Comments on A simple guest parking pass program can fix many problems - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:31:32 EDT

@ goldfish:...and as story experience suggests, you may evaluate your relationships with your neighbors.

They were not my neighbors. I lived in OH. Still don't know who did it though. Don't think it was any of the immediate neighbors. Or they've lied about it, cuz I've told the story. I suspect it was someone from the HOA. They are very "vigilant" about parking problems (that nobody experiences).

Comment by worthing

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:29:45 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: The reason I cited exemption 9 above the others is that it actually was why I didn't have to pay excise tax when I moved into DC. Don't know if it had anything to do with the fact that I had purchased the car in Virginia--in VA, you pay full car sales tax on the car at the time of purchase, whereas some other states amortize it out over the life of your payments.

Also, I'm pretty sure the exemption doesn't apply for cars over a certain weight, so SUVs/minivans might present a problem.

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:45:11 EDT

@Jasper: I called Fairfax about it, and they admitted that the procedure was annoying but that they were required by law to follow up on tips. Sounds like DC needs a similar procedure.

DC has one -- I have known people to have used it. As you can see, it is a good way to harass a neighbor you don't like. If you want to do that sort of thing.

...and as story experience suggests, you may evaluate your relationships with your neighbors.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:44:54 EDT

@ goldfish:Easy. After moving, the car owner gets the new license, which lists the domicile.

I did not own a car. My roommate already lived at the place for several years.

the person is NOT legally required to re-register his or her car if it is not driven on public roads.

He did. He admitted to not registering in VA to avoid VA taxes. I am not sure if his old tags were current or not.

People that pay the high VA excise tax get annoyed at those the evade this, and are inclined to "drop a dime".

Well, I was legal. My roommate wasn't. I called Fairfax about it, and they admitted that the procedure was annoying but that they were required by law to follow up on tips. Sounds like DC needs a similar procedure.

There may be 500 things MPD should be doing. That is true. But DC has an incentive to capture all the revenue is has the legal right to.

Personally, I see tax evasion as theft; the evader steals from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I take that personally.

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:30:14 EDT

Jasper: I don't know how Arlington figured out there was an out-of-state car parked in the underground private parking under my place, but they figured it out. DC can do the same, and collect some evaded taxes.

Easy. After moving, the car owner gets the new license, which lists the domicile. The state checks this information against public records of what cars that person owns. However, the person is NOT legally required to re-register his or her car if it is not driven on public roads.

So, some neighbor must have not only given my tags info to the Fairfax authorities, but also the address of the house I was entering.

Now you are catching on. People that pay the high VA excise tax get annoyed at those the evade this, and are inclined to "drop a dime".

Comment by MLD

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:33:29 EDT

Personally I can think of about 500 things I would have MPD do before I had them snoop around to see if people's cars were registered in DC or not.

There is an incentive to register your car: RPP. If you can get by without it and want to go through the hassle of renewing your registration in another state, be my guest. Seems to me the few hundred bucks DC might stand to gain would be canceled out by the amount of legwork it takes to identify and ticket a car you routinely see in DC or by the court time taken up by people wrongly ticketed.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:19:07 EDT

I do have a friend who legitmaty lives in NH over half the year who in fact changed her registration to DC so she could park on the street in RPP when necessary. (Yet another reason to give preference to residents for parking in residential zones).

Also, many of these people may not realize it but if they are insuring their car in the other jurisdiction but in fact "principally garage" here their auto insurance coverage may not cover them for any accident because of false information. Not many states have higher insurance premiums than DC.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:51:02 EDT

@ SWDC:No one can or should be going on to private property to tell whomever lives there they cannot have a car parked (again) on private property.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about MPD enforcing car registration laws, just like other places do. I don't know how Arlington figured out there was an out-of-state car parked in the underground private parking under my place, but they figured it out. DC can do the same, and collect some evaded taxes. Since when is enforcing the law a bad thing?

Also, I doubt you need to enter a lot of private property. Plenty of those out-of-state tags are very visible on the streets and alleys.

Now I'm thinking of it. Citizens can get involved as well. I've been harassed by Fairfax County back when I lived in OH. A neighbor had noticed my OH tags were parked a lot in Fairfax. Not only did I get a note in OH, but also my girl-friend at the time at her Fairfax home address. So, some neighbor must have not only given my tags info to the Fairfax authorities, but also the address of the house I was entering. Pretty creepy shit.

