From: Kim the Traffic Reporter
To: talk@kick.fm
Marty,
On Wednesday June 16/10, Dave Hill appeared on the Richard Cloutier Reports on CJOB in regards to the issue of the WPA ticketing vehicles for a by-law ( signs advertising "car for sale") that hasn't been enforced in the past, and for which Dave Hill and the Parking Authority have no authority to enforce today.
Cloutier had found two monetary tickets on parked vehicles with 'For Sale' signs and asked Dave Hill :
"so are you folks now enforcing this big time?"
Dave Hill's response was
"not enforcing big time, it's something we have to do as part of the streets by-law."
I'm afraid I must disagree.
* Even when enforcement had been under the Police, this by-law had never been enforced, this was confirmed by someone who had almost 20 years of experience as a by-law enforcement officer.
* City Hall knows this particular offense is NOT a parking issue.
Dave Hill is authorized to deal with parking, a for sale sign in the widow of a legally parked vehicle has nothing at all to do with parking. There are parts of the Traffic by-law which the Parking Authority, a Special Operating Agency, cannot enforce.
* Dave Hill further went on to say that what had caused all of this was changing the wording in the computer systems. Mr. Hill said
"In our computer system we changed the wording a little bit, we used to call that improper parking for the purpose of advertising a vehicle and we just changed it to the current wording."
I'm afraid once again I must disagree.
1). Improperly parked had not been in the computer system until sometime in 2008 I believe. This wording replaced the previous words which was offense #14 "parked left side to curb". When the improperly parked wording was put in place, in the comments box the issuing officer would indicate "parked left side to curb".
2). Never have the words "...for the purpose of advertising a vehicle...", those words never appeared in the system.
I can say with absolute assurance that I have never seen those words, that this offense was never used and in fact never existed. Improperly parked was used for offenses such as parked left side to curb.
3). As the Parking Authority is using the offense of Improperly Parked, would someone please explain to me HOW the vehicle is improperly parked? If the sign is the offender, then how is the vehicle incorrectly parked?
Marty this "excuse" is wafer thin and borders on deception. This situation does not involve a parking issue. The vehicles are legally parked, but violate an obscure by-law (not about where or how or when a vehicle is parked, but rather, 'what it looks like') which has never been enforced.
If a ticket were to be issued, the proper issuing body would be the Streets Constables.
* As this does not involve parking, then the Parking Authority has no jurisdiction.
It almost appears as though Dave Hill is inventing a history which did not exist, in order to justify getting his hand caught in the cookie jar.
* Dave Hill would not commit to having any of the tickets stayed, saying they (Parking Authority) could ask the Crown, but basically saying the Parking Authority didn't have any say in the matter. This also is not quite accurate.
All the Parking Authority has to do is make the request of the Crown and send it to the Court. The Crown has never to my knowledge sent an order back saying they wouldn't stay the charges.
* Dave Hill has made it clear he wants to expand the role of the Parking Authority with regards to enforcing by-laws other than parking.
- We've already seen the Parking Authority abuse that authority by issuing illegal tickets.
- We've seen paystations turn up in neighbourhoods where it makes no sense to have paid parking.
- We've seen the Parking Authority ticket and tow vehicles they deemed to be abandoned or derelict when in fact they could not enforce the applicable by-law.
We've often seen the cover your rear attitude, with this controversy being a case in point.
* Dave Hill trots out a by-law he can't enforce and doesn't even have a actual offense to rely on, but somehow says the wording was changed.
Well, wording was added, so yes I guess, by technicality, there really was a "change". But can Mayor Katz and city councillors accept that as an "excuse" for trying to pick people's pockets?
(Later I'll have more to report about how this started, with Cloutier's interview with another WPA official Tuesday, and how they tried to weasel out of the jam RCR put him in.)
* Dave Hill may have experience with private lots, but from what I can gather, has no on-street enforcement experience. He doesn't seem to get the idea he can't do whatever he pleases, that there are actually rules he has to follow.
Perhaps it's time Mr. Hill began to obey the very laws he is charged with upholding instead of finding sneaky ways to try getting around those laws.
Maybe then, the Parking Authority wouldn't be in a mess they currently face, that politicians are trying to avoid taking responsibility for.
