Very interesting: "Court Says Using Chalk On Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution."

We have all been here before.

Council Monday: No Sharpies for selective tire marking, and no answer for why tires are being selectively marked.

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

For now, I'm just leaving this here. Based on a few things I've seen in the past month, we may also be dealing with a "prolific chalker" in New Albany. We've since ruled out "Sharpiers," right?

Court Says Using Chalk On Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution, by Matthew S. Schwartz (NPR)

The next time parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark your tires, they might be acting unconstitutionally.

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that "chalking" is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case was brought by Alison Taylor, a Michigan woman whom the court describes as a "frequent recipient of parking tickets." The city of Saginaw, Mich., like countless other cities around the country, uses chalk to mark the tires of cars to enforce time limits on parking.

By the time Taylor received her 15th citation in just a few years, she decided to go after the city — and specifically after parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins.

Hoskins, Taylor alleged in her lawsuit, was a "prolific" chalker. Every single one of Taylor's 15 tickets was issued by Hoskins after she marked a tire with chalk, and then circled back to see if Taylor's car had moved. That chalking, Taylor argued, was unconstitutional.

"Trespassing upon a privately-owned vehicle parked on a public street to place a chalk mark to begin gathering information to ultimately impose a government sanction is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment," Taylor's lawyer, Philip Ellison, wrote in a court filing ...

Council Monday: No Sharpies for selective tire marking, and no answer for why tires are being selectively marked.

From Facebook.

There are depressingly few dull moments in the Hermetic Kingdom of New Gahania.

Two weeks ago ...

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

 ... It's strange. If we succeed in convincing neighborhood residents to leave their cars parked for a while while walking or biking downtown, they'll return to their homes to find a ticket. Conversely, while understanding fully that we as a society have accepted (rightly or wrongly) the notion of using public property to warehouse private vehicles, it seems a modicum of fair warning might have been given -- although to do so would require the city to concede it wasn't enforcing ordinances previously, and as the embodiment of perfection, Gahan cannot make such a concession.

And so we get the usual politically-motivated cluster from the same usual suspects ...

On Monday evening, at-large councilman Al Knable led off council speaking time with a partial update on the selective enforcement of neighborhood parking, as detailed in NAC's previous post.

Apparently police chief Bailey took a few minutes away from his tireless work on behalf of the Gahan re-election clique to discuss one facet of the issue with Knable.

Seems that Chief Bailey was not aware that some NAPD officers are marking the tires of selectively targeted parking violators with indelible Sharpies and not chalk, and he said this practice will be addressed and rectified.

Now if we could just address the reasons for the selective enforcement in the first place ... but big thanks to Knable for following through and starting the conversation.

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

"They can tell which car out of 24,000 New Albany cars have been parked for over 24 hours. But they can't catch people who break into cars every weekend."
-- Facebook comment

A New Albany resident posted the ticket from a few days ago and recounted his experience at the Facebook members-only page called New Albany Indiana. It prompted a spirited discussion about selective enforcement and overall civic priorities, with another group member undertaking to do necessary research.

Alright, I emailed Chief (Todd) Bailey, showed him both the pink violation form and the most recent codes from 2018. This is what he said.

“Whoever printed the warning notice made a mistake. It should read 72.15. I’ll get it handled. I know of nothing that reserves parking for residents in front of their house outside of a Residential Parking Permit. Those can be obtained from the City Clerk for a few. Outside of that they share the public parking on the street and must move every 24 hours.”

And the ordinance incorrectly referenced on the ticket, which by all rights should render the citation invalid?

Here's the correct passage.

Bookmark§ 72.15 OVERNIGHT PARKING.
It shall be unlawful to leave any motor vehicle parked on the public streets of the city for a period in excess of 24 hours or to park any motor vehicle which is held for sale or one which is not in running condition on the public streets of the city in excess of 24 hours.
(Ord. 4573, passed 8-27-1956; Ord. G-09-15, passed 5-4-2009) Penalty, see § 37.02

It's telling that when Bailey gazes out into neighborhoods where petty crime and slumlordism remain firmly entrenched -- places that haven't yet benefited from Jeff Gahan's eight years of luxury enhancement -- he recommends giving his boss more of the loot.

§ 72.20 INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT-ONLY PERMIT PARKING AREAS.

(A) Fees. The Board of Works shall establish and collect an annual uniform fee which shall be required for each resident only parking space. Any resident of the city may apply to receive a resident only parking permit subject to the terms and conditions of this section. The fee collected upon application for a resident only parking permit shall initially be $250 for the first year, and $100 for each subsequent year. The year shall run from January 1 through December 31, and any person who obtains a pass shall pay an amount prorated to the month of the date of the issuance. The fee may be waived upon a majority vote of the Board of Works in the case of any individual showing a special need or hardship. All fees collected shall first go to the expenses of the resident parking only program, then to the nonreverting fund.