If anyone is able to afford homes in many jurisdictions the cars should be registered where the cars reside most but if they are on private property and not taking public space there is nothing you or the state can do about it.

My personal experiences says otherwise. Arlington and Fairfax come after you. If they can, then DC can as well.

I know multitudes of people with several cars that live in upper northwest full time and none have DC licenses or tags on vehicles for DC (Florida is the prevailing) and you or anyone else will not be coming on to their estates, gated enclaves or private property to be looking at anything.

Well, I'm not coming anywhere. But Arlington and Fairfax have got after me. I hope for DC residents that MPD enforces the law as well. I am not sure why estates, gated enclaves or private property are relevant in this discussion.

People who have FL license plates obviously do so because they claim residency in FL for at least 6 months of the year to avoid DC income tax(FL has none). Same with Delaware and New Hampshire

Yep, and all those states have hefty property taxes. I remember a friend who moved to TX, which has no income tax either. He laughed and laughed. Until he got the first property ta bill for his house. Then he cried and cried.

States need income. They will tax you. Whether it's income or property, they will. Although, DC apparently does not care much about its car registration fees.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:25:39 EDT

People who have FL license plates obviously do so because they claim residency in FL for at least 6 months of the year to avoid DC income tax(FL has none). Same with Delaware and New Hampshire. However, these people are claiming they live in those states so they would not need to register their car in DC if they also claim the car is with them in their home state and not in DC longer than DC law allows.

If the police can see the license plate of a car on private property they certainly can observe if it is there repeatedly and assume it is driven. If the owner can prove it's never driven the owner would get out of the ticket. How Arlington and every other place I've ever heard of does it.

Comment by Sammy

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:28:42 EDT

A lot of good suggestions: smaller RPP zones, progressive RPP fees on multiple vehicles registered to the same owner(s), visitor passes that can be printed on line and scanned by DPW enforcement.

However, the current practice of mailing free visitor pass placards to residents in certain wards needs to change. Specifically, the tags should be subject to request and payment of a fee, and the resident's address should be located on the tag, to reduce fraud and abuse. I've seen instances of passes being passed around to MD and VA students at local private schools so they can park all day on Ward 3 streets, and anecdotally heard about passes being sold on line.

Comment by SWDC

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:37:49 EDT

@Jasper
No one can or should be going on to private property to tell whomever lives there they cannot have a car parked (again) on private property. If so, then there are many a (millionaire's garage/driveway we need to inspect)(which the city will never do) and licenses of people who live in DC. If anyone is able to afford homes in many jurisdictions the cars should be registered where the cars reside most but if they are on private property and not taking public space there is nothing you or the state can do about it. Also, you can only have one driver license, and again if you can afford to have several homes you can own a car with a differing jurisdiction registration since that car resides in the other jurisdiction. Also, some people own vehicles but do not have a license anymore (the elderly) because they do not drive. The idea that your license is attached to your vehicle is stupid. The title and registration of the vehicle in a particular jurisdiction is what matters. And where ever you move you do not have to change your license. I know multitudes of people with several cars that live in upper northwest full time and none have DC licenses or tags on vehicles for DC (Florida is the prevailing) and you or anyone else will not be coming on to their estates, gated enclaves or private property to be looking at anything.

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:45:06 EDT

@Jasper: But unregistered cars can not bear the marks of registration: tags!

If the car has unexpired tags, then it is registered. But again, if you have moved and you have not yet registered your car, you can store it on private property so long as you don't drive it on the public streets. You may decide to let the old registration expire, and I have seen a lot of people do that when they cannot deal with the hassle or expense of re-registration, but cannot deal with getting rid of the car.

The violation occurs when it is driven, not when it is stored.

Comment by Devoe

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:32:38 EDT

No one has yet pointed out that the current ward-wide visitor parking passes (like the one pictured in the article) operate as a substitute for obtaining an RPP (despite the fact that the observse dide of the visitor pass says that it cannot be used in place of an RPP). So if you have DC plates and a visitor parking pass you don't have to pay for an RPP.

DPW won't issue you a ticket during the day because the visitor parking pass protects you and you won't get a ROSA violation between midnight and 7 AM because you have DC tags.

In short, there is no protection against abuse under the current visitor parking pass program - this needs to change before the new crop of visitor parking passes comes out at the end of July.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:28:31 EDT

@ goldfish:you can store an unregistered car indefinitely on private property

Oh, the 1 in a 1000 case. Sure that may exist. But unregistered cars can not bear the marks of registration: tags!

