland. On top of that, I'm told all the time to "get our of their neighborhood" or "go back to China" even though I grew up in California and never set foot in China in my life.
Why can't these church goers just follow the law? When I go to service at St. Matthews on Rhode Island and Connecticut, I don't just double up in front of the cathedral and worship to my heart's content. I take the metro, my motorcycle, or drive around until I find a legal spot. I bet if I park in front of St. Matts for a couple hours on Sunday the meter maids would probably get me right quickly!
I've lived in Shaw or Mt. Vernon Sq. for the last four years. Prior to that I lived on the Hill for another 4 years.
I have to pass several churches on my walk home from the convention center metro station. I'm all for their right to gather. However, whenever these houses of prayer have their gatherings, they spill out all over the neighborhood. It's not just for a few hours on Sundays. But it's typically all day Sunday, many Saturdays, Fridays, Thursdays, or whenever they feel like massing in my neighborhood. I see the car tags and they're usually all from Maryland. On top of that, I'm told all the time to "get our of their neighborhood" or "go back to China" even though I grew up in California and never set foot in China in my life.
Why can't these church goers just follow the law? When I go to service at St. Matthews on Rhode Island and Connecticut, I don't just double up in front of the cathedral and worship to my heart's content. I take the metro, my motorcycle, or drive around until I find a legal spot. I bet if I park in front of St. Matts for a couple hours on Sunday the meter maids would probably get me right quickly!
Yesterday morning, Dee Hunter -- a neighboring ANC commissioner -- parked his car on a striped, no parking zone (right below a large no-parking sign) at the corner of 12th Street and Vermont Avenue and then placed an "Official Government Business" sign in his window before going to church services.
Wow, is that true? Dee lives at 12th and V St. and has a garage. That would be pretty lazy if he drive that short a distance and parked illegally with his Government Business card.
Yes, it is true and news cameras were filming the car as it sat parked. Funny thing is that the MPD said flat out that he would not be ticketed even though he cannot use the "government business" excuse as a ANC commissioner. Basically he broke the law twice; once for parking, the other for saying its "government business."
I want to say Williams, Cropp, Evans, and all the rest of the pols in DC are doing a great job. I mean were else than DC can residents elect people who screw them over and over again. I say thank you Anthony Williams, Linda Cropp, and Jack Evans for being the weak pathetic excuses for politicans that we have come to know and love. Remember this parking issue when it comes time to VOTE! I know I will.
I want to say Williams, Cropp, Evans, and all the rest of the pols in DC are doing a great job. I mean where else than DC can residents elect people who screw them over and over again. I say thank you Anthony Williams, Linda Cropp, and Jack Evans for being the weak pathetic excuses for politicans that we have come to know and love. Remember this parking issue when it comes time to VOTE! I know I will.
Out of curiosity, since race seems to be an important aspect of this debate, if you are:
African American, do you support a crackdown on illegal parking on Sundays around churches?
and, if you're White, do you support continued illegal parking for churchgoers on Sundays?
Chris,
How about just equal treatment of all when it comes to parking laws. I don't care if your white/black/red/yellow/pink or whatnot just park legally and I will not have a problem with you.
OK - I'd say a good protest would be for next Sunday... everyone drive to the mayor's residence and park around his car. Or block in the church-attending double-parkers so they won't be able to return to Maryland.
If it's OK for churchgoers to park illegally, then it's OK for everybody.
Out of curiosity, since race seems to be an important aspect of this debate, if you are:
African American, [...]
and, if you're White, [...]
What if we're neither?
(No, wait, I know: in the racial calculus of DC, Latinos and Asians are "White." Sigh.)
Not fully impressed here with the level of debate.
1. Yes, once again, Mayor Williams is bobbling the ball.
2. Yes, it doesn't bother me to accommodate church parking on Sundays even though I am not religious and I am militantly pro-alternatives to the car. (I think valet like parking can be provided, and church-related cars be moved if need be.) I think this comes from what I think of as the most important urban characteristic, the need to compromise to accommodate multiple uses. (But Katmere is right, regardless. It's bad to dedicate so much public space to the car. OTOH, let's use this space wisely, and angled parking is a pro-pedestrian activity--it slows down driving speeds, and provides more area of "protection" against the curb lane.)
3. All this discussion, including Terry Lynch's piece in the Sunday Post, skips over one obvious point--churches should be required to create, maintain, and implement "transportation demand management" plans to work to limit the number of cars coming into neighborhoods where the churches were originally designed to serve neighborhood residents who walked, not drove, to church.
Remaking the city for suburban living patterns is a mistake that we should have learned from by now.
4. Relatedly, zoning regulations should be revised to require TDM for churches (and other institutions such as schools) which otherwise are matter-of-right uses. This will force such institutions to the table to work out these issues with neighborhoods. Too often such institutions are allowed to avoid such, unless their use of the building requires special exception or variance review.
