Street cleaning tickets have a real purpose

Parking

by David Alpert • July 9, 2009 2:16 pm

Sometimes, the most heroic of politicians get fooled by proposals that sound like they'll save the world but turn out to be terrible policy. The political organizers-in-training running mock superhero campaigns for DC Mayor fell into this trap, as many of them hastily jumped on a proposal from Adam Green Goblin to eliminate street cleaning tickets in DC.

Photo by Wayan Vota.

The noble Adam Green was transformed by a chemical serum, adrenaline, when DPW "courtesy towed" his car around the corner to make room for snow removal. The new space had a different street cleaning day than the place he'd parked, leading Adam to get a street cleaning ticket. DPW also couldn't tell Adam where they'd put the car.

From that day forward, Adam Green Goblin began roaming the city trying to stamp out street sweeping tickets. He created a Facebook group arguing that the tickets are just a revenue generator for DC. He also added that Georgetown has no street cleaning (nor does Ward 3), making the tickets an unfair burden on residents of other neighborhoods.

It is indeed unfair for some neighborhoods to have sweeping and not others, but the solution isn't to stop cleaning the streets. Residents of the areas with street sweeping originally petitioned DC to start it, due to high volumes of trash and chemicals on their streets. Residents would certainly not like the way their neighborhoods looked if DC stopped cleaning. And when we don't take debris off the streets, it washes into storm drains and rivers, or blows into trees and parks. On my street, after DPW does not clean the streets for the winter, the gutters are full of tree material and some trash, and many streets nearer businesses accumulate a lot more trash.

The new street sweeper cameras, which have enraged some drivers, are also making a difference to DC's trash and pollution. According to testimony from DPW head William Howland at a January 2008 hearing, cars parked illegally during sweeping hours significantly impede DPW's ability to get trash off the streets. Each car forces the sweeper to go around, making it miss three parking spaces worth of gutter. Cleaning vehicles collect 10 pounds of oil and grease per mile swept, and 3 pounds each of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Photo by TCM Hitchhiker.

Without these facts, Adam Green Goblin's campaign instead made sweeping sound like a nefarious attempt to squeeze revenue from suffering drivers. The campaign corrupted the Green Lantern, who created a petition for neighborhoods to request an end to street cleaning. This came despite his strong advocacy for green jobs and green roofs. Batwoman also endorsed the campaign, as did Batgirl, despite her major policy plank of "cleaning up our streets," which she must mean only in the crimefighting way. The Atom came out against street cleaning tickets, while advocating for cleaning up the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and city parks, "crack[ing] down on illegal dumping" and prosecuting polluters. Wonder Woman talked about the issue, too, but confined her comments to the unfairness between Georgetown and other neighborhoods, rather than attacking street sweeping itself.

Of course, the DC government could definitely make the street sweeping system more user-friendly. For example, right now each neighborhood generally uses the same two cleaning days for every street, like Monday on one side and Tuesday on the other side. Drivers often have to drive to an adjacent neighborhood to find a usable space. DPW could reorganize the routes to stretch across most of the District on each day, sweeping one street across neighborhoods Monday, a different street Tuesday, and so on.

DC could allow drivers to register their cell phone numbers or email addresses to receive a text message or email if they're ever ticketed or towed, to avoid someone getting multiple tickets within a few hours of each other or tickets after a courtesy tow. And they should absolutely make sure they don't lose track of cars entirely due to bureaucratic mistakes.

It's true that we ought not to see ticketing drivers as a nice way to raise revenue. The ticketing system's goal, first and foremost, must be to promote the right behavior, like not parking in rush hour restricted areas or blocking street sweepers. But ending street cleaning and coping with trash-strewn, chemical-coated streets isn't the answer.

What about Georgetown? Why don't they have street cleaning? So far, I've asked many people, and gotten numerous as-yet-unconfirmed answers. Some have said that the streets are too narrow for sweeping vehicles, or that Georgetowners just didn't want to have to give up parking on one side of the street some days. All neighborhoods with street sweeping did originally opt in. Maybe the BID spends its own money to keep the neighborhood clean, or neighbors do the work themselves. At one point, the Citizens' Association of Georgetown recommended instituting street sweeping.