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:11:08 EDT

Has anyone had the exemption #9 referenced by worthing above actually work for them?

I know many years ago I got stuck with the excise tax when I moved back.

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:07 EDT

@Jasper: you can store an unregistered car indefinitely on private property -- but you cannot drive it on the public streets. It is easy to imagine innocent situations in which people would want or need to do this. I knew a guy that bought antique cars; he had like 20-30 of them, all legally stored on private property in DC where he lived. Or imagine that somebody is on an extended trip abroad, but want to keep a car for when he/she gets back. Etc.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:34:55 EDT

@ goldfish:..because it is legal to store any car, regardless of where (or if) it is registered, on private property.

You are correct. However, it is also state law that you need to register your car and driver's license in the state of your residence. If those out-of-state cars are owned by DC resident, then they are breaking the law. In VA, you get a fairly lenient half year to find a DMV and get a driver's license and tags. In OH, you get zero days. I don't know what DC's period is.

DC police would very much be in their right to check if residents have their cars registered.

Comment by worthing

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:43:53 EDT

@Ms. D, you're right all over on the excise tax issue. All you need to be exempt is proof your car was registered wherever you lived before you moved to DC. It's the 9th exemption here: http://dmv.dc.gov/info/forms/excise_tax_exemption_categories_after_reform_act_pdf.shtm

There are 17 other exemptions, too. Most people should not have a problem.

Comment by MLD

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:08:34 EDT

I don't even own a car and rarely do I drive but I see little reason why we would want parking regs to inherit the complexity of cellphone billing or airline ticket pricing.

Consensus on Chicago's implementation has been that it is a bad deal for the city.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:54:53 EDT

goldfish- As jasper can attest, don't try and tell that to Arlington County.

and these cars aren't "stored" other than overnight.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:40:45 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: All the condos around me have parking open to the alley and every one of those cars have out of state plates visible when driving the alley. The police and traffic enforcement do nothing.

..because it is legal to store any car, regardless of where (or if) it is registered, on private property.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:15:44 EDT

Turnip- You do know about the City of Chicago selling it's parking program for I think 100 years to a private company for $1Billion and Ohio State selling it's for $1/2 Billion. (Both still keep ticket revenue). Rates soared and the consensus is both were very bad deals.

Given DC politicians' greed I hesitate to even mention it.

Comment by Ms. D

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:12:42 EDT

Damn, I think my math is off there...they will refund you whatever you paid in the new state, NTE what you paid in Ohio. While all of you are sitting there thinking that DC costs more, buying a car in Ohio, at the time I lived there, would run you 6.75-8% of the price of the vehicle (I'll admit to not knowing whether you can get the county tax back, so maybe it's only the 6.75% state tax on the PURCHASE PRICE). Since DC does their excise tax on the fair market value of the vehicle (which is WAY below purchase price the moment you drive it off the lot), you'd be leaving Ohio with some money in their pocket. I love how DC gets slammed as high tax when I pay the same or less in taxes here than in many places I've lived (for example: state + county + local income taxes were often greater than even DC's 8.5% max, and was often a flat rate; my brother and SIL pay more in actual dollars in property tax than I do on their $50K house, versus my much more valuable condo; I never knew that some places didn't tax soda until I came to the East Coast; I don't have to pay an annual fee, on top of income taxes, to have a job in DC (way to go PA)...).

Comment by Turnip

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:03:31 EDT

Ward vs ANC ... Big or small, parking zones are antiquated! The parking enforcers sailing around on Segways wield handheld enforcement machines that could very well know the address where the car belongs and charge you a fee that would increase with the distance from your home half-mile-radius.

But - to reexamine first principles - why doesn't DC simply outsource curbside parking by negotiating an overall haul from companies that then turn around and devise rules, rates, monthly plans, etc., just as cell-phone companies and airlines have done? (It might be a bit of a pain that each street would be controlled by one company, but maybe by paying extra you could get a "roaming" plan.)

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:57:36 EDT

@ Tom Coumaris:I remember when Arlington started driving through apartment parking garages looking for out of state plates.