5. Never should the Mayor of the City or other public officials promote policies that suburbanize the city, or in other words, ignore urban design principles for political reasons. This destroys the competitive advantages that the center city normally possesses vis-a-vis the suburbs (which dovetails Katmere's point).
6. Finally, the point about "religious freedom" has to do with a particular federal law, the "Religious and Institutionalized Persons Freedom Act" of 2000. But parking, zoning regulations, etc., are not usually handled in such a manner as to fall under this act, even if every church pulls out this law whenever their actions are questioned.
There is a case in Georgia now which I think is legitimate, even though I understand why the city is trying to do what they are doing (limiting new churches to locate only in buildings previously used as churches, to limit the amount of property exempt from local taxes). I think the city in Georgia will lose. But freedom of religion fortunately doesn't mean freedom to transgress local parking regulations.
i will tell everybody not to vote for linda cropp. and i predict she will lose bigtime
Re: DC Dude
Who's up for making some custom bumper stickers and slapping them on the illegal church parkers? WWJP: Where Would Jesus Park?
******
If somebody made that shirt, I would buy it in a second....
Re: DC Dude
Who's up for making some custom bumper stickers and slapping them on the illegal church parkers? WWJP: Where Would Jesus Park?
******
If somebody made that shirt, I would buy it in a second....
As the Post reported, double-parking near churches, where there's few spaces and larger congregations, has occurred here for over 50 years.
Though, yes, it's illegal, it has never been enforced until recently.
Yes, many of the church members are former DC residents, but many others are still DC residents who drive from other parts of the city. Still, all have strong ties to the city. Many are seniors.
Yes, the District should ticket one who blocks in another. But, I find it outrageous to ticket cars in the city while folks - again many are seniors - are in church AND when their vehicles do not disrupt traffic or cause any other harm.
There is a compromise and solution that can be made, but the current leadership (Cropp, Fenty, & especially, Mayor Williams) of this city shows NO BALLS and refuses to address the community conflicts that gentrification brings. Instead, both "sides" fester and the conflicts become bigger than they need to be.
Last Friday, we illegally parked at curb beyond the "No parking" sign so we could go to Constitution Hall - as parking near there during a concert is horrendous. Of course, no ticket, and I'm sure at the next concert, we won't get one either.
And, if I have not made it clear, bothering folk in church by ticketing parked cars on such a slow traffic day as a Sunday, and scheduling/paying more DC employee to do so is ridiculous, a waste of DC resources, and a lost of the city's general good will towards residents and non-residents alike (especially to those who, though they may not live here anymore, consider DC to be "home").
For the record, I'm Black; I was born, raised, and still live in this city. My great-great grandparents; grandparents; and parents lived and owned property here, too. I AM MICHAEL BROWN FOR MAYOR SUPPORTER because he's the only candidate that has the guts to speak on issues others ignore. He's offered a solution that works for both "sides" in this current conflict. NO OTHER LEADER - running for office or not - has muttered a peep to resolve this.
Tanya,
A couple of questions:
(1) Why can't the churches poll volunteers to handle valet parking so that their parishioners - many of whom are apparently seniors - can be dropped off and picked up curbside as needed, with their cars parked in an appropriate locations elsewhere?
(2) Why can't the churches try to coordinate carpools for their members who come from out of the area to help reduce the level of parking spaces needed?
(3) Why can't these churches work with area businesses to work out an arrangement to rent lot space nearby for Sunday services?
(4) Why have church leaders steadfastly refused to meet with concerned community members to work out a compromise solution?
(5) Why have other churches, both in the area and in other parts of the city, been able to resolve these issues with their neighbors, while this particular small cluster of churches hasn't?
hoo-aa,
About your fouth point. Church officials did meet with residents after they were forced to come to the bargaining table because of media and ANC pressure. Anyhow, a parking committee worked on an agreement for a long time and finally a compromise plan was made.
However, the church leaders (Rev. Wheeler) basicaly lied to residents and broke the deal at the Sunday rally. Wheeler and the other church leaders a two-faced people who can't be trusted. They got all that they wanted (increased parking and Sunday only parking in Logan) without the enforcement. What a way to be part of the community.
Logan residents sought compromise and wanted the plan to work despite the fact that we didn't like parts of it. We acted in good faith but were mislead by disgraceful church leaders. Men of religion like that give all church leaders a bad name when they do something dishonest like they did to Logan residents. Its a sad day when church leaders can lie to others and feel good about it.
Here is a blog about the logan circle parking problems:
http://loganparking.blogspot.com/
Tanya,
Yes, the District should ticket one who blocks in another. But, I find it outrageous to ticket cars in the city while folks - again many are seniors - are in church AND when their vehicles do not disrupt traffic or cause any other harm.
But we're only talking about ticketing the cars of churchgoers when they block in other cars. So what's the problem?