One source said that DPW does some manual sweeping. If they do, and if it costs DPW more to keep Georgetown clean than other neighborhoods, that's unfair. Someone else told me that they heard that as part of DC's water quality settlement with the EPA, DC will be expanding street sweeping to all neighborhoods. Either way, I'll keep investigating to get real answers. Adam is right to ask questions about the apparent inequal treatment of Georgetown and nearby neighborhoods, but wrong to recommend that we eliminate cleaning entirely, or tickets for those who don't move their cars.

I call on Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and the environment-loving members of the Facebook group to rescind their support for the Green Lantern and Adam Green Goblin's plan. Instead, they should cast their votes for Wonder Woman (my recommendation), Cyborg, Superman or Spider-Man, the candidates who weren't corrupted by Adam Green Goblin's populist-sounding but dangerous proposal. If these Mayoral candidates were serious about fixing this inequity, they'd instead push for reasonable street sweeping reforms and investigate the real reasons Georgetown has no street cleaning. Since they're actually just fictional superheroes with campaigns run by national community organizers in town for a boot camp, Greater Greater Washington will investigate and push on this issue instead.

44 comments — Share	— tags: DC, DPW, environment, Georgetown, parking tickets, street cleaning

Five ways to improve the RPP system (May 19, 2009)
Bring performance parking to Georgetown (Mar 18, 2009)
Graham "intrigued" by RPP improvement ideas (Nov 10, 2008)
You just got a ticket (Oct 27, 2008)
The ridiculous world of Emergency No Parking signs (Jul 16, 2008)

Comments

I have to laugh at the naivete. Why doesn't Georgetown have street sweeping? Because residents and merchants don't want it do to the neighborhood's major parking issues. So they tell Jack Evans they don't want street sweeping. And Evans tells the Mayor to not put street sweeping in Georgetown. And thus, no Georgetown street sweeping.

It makes sense to do street sweeping in areas where curbside trash more readily accumulates. But anyone who believes for one second that the ticket cameras on the street sweepers are about anything more than revenue generation needs to stop believing in superheroes and have their head examined.

by Fritz on Jul 9, 2009 2:24 pm

You wrote this essay about street sweeping? Really?

by Mark on Jul 9, 2009 2:31 pm

Hey, this was informative. I've always wondered what the impact of street sweeping was beyond mere litter collection. Now I know.

And knowing is half the battle!

by Distantantennas on Jul 9, 2009 2:47 pm

I don't think street sweeping does crap. I've seen those sweepers go up and down U Street leaving behind a trail of Starbucks cups from overflowing trash cans, twigs, leaves and other debris. It's just a joke.

by Adam L on Jul 9, 2009 2:58 pm

The Green Lantern is not against street sweeping, he is against unfair tickets and surveillance being used as a tool to raise revenue. Please update your post to accurately reflect our position.

by Jeff on Jul 9, 2009 3:06 pm

Bizarro-Alpert needs to be unmasked. His real agenda, found in the book he often quotes, "The high cost of free parking," is to eradicate free parking for residents.

That can be his agenda. But he should say it, not hide it from readers of this post. And he certainly shouldn't malign brave super heros like the Green Lantern, Bat Woman, Bat Girl, and others for taking the right position.

Mr. Alpert may be unaware of how Georgetown's situation works. I am aware -- I got direct confirmation from a city council member. The local residents made a decision to eliminate machine street cleaning, and only have manual street cleaning -- which does not require people to move their cars. Hence, they save tons of money in tickets.

Seems to work. Is Georgetown rolling in trash? Nope.

Dupont also has manual street cleaners, but has machine cleaning too. Why? Zero purpose. Sorry, but you simply don't need a car-size Zamboni-like machine to pick up the cigarette butts and occasional plastic cup in front of Townhouse Tavern on 17 and R. A person with a broom will do fine...and they, in fact, do fine.

Street cleaning tickets are a scam. They are regressive. The fact that they are not in Georgetown makes them super-regressive.

So, despite Bizarro-Alpert's extreme anti-free parking agenda, super heros who take bold positions are just that -- super heroes.

An endorsement of our Facebook group is coming soon. You can join the "End Street Cleaning Tickets in DC" group here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=104322856038&ref=mf

In fact, it looks like our group is already growing. Thank you to Bizarro-Alpert for increasing our super powers!

by Adam Green on Jul 9, 2009 3:27 pm

I really, really don't understand all the superhero talk. Did I miss something?

by Patrick T. Metz on Jul 9, 2009 3:36 pm

Unfair tickets!? The signs clearly state when parking is not allowed. Are you upset because they've found a new tool that increase the chances of getting caught? If you don't want a ticket, then don't park illegally.