I got a note from Arlington 10 years ago. Whether the out-of-state-tagged car in the parking spot of my rental was mine. And if not, whose it was. I told them "my roommate's" without a name. But even that led to a massive argument with the dude - who was openly avoiding taxes. He thought I was a nazi for turning him in. I told him his tax evasion was not my problem and that he should be happy I didn't give them his name. Soon afterwards, I moved. I hope they fined him to oblivion.

It's not that hard for DC to send a couple of cops around... Oh, I forgot. It's a breach of the union contract for DC cops to get out of their car.

Speaking of cops: Did you see that 2012 is gonna be the safest year for cops ever? The *national* homicide rate for cops is lower than the homicide rate in many large cities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-fatality-statistics-2012_b_1619725.html

Comment by Ms. D

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:41:23 EDT

There are that many people moving to the District who haven't owned their cars for 6 months before moving here? Or tried to cheat the system by buying and registering a car elsewhere while a DC resident? I guess it's one of those the more you know moments.

Tom: you might note to your tenants that they can often get a refund of the excise tax they paid where they bought and registered their vehicles, if they remove the vehicle from the state within 6 months or a year, depending on the state. I know Ohio does this (they actually do a net refund...what you paid in Ohio minus what you paid in the new state), from a quick Google, and only looking at the top results, MA and IN do this as well.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:07:02 EDT

I normally don't rent to tenants with cars but I still get requests from most people calling with cars as to where they can rent an off-street space so they can avoid the DC 6% transfer tax.

All the condos around me have parking open to the alley and every one of those cars have out of state plates visible when driving the alley. The police and traffic enforcement do nothing.

I remember when Arlington started driving through apartment parking garages looking for out of state plates.

I guess DC just doesn't need the money.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:15:52 EDT

ROSA is a pain. I used to occasionally borrow the car of my business partner, who lives in MD. My street isn't zoned for RPP. But you get those notices to provide proof you aren't a resident, and the amount of documents required is onerous.

SO I don't borrow his car very much any more, at least not leaving it overnight.

And yes, neighbors, with out of state plates do park on their property/lot on the alley side of their properties.

Comment by Sydney

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:17:09 EDT

@chris 2:56

ROSA indeed needs fixing.

Go to any apartment/condo parking garage, or any alley in DC. You’ll notice that at least half the cars (tens of thousands, that is) are registered in places like Maryland, Virginia, Florida or Texas. Only a few of these are students or military. The large-scale tax-evasion, inspection cheating, and insurance fraud must cost the city millions of dollars. It likely also fosters the spirit of lawlessness and entitlement that then blooms in the travel lanes when the miscreants fire up their unnecessary automobiles and take to the roads they’re not paying for.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:13:49 EDT

Many other cities do this. How do they do it?

Why do we always have to re-invent the wheel in DC?

Comment by andy2

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:29:00 EDT

Firefighters/Police - should get an exemption - period.
The district needs to eliminate single ward permits. Parking permits should be neighborhood based - not ward based.
When I lived in Seattle that is how it was done and it seemed to work fine. Plus when I bought my parking permit I could get 2 guest passes for the year.

Comment by Ms. D

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:27:55 EDT

I also like the idea of smaller zones, but Dan up there is the first person to solve the problem, for me, of how much that would either suck for people lived right near the edge of an ANC or SMD, or complicate the signage/registration/enforcement. Already, we have some streets in DC where 2 zones are allowed to park, because the next street over is a different zone, can you imagine the complication if we did RPP by SMD and had "mixed" SMD parking zones everywhere? But going SMD and including surrounding SMDs shrinks the zone while still allowing people to travel around their home and find parking in cramped quarters (when in W6, I also frequently parked blocks from home).

Comment by Ms. D

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:23:40 EDT

When I lived in Ward 6, the only parking nightmare I had was commuters parking illegally. I could NOT drive my car anywhere if my return time was normal business hours. Every last spot on my street was snatched up by a commuter. Sure, it's illegal and they could be ticketed, but chances were that they would get 1-2 tickets a week, which was far cheaper than parking in a garage for the week. We either need to make the RPP violation fine high enough that garage parking is preferable to the average number of tickets a commuter will get in a week, or increase the number of tickets the average commuter gets in a week to the point that the math no longer works.

