Oh, the irony! Maybe if the police realized that the rules apply to everyone, not just everyone else, there wouldn't be a problem. (But obviously the new guy didn't get the memo that the various police equipment on the dash is supposed to mean "don't ticket me").

by ah on May 19, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report

Springfield Mall is a perfect opportunity to destroy and rebuild. I don't see any point at all in preserving the mall. It's not like Tysons where it is heavily used and popular. It's not much better than Landmark Mall at this point, which doesn't mean much at this point. Keeping Springfield Mall really limits the potential of this large area of land which could be turned into a legitimate small town from scratch if they wanted to. Both sides of I-95 have tons of space for development down the road and it's location is great.

by Vik on May 19, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report

The unfortunate thing about Springfield is how inconvenient the Metro station is from the mall and other commercial areas. The area is also divided by large roads and interchanges. A streetcar loop connecting the areas on both sides of I-95 with the Metro could really make the area much more desirable for walkable development.

by RichardatCourthouse on May 19, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

Didn't city council members grant themselves immunity from parking tickets? And wasn't there something in the papers a year or two ago about similar immunity for volunteer firemen?

In any case, it's a perk, and it ought to be reported as such to the IRS so the recipient could pay fair tax on its value.

by Turnip on May 19, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report

I agree on Springfield. Destroy that thing and create a new dense city.

by NikolasM on May 19, 2009 5:53 pm • link • report

The issue of police parking their cars (official vehicles and personal vehicles) illegally is a perennial problem. The best case is the DC Harbor Patrol station where you will routinely see DC police officers and fire fighters parking on the grass, sidewalk, or at meters for the entire day.

Its not just a DC problem. In New York, the cops took it to another level by printing up their own unofficial parking signs and then using a variety of tactics, in some cases even downright physical intimidation, to enforce their private parking zones.

Bloomberg finally had enough and assigned a special unit of officers from the Internal Affairs Division to patrol around stations and courthouses looking for parking violators. The cops are furious, the police unions are furious, but, it seems to be working.

Bottom line, the only way to really get a handle on this is to have it come from the top and then have it enforced via the internal affairs system. A cop doesn't fear parking enforcement, but will fear having an internal affairs write-up in his or her file.

Kill a cops career over parking? If that's what is takes, then it has to be done.

by tivoman on May 19, 2009 6:18 pm • link • report

I usually agree with Richard, but not on this one. These cops are going to court as part of their job. Now, no, they shouldn't be parking illegally. No one is above the law ... and yes, cops sometime thing they are. (Just today on the way home from work I saw one turn their sirene and lights on so that they didn't have to wait at a red light. They turned them off the minute they crossed diagonnally across a couple of streets ... Putting opposing traffic at risk in so doing.) But, in the case of parking they are correct. Just like all other employees they are correct in expecting to being able to park within a reasonable distance of where their job takes them. The fact that they are District employees and the District government has done a lousy job in building sufficient parking for the people of the District only makes this worse. The fact that they don't get reimbursed for parking while doing their job makes this doubly worse. No, they shouldn't be parking illegally, but we as a city should be ashamed that we are not doing a good enough job to ensure that there is plentiful and cheap parking for all ... because that is how a 21st century city operates.

by Lance on May 19, 2009 6:28 pm • link • report

The 0.4% figure cited by Matt Yglesias was from 2005 Census data. This is before gas increased to $4 per gallon. I would think the number of cyclists is probably 100 times higher than George Will's wild guess of 0.01% mode share. I also found it ironic that George Will criticizes liberals for wanting to dictate the commutes of American citizens yet it is the suburban, highway-focused, development advocated by George Will and Bob Poole that limits transportation options by making transit inconvenient and walking/cycling impossible. People like George Will and Bob Poole are so blinded by ideology that you can't take them serious.

by Ben on May 19, 2009 6:29 pm • link • report

plentiful and cheap parking for all ... because that is how a 21st century city operates.

I'm sorry, what?

No one is above the law. It doesn't matter whether police are parking illegally due to their job, to have lunch, or to run private errands -- they are still parking illegally, and unless there is a genuine emergency allowing an exemption, the laws must be enforced. Period.

by WMATA on May 19, 2009 8:33 pm • link • report

plentiful and cheap parking for all ... because that is how a 21st century city operates.

My 21st century city would have plentiful and cheap beer for all. Which is more fun?

by tt on May 19, 2009 8:49 pm • link • report

"Just like all other employees they are correct in expecting to being able to park within a reasonable distance of where their job takes them"

If you work in the heart of downtown, this is simply false. Nobody is entitled to free parking at 7th and Pennsylvania.

by Dan Miller on May 19, 2009 9:06 pm • link • report

I think it's egregious that the cops park illegally, but Lance's point is an important one.

The reason the cops are parking at the courthouse is not because that's their normal job. They're there because they have to testify at a trial or grand jury or otherwise meet in connection with the prosecution of a crime. Having them miss those meetings or have major penalties for parking in order to make the meetings is probably not the best approach. MPDC adn the courthouse need to get together and figure out how to provide sufficient parking for the cops that have to go to the courthouse. If necessary, they should need an official document to use that parking, but it does need to exist.

by ah on May 19, 2009 9:43 pm • link • report

@ah et al.