The only unfair revenue tactic was towing the car to another ticketable space, and then issuing a second ticket.

I'm all for the new sweeper cams - now if we could only program them to see if someone has rudely parallel parked and left a useless 3/4 car length space when they could easily pull forward.

by Candyman on Jul 9, 2009 3:43 pm

Really? So, if the city deems it illegal for you to cross the street ever, and puts up clear signs saying that, the law is a good one? If a law says that all taxes will be paid by those making $50,000 a year or less, the law is a good one?

No, that's silly. Something isn't a good law just because it's the law. That virtue of the law is what's in question here.

Street cleaning tickets -- when street cleaning can be done perfectly well without cars moving, as evidenced by Georgetown -- are a scam.

The tickets don't need to exist. They are not there for the public good, they are there as a fundraising device...regressive fundraising.

Please don't obfuscate the issue like that. Not cool.

by Adam Green on Jul 9, 2009 3:47 pm

When I used to live in Evanston, Ill., the city conducted street cleaning four times a year, so the signs forbade parking on that side of the street on those four days of the year. Could DC do something like that? I guess I see the point that street cleaning is needed, but really, I spend so much on those ^#$&$% street cleaning tickets. Decreasing the frequency of the cleaning would make us more likely to remember to move our cars on those days and wouldn't bankrupt people who accidentally forget.

by Jeff on Jul 9, 2009 4:05 pm

It's depressing to see that once again a fringe group has managed to hijack the public debate. When my husband got into this campaign, he wanted to talk about the real issues: bringing transparency to city hall, fighting the disappearance of telephone booths from our city center, and ridding our streets of criminals, not parking tickets.

If you're ready for change wearing spandex, come to youaresuperman.com, and see what my husband has to offer. I promise you'll like what you find.

by Lois Lane on Jul 9, 2009 4:24 pm

I fully support street sweeping for the reasons described in this posting. Is it an inconvenience to move my car? Yes, but I am happy to do that in return for the gutters and streets not being filled with trash all the time.

The fact that the people opposed to street sweeping are "campaigning" using superhero names makes them pretty hard to take seriously.

by gern on Jul 9, 2009 4:29 pm

I have no beef with street sweeping tickets, provided they actually sweep the street that day. I think a lot of the cynicism comes from people who've overslept and received a ticket on a fithy street that has three months of baked-on leaves and garbage.

From my point of view, cameras on sweepers is the best way to enforce this. Parking enforcement officers ticketing cars on street that haven't seen a sweeper since the Eisenhower administration is the worst way.

by c5karl on Jul 9, 2009 5:24 pm

I live in LeDroit Park and don't have a car, but when I used to drive in DC, I was always cognizant of the street cleaning parking restrictions, which are helpfully painted in red. Though it is unfair to courtesy-tow a car to an illegal space, that unwise act should not diminish all the good that street sweeper machines do.

Just last week I was walking to the Metro along the 600 block of T Street in front of the abandoned Howard Theater, where the neighborhood's idle like to loiter and drop their garbage. In a matter of seconds, a street sweeper came along the parking lane and successfully sucked up all the garbage that had collected in the gutter. It was a beautiful sight! In areas with an abundance uncouth residents (e.g. Shaw), the street sweepers are a necessity.

Secondly, though I resent people who litter, I also resent the attitude of people who believe that leaving their large private possessions (i.e. cars) on the the public streets wherever they want and for however long they want is some sort of entitlement. If you don't like having to move your car once a week (perish the thought!), park it in a driveway or garage.

by Monumentality on Jul 9, 2009 5:37 pm

Attacking street cleaning tickets as "regressive" is a red herring. Low-income households in DC are relatively likely to have no cars at all, and therefore no street cleaning tickets. Also, if ticketing street-parking drivers is regressive, then providing free street parking in the first place must be an offsetting, progressive policy. There are pros and cons to consider about the policy, but it's not really a matter of social justice or some such.

I used to live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which actually tows cars that park in violation of street cleaning rules. I got my car towed twice, which was a huge pain, but it did ensure that the street sweepers got a clear shot at trash.