As far as I see it, one of the big reasons for the lack of enforcement was that it takes far more time for parking enforcement to record the car and come back in two hours and see if it's still there. In that regard, eliminating the two hours of free parking would make enforcement easier. We could couple that with "short-term" parking passes issued to every household, allowing a contractor or friend or whoever the two hours everyone used to get, or even the whole day like the parking ticket book idea above. Of course, this would only be workable in almost-exclusively residential neighborhoods, since customers need somewhere to park. For more mixed neighborhoods, I like the idea of meters that only have to be paid without an RPP. Make the time limit short (1 hour per payment max 2 hours). Then you just have to enforce the expired meters. And of course performance parking in commercial zones, to avoid shifting the problem to areas where businesses need parking turnover.

I come to this conclusion because I got plenty of tickets for being a little off on the "no parking from here to corner" sign (no, not fully in the no parking zone, though I know people do that a lot...maybe a foot or two of my car past the sign because someone else parked poorly) or parking for 20 minutes in a 15-minute zone or whatnot, infractions that don't require enforcement to come back hours later. I rarely saw commuter cars with tickets on my evening walk home (there were many cars I saw every day, morning and evening), even on days when I'd arrive home to find a ticket for being half a foot too close to the corner, a few inches too far from the curb, wheels angled toward the sidewalk, etc.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:07:18 EDT

@Chad: In Arlington, the deal is that in order to allow large buildings to be built without a crushing amount of required parking, or parking overflow concerns that would cause the neighbors to oppose the project, large buildings built under site plans do not have access to resident permit parking stickers.

Basically, No RPP is part of the bargain we struck to allow such a dense building. If we were to allow RPP for large buildings, the building would have to be larger or include a lot of required parking.

Comment by Dan Gamber

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:18:54 EDT

One major problem with the current system is that it is by ward. Now someone from outer ward 2 can park on my street to use the U Street metro station. Other cities use much smaller zones - which here could possible be based on ANC single member districts. And since many of them are very small, it could be the resident's district plus all adjacent districts.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:11:06 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: That's an oversimplification of NY politics, but regardless my point stands. There are cities that have the system you find unthinkable. NYC is one.

Comment by chris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:56:53 EDT

The other issue that needs fixing in this area is ROSA,
registration of Out-of-State Automobiles.

Outrageous that folks from MD and VA who come into the city for nightlife, not to mention working at various nightlife locations have the onus put on them to prove they are not living here without registering their vehicle. I live in DC, so it doesnt effect me, and I get (and suppport) the idea behind it. But it definitely needs tweaking as well.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:53:30 EDT

Gray- Not to get into NY politics too deeply but progressive Democrats in NYC keep passing Resident-Only Parking and conservative Republicans in Albany keep stopping it. RPP is hardly a conservative idea.

Comment by Chad

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:43:24 EDT

@Thaddeus Dorsay - Isn't is possible that some of these visitors may have no choice but to arrive by car? It seems to me that creating an atmosphere where one can expect guests to be easily accommodated is one part (among many) of making DC an attractive place to live.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:40:37 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: Note the question mark at the end of the title of the article.

It's not "Resident-Only Parking Coming to NYC"

It's instead titled "Resident-Only Parking Coming to NYC?"

It did in fact pass the city council, but went nowhere in Albany. So my earlier point stands: NYC doesn't have resident on-street parking privileges. I doubt that it's the only city like that.

Comment by Thaddeus Dorsay

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:34:15 EDT

I don't know why guests should get special guest passes. Take a cab or the metro guys! We live in the city.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:27:39 EDT

Gray- "Resident-Only Parking Coming to NYC" :

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-02/news/30352477_1_resident-only-parking-parking-problem-parking-in-residential-areas

"80% of on-street spaces will be reserved for resident parking only."

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:19:12 EDT

@Clark: I certainly agree with you that raising prices for on-street parking would be a good first step.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:18:16 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: My point was not that there exist cities that provide free parking for visitors, but that there are plenty of cities that don't provide free parking for residents. They have to pay or spend time looking for spaces just like visitors.

Ever been to NYC?

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:15:20 EDT

Gray- Nope, when I go to San Francisco, Boston, or even Arlington I check the street signs and they're pretty prohibitive if you're not a resident. Just back from San Francisco I can also tell you that non-resident parking in city-owned garages is $35 per day. Urban places that provide free parking for visitors are rare now.

Chad- I think the difference is residential vs. commercial zoning. Commercially-zoned areas can not participate in RPP so apartments in commercial zones do not get RPP stickers. Apartments in residential zones should be eligible however.