It's strange. If we succeed in convincing neighborhood residents to leave their cars parked for a while while walking or biking downtown, they'll return to their homes to find a ticket. Conversely, while understanding fully that we as a society have accepted (rightly or wrongly) the notion of using public property to warehouse private vehicles, it seems a modicum of fair warning might have been given -- although to do so would require the city to concede it wasn't enforcing ordinances previously, and as the embodiment of perfection, Gahan cannot make such a concession.

And so we get the usual politically-motivated cluster from the same usual suspects. I directed a few thoughts to Al Knable (elected council person) and Warren Nash (appointed Board of Works gatekeeper) via the Facebook portal.

Al Knable Warren V Nash (tagged): To bring this to the attention of council and the board of works, I'd invite you both to read through this thread. I'd have included other council members and city officials, but it appears that out of almost 15,000 members here, you're the only two from city government. It was my intention to attend this morning's board of works meeting, but something came up at work, so let's start here. It's hard to look at this an any way apart from it being a crazy, incoherent muddle. We see tires chalked/sharpied and tickets issued in some places, not others; the police chief conceding the ordinance number on the ticket is mistaken; and folks in the neighborhoods asking some really good questions about the (shall we say) abrupt change in emphasis. Are downtown parking regulations yet being enforced? How can we have rules for some parts of town and not others? I understand that Al will pay attention and Warren will brush me off, but please note that I'm not taking a position -- yet. The two of you have dibs to come up with some sort of explanation of why this is happening. Thanks for your time.

If NA Confidential gets an answer, so will you. It's an election year, so virtually anything might happen.

That's why no-brainers seldom are.

I wonder if we might squeeze in another rule: If you have a residential parking permit, and it snows, you have to clear the twenty-foot area around your car. If you don't, there'll be a fine.

Wait, another idea: If you have a permit, it snows, and you don't clear the sidewalk, there'll be another fine.

Jeez, who's going to be enforcing and collecting these fines? After all, the little people advocate going without police (and fire) protection.

No laws enforced? I wonder if that's the point?

Residential parking law in New Albany remains in committee, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

It could be awhile before a residential parking ordinance comes back to the New Albany City Council for second and third readings.

Is the neighborhood/residential parking ordinance ready for prime time? Weigh in, please.

The agenda for tomorrow's city council meeting has been posted. Take a look at it. See the differences?

Is it really an agenda according to the template provided in the council's own rulebook? For the first time in years? Gads. Am I awake?

For the moment, lets's focus on residential parking, truly one of those ordinances out of nowhere, which appeared and was approved on January 4 in two readings before being chucked to a committee that will meet prior to tomorrow's session. To be exact, it's G-10-01, an Ordinance Establishing Individual Resident Only Parking Areas.

G-10-01 was briefly outlined in the Tribune (scroll down for reader comments), and was discussed at greater length by Bluegill here at NAC. Here's a reprint of his thoughts, which are indicative of my own.

The residential private parking permit request is somewhat confusing. I'll try to provide more in-depth analysis in future but, from looking at aerial photos and driving the neighborhood, it appears as though the large majority of property owners in the Uptown area have sufficient room on their properties to accommodate private, off-street parking if they so desire. There are already so many driveways and garages that having private parking, rather than suffering from a lack of it, is evidently the norm. And, again, most who don't have it could.

As an initial question, why would New Albany citizens want to give over the public street space they finance to restricted, private use in order to appease private property owners who are unwilling to give up their own privately held resource for the exact same purpose?

One suggested answer was that providing additional parking for a particular property would increase its value. I can't argue with that. That's why people spend their money to build driveways and garages on private property. But, each time a single property value was increased with an additional parking spot taken from the shared pool on public streets, there would be a corresponding decrease in available parking for surrounding properties, thus lowering their values with little to no compensation for those who chose to invest based on that pool.

Does it make sense to use public funds to marginally increase the value of one house on a street at the expense of decreasing the value of several others? I don't think so. It goes against the very notion of shared resources and public spaces that define city life. That notion is the reason many of us have chosen to live here and is what will attract many more to do the same.

Because several council persons apparently view this as a (purportedly) pain-free means of collecting a bit of revenue, it would seem to have sufficient support to pass. I personally believe that would be a mistake, because with the Board of Works and Police Department both highly dubious, the ordinance as currently formulated looks, at best, like just another unenforced ordinance in neighborhoods that have more important issues to resolve.

But feel free to disagree. What do you think?

Addendum: As an example of what other communities have enacted, go here for Bloomington's program ... and note the many differences.

Bloomington has a neighborhood parking ordinance, too.

How utterly strange that the stated purpose of such a measure dares to "protect motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians," rather than to auction an entitlement for chump change sufficient to make Steve Price orgasmic.

Damned pesky Obamunists.

Neighborhood Parking Permit FAQs

Neighborhood Parking Permit Questions and Answers

City of Bloomington ORDINANCE 92-06 designates University Proximate Residential Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones. Residents in those zones may receive Parking Permits that only allow the vehicles with Permits to park on the street between 8AM and 5PM, Monday thru Friday. Permits expire August 15, of each year. This Ordinance is meant to protect motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians from excessive commuter traffic competing for parking spaces as well as to reduce the amount of traffic in the neighborhoods.