Separately, David: Are you aware of any other municipality which uses a system like you propose, where street cleaners snake through the city hitting only some of the streets in each neighborhood on many days? That sounds to me like it would be way less efficient (and therefore more costly) than the current system. But if there's an example of another city succeeding with that strategy, it would be a good data point.

by Josh B on Jul 9, 2009 5:56 pm

Monumentality --

I don't think this is about people leaving their cars stationary for a week. Is about people coming home from work and parking on the same block every night, and forgetting that one morning out of seven, they need to be sure to get on the road -- or move their cars -- by sunrise.

Humans are creatures of habit, and if you do the same thing six out of seven days, it's a common and understandable error to forget to behave differently on sweeping day.

Not all car owners are bad people who feel "some sort of entitlement." If you live in DC and work at Tysons, for example, you have no real choice but to park a car on a DC street every night.

by c5karl on Jul 9, 2009 5:58 pm

I've had the problem where I went out of town and had to arrange for someone to move my car while I was gone. That is a big pain. Generally I like street sweeping.

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2009 6:09 pm

c5karl, in terms of habits, one can always form a habit of moving the car that one night a week. To feel that you shouldn't be ticketed for breaking the parking laws smacks of an entitlement mentality. Sure, people make honest mistakes, but one needs to suck it up and pay the fine for breaking the law, which exists for a good purpose, i.e. cleaning the streets quickly.

by Monumentality on Jul 9, 2009 6:15 pm

Monumentality, don't get so into yourself -- talking about other people's entitlement.

You made no substantive case for street cleaning tickets. You just said, "It's the law." That's not a sufficient answer when the question is, "Should it be the law?"

I laid out (twice) substantive reasons why mechanical street cleaning is not needed. I'd actually be open to the proposal above to have it 4 times a year...I could deal with that.

If you want to get off your high horse (monumentally high horse?) and make a substantive argument, then come back and comment.

by Adam Green on Jul 9, 2009 6:26 pm

It's my understanding that street cleaners were originally requested by many neighborhoods (including Dupont) to deal with the problem of abandoned and long-term parked cars hogging parking spaces. The cleaning aspect was only incidental.

The District used to have a rule that a car could not be parked for more than 72 hours in one spot. After that it was open for ticketing ... and eventually towing to the junk yard. However, by the '80s/early 90s a lack of funding for enforcement meant this law (and many others) went going unenforced.

From what I've heard (from a Councilmember), the neighbors in some areas (including Dupont) fought very hard to get street sweeping instituted so as to free up parking for all residents.

You know my opinion on this whole matter ... Street parking should never be viewed as an entitlement by anyone. It's our public space and we should all be on an equal footing to use it. Just because someone got there before me shouldn't give them the right to keep their car there forever. Personally, I'd like to see a little more responsibility in regards to this situation. Parking costs money. If you want a space that you can stay in forever, then pay for it. If you're going to use the public space to leave your car, then be willing to share it with the rest of us. I.e., Be ready to move it at least once a week. Better yet, bring back the 72 hr rule ... and enforce it with today's camera technology!

by Lance on Jul 9, 2009 6:56 pm

Lance,

Thanks good stuff. I'd hope that you'd agree that we need some intellectual honesty in our laws. If the city had a rule that said you couldn't park in one place for more than 2 weeks, that would be one thing...but it's ridiculous to pretend like the issue is street cleaning and then ticket mostly good actors.

Adam

by Adam Green on Jul 9, 2009 7:02 pm

No, I will not dismount my high-horse.

1. A lot of neighborhoods have plenty of litter that swirls around and tends to collect in the gutters.

2. Litter needs to be removed quickly so it doesn't pollute the rivers and because it makes the neighborhood look, well, trashy.

3. As I have witnessed, one person driving a sweeper machine can sweep up an entire block in one minute! The amount of labor needed to clean up the same amount of garbage without a machine would be too costly for the city.

Thus it is demonstrated that mechanical sweeping helps protects the rivers, makes neighborhoods nicer and can be collected most economically by machine.

by Monumentality on Jul 9, 2009 7:06 pm

Adam,

I agree with you completely. You're looking for honesty. I think the problem though is that the District has for years operated under "Banana Republic" rules. (That's what a friend of mine who worked with underdeveloped countries called it.) It manifests itself in many ways ... including having agencies with large "constituent services" staffs (i.e., if you can't really get the job done, then at least have someone out there to soothe the voters' nerves ... and get special treatment arranged for those who scream loudest) and rules such as the street cleaning one which bring about a desired result ... but in a roundabout way.