Comment by William

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:13:48 EDT

1) Raise the RPP, per the suggested GGW rates with a tiered system so multiple vehicle owners pay something akin to market rates for street based car storage

2) Make the RPP zones much smaller, at least the size of an ANC, if not a Single Member District;

3) Consider putting meters on zoned streets, exempting zoned vehicles from the meter enforcement

4) Performance parking at all meters in high traffic areas (if not city wide)

5) Developers of infill buildings (and DDOT) need to ensure that either the building can handle parking demand, and/or residents of said buildings cannot get RPP for their vehicles. Not fair for developers to skip out on this expense and dump the burden on existing residential streets, many of which already have too much demand and no relief valve.

Comment by Clark

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:00 EDT

@Gray

Going for an off-street rental space is certainly an option, though for around $250 per month ($3,000 per year), it becomes an expensive proposition. I'm not saying I need a space right in front of my apartment whenever I want one, but some neighborhoods are very difficult for on-street parking. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more to allow the 'invisible hand' to free up some spaces and possibly tilting the table toward the residents instead of the night club crowd in my area. But that's just me. I don't expect you to agree.

Comment by Chad

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:44:27 EDT

@Michael Perkins

"Why do residents of really tall buildings get RPP stickers? Shouldn't they be either parking in their building-provided parking or SOL?"

So, residents who are fortunate enough to own single-family homes are entitled to RPP stickers but, if the cost of in-building parking is prohibitive, renters are not?

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:01 EDT

@Clark: Another option would be to rent a parking spot for your car. Since your car is so vital, would you consider doing that?

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:40:17 EDT

@Tom Coumaris:

Times have changed but the fact that residents historically have a right to preferred residential parking may actually amount to an equitable legal right that comes with the property.

Well, okay. I can clear that up for you: it doesn't.

At any rate I don't know of any progressive jurisdiction that doesn't heavily enforce that preference.

You don't? You're not aware of any neighborhoods in the world that don't provide free or heavily discounted street parking for neighborhood residents?

Comment by Clark

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:23:21 EDT

I'm all for a walkable, multi-modal city and support the proposed Zoning Code update's elimination of parking minimums for land uses close to transit, but I am a renter in Ward 2 with a single car shared by my household of two WITHOUT a designated off-street parking space. Finding an available space on the street is one of the biggest frustrations in my life, despite the fact that my wife and I probably drive less than once or twice a week.

Since ditching the car is not an option for us as it may be for some, I would support smaller parking districts that favor residents over visitors to the neighborhood (although local shops and restaurants need space for customers, too). I would pay more than the ~$35 annual fee for a better enforced, targeted parking permit that allows residents in the denser downtown residential areas to actually find a space when they come home at night.

Comment by Gavin

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:18:16 EDT

@charlie, Arlington includes renters (I was one). It's just by residence. Then stick it in whatever car you want.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:15:52 EDT

Gray- My point is that in trying to do away with RPP you need to consider the historic equitable rights of owners. Vehicle parking in front of houses, for the residents and their guests, was established not long after the front yards were reserved for residents.

A day after I bought my house my neighbor's grandson from two doors down came over to inform me that I had parked in front of their house and Pops would appreciate if I moved my car to the front of mine.

Times have changed but the fact that residents historically have a right to preferred residential parking may actually amount to an equitable legal right that comes with the property. At any rate I don't know of any progressive jurisdiction that doesn't heavily enforce that preference.

The increasing lack of that preference here leads to residents concreting over their rear yards and any other permeable surfaces they can for parking. It also leads to a resentment toward businesses that bring more scarce residential parking or disruptive bar patron parking.

If visitors can go out to dinner or to a bar and spend $50-$100 they can certainly pay market rate for parking and have no right to expect free parking on residential blocks. That going rate around my house is now about $20. Better yet they can take public transit or a cab.

Whatever the fair annual rate for a RPP sticker may be, I don't think doing away with RPP is in the cards or wise.

Comment by worthing

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:19 EDT

@Charlie: I believe the Arlington program is just by residence regardless of its occupant's status. Whether you mean "rented car" or "rented home," you could, at least a year ago, request the flexpass and the booklets of guest passes without having to disclose the vehicle that would use them. That was the general point of the passes, I think: flexibility.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:50:58 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: I know you like to point out the quirk in ownership of front yards in the old city, but how is that relevant? Roads are used for transportation and happen to have some room that could also be used for parking. They are a public good, and a shared asset. Why should they be given over to free or very cheap parking for a select few?