What about the jurors? They're just as essential to the system and the DC Courts website makes clear that there's no parking for jurors. As I recall, the pamphlet advises using Metro.

by Steve on May 19, 2009 10:08 pm • link • report

Steve,

There should be cheap and plentiful parking for all ... including the jurors. However, jurors usually only have to worry about this situation once every couple years ... cops have to do this at least several times a week ... and from what I remember a DC cop telling me, unlike in neighboring jurisdictions, not only do the cops in DC not get free/cheap parking while testifying/appearing in court, they also don't get paid for these "extra" hours. (Yeah, I know, you could argue that they get a salary that covers ALL hours they have to work ... like most of us ... even if it means working much more than the 'std' 40 hr work week) ... BUT, in the neighboring jurisdictions they get paid extra for this time AND they don't have to worry about where they'll park and what it'll cost them. Like I said earlier, there's no excuse for their parking illegally ... But there's also no excuse for this city to not ensuring that there is adequate and cheap parking for all.

by Lance on May 19, 2009 10:36 pm • link • report

I work near the courthouse, and the behavior of so-called law enforcement officers (not just MPD, but also US Marshals and other Feds) can be really appalling. One day awhile back, as I was entering the crosswalk -- with the light -- one of them a) drove through a red light; b) going the wrong way down a one way street; c) while talking on his cell phone; and then d) started backing his car directly at me so he could park in the crosswalk. As he got out of his car with me trying to point out to him that he wasn't in a parking space and was endangering me, he threw the remains of his lunch on the street and walked away.

I'd filed a number of complaints about officers blocking crosswalks at the courthouse, a practice that really outrages me. (Bear in mind, this isn't just a matter of "illegal" parking or police officers ignoring the rights of pedestrians; it can make the courthouse inaccessible to anyone who can't walk around the car.)

And I was not receiving a response to my complaints until...well, I saw the jerk referred to above right around the time that I was called for Federal court jury duty, and I was still so angry about it that, when I was asked if I had any bias against police officers generally, I actually brought up the complaints I had filed -- not because I was trying to get out of jury duty, but because I really felt I couldn't be objective about the integrity of police officers at that particular point. I was dismissed and, interestingly, I got a call back from the police about the complaints 2 days later. Make of that what you will.

The practice of ticketing really does help reduce the parking-in-crosswalks practice; I see far fewer cars in crosswalks nowadays than back when I saw the jerk. Who should never, in any place or time, be given a parking space at taxpayer expense.

by Eileen on May 19, 2009 11:50 pm • link • report

While I have zero love for Springfield or Landmark Malls, the latter of which is barely a step above Landover Mall, I don't see how turning them into "cities" is going to work. Do you level them and start from scratch? Build a town with a commercial core? Or maybe something like Pentagon Row, with mixed condos, rentals, and ground floor retail? And what retailer would buy in on a property where you eminent domain the existing tenants then nuke it from orbit? And is the residential market so hot in Springfield/Landmark to drive this kind of development?

And MY 21st century city would have plentiful streetcars with onboard short order cooks and kitchenettes so you could get a hot meal. Also, pole dancers.

by monkeyrotica on May 20, 2009 6:37 am • link • report

Monkey: perhaps we should wait a couple years and see the outcome of what's going on down in Hampton with the former Coliseum Mall site...down there they leveled the old mall to "start from scratch".

by Froggie on May 20, 2009 6:40 am • link • report

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors postponed the vote on the Springfield Mall until July. The main issues is that Target, which owns part of the land, still has not agreed to term with the proffers and other related development questions. Target has already delayed this vote 3 times; I guess Target likes the mall just the way it is.

by RJ on May 20, 2009 8:31 am • link • report

Rebuilding something from scratch takes time, but you have to evaluate what there is to gain by keeping the mall there as is. Springfield Mall is not a new building, just to bring it to decency and modernity, major renovations will need to be made. There are major plans for it, but I suspect it'll be mostly lipstick on a pig. Also, the mall model of old doesn't look like it will come back, I think town centers/cities and less frequent super malls will be more likely. You'd just have to do it in phases over the course of a decade or two like what's being done in Pentagon City with the Metropolitan towers or perhaps even Reston Town Center.

The residential market isn't there, but that's why they need to capitalize on its location and market it as a truly mixed-use area with a lot of commercial and retail space. It will be something that the gov't will have to get in on, but the upside is huge. It shouldn't be too hard to convince private investors to put some money in.

Like I said in another post, Fairfax County is built out. Opportunities for massive redevelopment like Springfield (not just the mall) will not present themselves very often so they need to make the most of it. There's a large shopping center on the other side of I-95 from the mall with acres of parking and there's the ugly springfield tower that is supposed to be torn down.

by Vik on May 20, 2009 8:37 am • link • report

And is the residential market so hot in Springfield/Landmark to drive this kind of development?

You're next to a metro station. Given the enormous success of the Rosslyn-Ballston stretch and the Pentagon Row, they could to the same @ F-S. The problem is that the metrostation is as stupidly design as possible in terms of walker-friendliness. I do not know who had the brilliant idea of hiding the station behind a major road and a massive Parking garage, without any access on the other side, but that person deserves a major beating.

I like the idea of trying that, but not only at the currnet Mall area. They should try to include the whole surrounding area all the way to Springfield and Brookfield Plazas on the other side of I-95. I have no clue though how to solve the incredible road mess that they have created there though. This is one of those typical areas in this region where you can't drive unless you know your way around. There's no way you can navigate someone around there. On the other hand, traffic might go down quite a bit there, once the missing part of the Fairfax County Parkway is built. It would also help if they extended the HOV lanes at night until 6h30.

by Jasper on May 20, 2009 10:00 am • link • report

Thumb Projects should include EDSA in its picture. It's a ring road.

by Gian on May 20, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report