I agree with you that I'd rather see 'truth in advertising' type of government ... But the question is are you looking to change the "street cleaning parking rule" ... or the "banana republic rules" which we operate under? If it's the latter, I think you face a much more formidable job than you realize. Though the fact that it is being discussed is indeed a good start.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2009 7:16 pm

Parking issues aside, I find street cleaning machines absolutely terrifying. Any machine that can suck up that volume of stuff is quite dangerous for people to be around. People have actually been killed by street cleaning machines in D.C. and elsewhere.

by sara on Jul 9, 2009 8:19 pm

Lance--
So wait, someone who drives every single day has more "right" to park in their neighborhood than someone who only drives on the weekend? That doesn't make any sense. We all pay the city for residential parking. Those of us who don't drive very often are more willing to park farther from our home if we can't find a closer spot. Perhaps it is those who "need" access to their cars at all times who should be paying for dedicated parking right in front of their doors.

by Ezra on Jul 9, 2009 9:51 pm

@Ezra

Just because you're parking further away from your home only means that you're parking closer to somebody else's home.

by Adam L on Jul 9, 2009 10:49 pm

@Ezra, the less you drive your car, the more you can plan ahead for storing it when you're not driving it. Using the public space in front of our homes (and businesses) whose primary purpose is supposed to be 'access' to our homes (and businesses) for your storage needs just isn't fair. Rent a parking space and stop hogging the public space ... 'cause when you hog it, it isn't 'public' anymore.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2009 11:22 pm

I would like to state for the record that The Atom at no point advocated ending street cleaning. He simply stated that the ticketing system was in need of reform and equity. The author of this post is obviously a shill for Wonderwoman. Sad she is so desperate.

by BJass on Jul 10, 2009 1:10 am

So the whole mechanical street sweeping system is in place so the city can give tickets? That sounds highly unlikely. Mechanical street cleaning is far less expensive than manual cleaning and given mechanical cleaning you have to give tickets or people won't move their cars. This isn't rocket science. Cities all across the country use mechanical sweeping. If they have a new system that can easily award violators tickets, maybe they should lower the value of the ticket since with guaranteed enforcement a lower threshold should provide sufficient motivation to follow the rule. But getting rid of mechanical sweeping, which eliminating tickets would mean, is silly.

by mpowell on Jul 10, 2009 7:28 am

Why again, should a city not milk tickets for revenue? I'd say, milk all tickets opportunities for money and reduce city taxes for everyone! Let the lawbreakers pay!

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

I couldn't care less about the street cleaning debate. I just wanted to say:

Don't vote for Superman- he doesn't like Five Guys!

by laur84 on Jul 10, 2009 9:53 am

Jasper, maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but when you set out to "milk", you lose focus of what you're supposed to be accomplishing (i.e., cleaning streets/ensuring turnover of parking spaces) and begin to focus on how to get cash out of the operation. And in the process you become corrupt. Remember those southern sherrifs who used to hang out at the bottom of long straight hills to give northerners on their way to Florida tickets? That's corruption. The ticket revenue becomes and end and a means in and of itself.

Of course we need to use ticketing as a way of enforcement, but it should only be as a tool of reaching the primary objective. For example, in this case, a small fine the first time would probably work as a simple reminder to most. A hefty fine as a good reminder to repeat offenders ... and towing the car to a lot way way out of town (and transit-inaccessible) has a perfect reminder to the habitual offender.

I.e., That is different from when you seek to "milk" the tickets revenues and instead of actually wanting to stop the bad behavior you leave the fines just high enough (or actually 'low enough') that offenders rather just 'take the ticket' and look at it as a 'cost of parking in the city' ... rather than stop their bad behavior.

by Lance on Jul 10, 2009 9:58 am

We're talking about $40 tickets, right? This is kind of a big fuss to make, but I might as well join in. The street sweeping tickets are necessary to keep our streets clean and public structures operating efficiently. The city should absolutely be collecting revenue from people that brake city laws. The vast majority of low-income DC residents ride public transportation and do not own a car, so the tickets are regressive only in that they omit certain (wealthy) neighborhoods.

I look forward to your further investigation into why that is the case. Perhaps you could include a comparison of the cost effectiveness of machine vs. manual cleaning?

by joni_pod on Jul 10, 2009 12:25 pm

Joni_pod,

You just took a discussion that was on square 3 and moved it back to square one.

Some things to know.

1) The fact that something is "the law" is irrelevant if the question on the table is "Is the law desirable?"