Although I guess it's relevant if you want to talk about how we could be better utilizing those front yards, since they're publicly owned. But I don't think that's your point...

Comment by Rob

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:50:31 EDT

@Tom Coumaris - it's a thought experiment, not a serious idea. My bad for not making that more obvious.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:48:34 EDT

correction: I meant visitor passes given to each household in performance parking districts.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:47:05 EDT

I think this is a simple and good idea. Although it's hard to figure out the charging piece, how much. The reason I have been against the giving every resident a guest pass that they do in RPP zones is that it is ripe for abuse (just like how handicapped parking permits are abused about 40% of the time).

I think $1/day's a good start. Everyone can afford a dollar. Charging $1 isn't going to be an unreasonable burden on car renters.

Face it, for the most part, the problems are in W1, W2, and W6.

Start there, figure it out.

And yes, it's a bit unfair for auto-renters, because RPP permit holders pay almost nothing, but you can't fix everything. I don't think that's such a significant burden or problem that the charge is an issue.

The thing is that already there is bias against rental cars. Technically, rental cars aren't eligible for guest pass usage anyway. (At least they weren't when I checked years ago.) So this provides a means for use free of fear of tickets that isn't present now.

On another matter, I wish people would address the serious subsidy of residential parking but that seems to not be on the radar anytime soon.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:45:44 EDT

Rob- If that's your argument you'd come out much better financially by demanding a rebate if you don't have a front yard in the l'Enfant City. Front yards here are owned by the city which does all sewer/water line repairs to the house in them and we don't pay any real estate tax on our front yards either. But we have an equitable right to sole use of them and to fence them.

But, good luck with that argument.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:44:29 EDT

@Rob: Well, at the very least, you could find out how much your neighbors value you not having a car.

As it is, we just heavily subsidize parking for a select few and act like it's not a huge transfer of money from those without cars to drivers.

Comment by Rob

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:39:06 EDT

@Gray - in that case I could take this a step further and demand that as a resident who doesn't park a car anywhere in the neighborhood, I ought to be entitled to some sort of rebate since I'm not taking up valuable parking space.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:35:11 EDT

@Tom: Oh, I see the confusion. Are you sure that Charlie was talking about auto renters and not those who rent apartments?

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:29:12 EDT

Gray- I just said that auto renters should be treated at least as well as auto owners.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:12 EDT

@Rob:

Isn't the problem that the residents (seemingly) want to have their cake and eat it to?

Exactly. We have seen in these parking comment threads that there is a vocal contingent demanding free parking for some residents, and enough restrictions to make sure that only those preferred residents get to use the spaces. If local residents feel entitled to control parking in their neighborhood, then maybe we should let them--but make the tradeoffs explicit.

Comment by DCster

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:22:58 EDT

I don't own a car and yet get the annual visitor pass mailed to me (I don't know if this policy only applies to my Ward or what), which is apparently the system in place in Arlington.
While I have no complaints with the current system, printing out guest passes online for a small fee seems like a workable policy to standardize the various rules. I would never have to worry about losing an annual pass if a contractor or guest drove off without returning it.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:21:52 EDT

@Tom Coumaris: Why should owners be eligible for subsidized parking, but not renters?

Comment by Rob

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:20:54 EDT

@Gray - Isn't the problem that the residents (seemingly) want to have their cake and eat it to? They want parking permits and want to pay nothing for them. They also want as few other people to have them as possible. I imagine asking residents to set the RPP prices would just lead to a situation where some vocal people demand even lower prices and stricter conditions.

Comment by Chris R

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:16:37 EDT

Regardless of how we fix the current broken system one thing should be to take it completely out of the hands of the police. There is no reason the cops should have to deal with the deluge of parking pass requests. Their jobs is to stop real crimes not deal with parking passes. I always thought that was a huge waste of time for our crimefighters, as everytime I have gone into the V street station there have been multiple people asking for passes.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:14:21 EDT

Jasper- I like that program of buying guest coupons for guests.

charlie- If Arlington can exempt rentals we should do the same.

Comment by Arlington Civilzation

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:14:16 EDT

I think you would need to keep the fee, otherwise people will be selling these on the streets (if printed online).

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:11:03 EDT

Dave- I don't know about others but I average under $25/day for a rental when I get one. Anything that adds to the cost of car sharing should be avoided. Maybe there could be an exemption for a rental car rented by the resident.

While the stated rule may be one thing, I never had any problem going to the desk at 3D while my block was still, (until very recently) in 2D. In fact the first question is always whether it's zone 1 or zone 2 and they give it if you say either.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:15 EDT

In my brother's neighborhood, parking is permit only, and strictly enforced. Residents can buy little guest-pass booklets that contain several tear-out daily parking passes. All you need to do is note the date and car tag, and display it at the front wind shield. I think there is a maximum amount of booklets they can buy to prevent fraud.

No internet needed, no registration needed, no printer needed, just a pen. Problem solved.

Comment by meesh

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:58:39 EDT

i had permit for two days borrowing friends car....i got two tickets so maybe parking gestapo could follow the rules too....permit means i should have gotten no tickets....right?

Comment by thm

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:55:57 EDT

I suppose it's politically very hard to criticize the firefighters, but: if a firehouse location makes transit impractical, then it's also unlikely to be in an RPP zone to begin with. Firefighters work 24 hour shifts (with 72 hours off between shifts) and there's no reason that the shift can't start at a transit-practical time of day. And because of their schedule, they end up making only about one third of the commutes that someone working an ordinary 9-5 job makes, which means they only need to look for parking a third as frequently, which makes an extra few blocks walk a third less onerous and drains away most of my sympathy. And as @Turtleshell points out, it's not in DC's best interest to encourage firefighters to live outside the city and commute in by car and giving out free and easy parking does just that.

Comment by Gray

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:55:13 EDT

This would be a good time to stop reserving free (or very, very cheap) parking for residents. But by all means, local residents could have a hand in setting rates in their neighborhoods. Do they want to set artificially low rates, leading to a lack of available spots? Rates that are high enough that there is always a space available?

They can discuss this like adults, right?

Comment by Steve

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:52:18 EDT

@Michael Perkins

I wonder if that labor agreement would allow additions to their pay (assuming they are paid) that would exactly cover parking costs for however many days they work. However, they could have the option to not use it and increase their net. If no fee is put on something, people abuse it.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:52:03 EDT

I'm pretty sure the Arlington program does not cover renters.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:49:40 EDT

Also, I'll try getting the pass at V Street. Greater Greater Wife called twice and they said no both times.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:49:09 EDT

Tom: It's a burden to have a fee that maybe would cost the equivalent of about a gallon of gas, on a rental that could cost 10 times that?

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:46:00 EDT

Dave- First off- You can get a temporary pass at the 3D station on V Street even though you live in 2D, I've done it many times. It takes about 2 minutes.

Ward 2 doesn't have permanent guest passes because Ward 2 doesn't have Enhanced RPP yet. We're supposed to get it in the Logan Circle area any day now and mailed permanent guest passes will be part of it.

I think the option to do a temporary pass online is great but I wouldn't support a fee. Many of us rent cars on weekends and having to pay such a fee on each rental would be a burden. A fair ratio would be 1/365th of the annual fee, which of course would be a trivial nuisance.

Car sharing (renting) should be encouraged.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:44:09 EDT

What about fixing the issue of ward-wide RPP zones?

Why do residents of really tall buildings get RPP stickers? Shouldn't they be either parking in their building-provided parking or SOL?

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:43:16 EDT

@Turtleshell: Free parking for firefighters on duty is part of their labor agreement.

Comment by Gavin

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:26:45 EDT

The transferable guest pass used in some Wards (which is also the system that Arlington uses) is very workable. It especially works great for households that don't own a car.

As it stands, if you own a car, you get an RPP sticker and you're set. If you don't own a car -- but occasionally rent or borrow one, or have guests -- you have to schlep down to the police station each time. Why the extra burden?

Under the Arlington system, you can just request one transferable pass, which comes in the mail. If you have a car, put it in your car; if not, use it whenever you have a guest or rental. Simple.

The system that David proposes, where you can print guest passes online, would be a step up from having to go in person to the police station. But it still wouldn't be as easy as Arlington's system.

Comment by Turtleshell

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:23:37 EDT

I don't understand why fire fighters need special parking. OK sure some fire houses have plenty of free parking and some don't but that's true for offices all over DC. Some workers get free parking and some don't.

Most firefighters live outside the city and can't get to work without cars, but I don't think it makes sense for the city to make it easier for them to commute by car. It would be better for DC if more firefighters lived in the city.

If we are going to give parking to fire fighters what about teachers, police and other city workers? Why don't they get parking too?