2) The issue of machine vs. manual isn't just cost effectiveness...it's flat-out effectiveness. Manual works just fine in Georgetown. And it currently happens elsewhere IN ADDITION to machine...so, why not just have manual?

3) There's an issue of good faith. Did you know that parking tickets raised $67 million for the city last year -- 25 times the amount raised in surrounding areas? That's nuts. A law that is mostly a veiled fundraiser is not a desirable law. The fact that people get tickets on streets where cleaning doesn't happen is just one symptom of this good faith issue.

4) It's still regressive, no matter what you say.

Adam

by Adam Green on Jul 10, 2009 12:38 pm

@Adam Green: If the law isn't desirable, is it desirable for responsible members of society to ignore it while attempting to change it? Especially in the case where the law isn't physically or emotionally hurting anyone, just causing inconvienence? I say those who disagree should be working their butts off to change the law, but abide by it while it is still on the books.

by Chris Seay on Jul 10, 2009 1:21 pm

@Chris Seay.

And the sky is blue. Equally relevant statement to yours.

Nobody in this discussion said they were not going to pay tickets. This is all about changing the law.

by Adam Green on Jul 10, 2009 1:24 pm

@Adam Gree: My fault, I missed that. Some of your language and tone led me to believe otherwise. Thanks for the clarification.

by Chris Seay on Jul 10, 2009 1:44 pm

Bizarro-Adam,

You are wrong to assert that there is anything unusual in the amount of revenue that DC generates from parking fines. Here is an article from 2004 about parking fine revenue---San Francisco might be a good comparison for DC, and they generated $87 million from fines that year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-13-parking_x.htm

For 2008, they estimate more than $100 million.

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-s-f-parking-fines-go-up-10-today-friday-august-1-2008

Comparisons to Baltimore, or any other part of the DC metropolitan region, are inappropriate---their parking issues are nothing in comparison.

The campaign against DC parking fines from some candidates is demagogic and against progressive urban policy.

On the basis of a concern for how much DC raises relative to other areas, you should advocate an increase in fines or more aggressive ticketing.

Your amigo,
Hans

by Hans Riemer on Jul 10, 2009 2:05 pm

Hans...that's a side point.

If other city's are gauging residents, that's no excuse for DC doing it. As has been discussed plenty above, there are substantive flaws in having machines over manual (especially since manual is being used anyway) and good-faith doubts -- including some evidence that the original intent of street cleaning tickets wasn't even street cleaning.

The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strong. They are a fundraising scam.

If you have points about urban policy, which is basically anti-car, that's fine. You share David's view. But that's a separate debate. To the extent cars are here, residents shouldn't be gouged.

by Adam Green on Jul 10, 2009 2:16 pm

ahem, apologies for typos in last post. :)

by Adam Green on Jul 10, 2009 2:16 pm

$67 million for the city last year -- 25 times the amount raised in surrounding areas

Your facts are way off. Parking fine revenues were $4.8 million in downtown Bethesda and $2.6 million in downtown Silver Spring.

by Ben Ross on Jul 10, 2009 2:27 pm

WTOP
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1706454

The District of Columbia collects 25 times more money in parking fines than its neighbors in Fairfax County and more than eight times than Montgomery County collects each year.

According to records obtained by WTOP, the District collected $67,311,140 in parking fines in fiscal year 2008. Compare that number to Montgomery County, which collected $7.9 million in the same time period. Fairfax County collected $2,619,635.

by Adam Green on Jul 10, 2009 2:40 pm

Maybe this is just my anecdotal evidence, but I've never seen a person actually clean a gutter or a street. I have seen machines do a great job of cleaning streets and gutters in volumes and speeds unmatchable by a bunch of guys in yellow shirts.

DOT is replacing the sidewalks outside my parents' house, so they posted no parking 7AM-6PM signs. I was there on Sunday, Monday, and Thursday. Signs were posted last week, but some people still have not moved their cars at all, even after construction started and other cars were towed. It wouldn't be hard for them to do since apparently they don't use the car during the week anyway, but they haven't. Laziness doesn't make a law wrong.

by цarьchitect on Jul 10, 2009 2:48 pm

Adam, those numbers are meaningless without discussions of cars per person and per acre, number of bus stops, fire plugs, tow lanes, etc. DC can't simply throw land away to satisfy someone who wants to have a second car in the city.

by цarьchitect on Jul 10, 2009 2:51 pm