Description
License plate 6CN 596 - Honda Accord - gray
Day #3 of “parking” after 8pm, with car on - 2 people sitting inside. Yesterday they were there for at least 2 hours. Today it’s been about 1 hour, so far. Oh, in front of a hydrant too.
License plate 6CN 596 - Honda Accord - gray
Day #3 of “parking” after 8pm, with car on - 2 people sitting inside. Yesterday they were there for at least 2 hours. Today it’s been about 1 hour, so far. Oh, in front of a hydrant too.
8 Comments
City of Malden (Verified Official)
Janet (Registered User)
Janet (Registered User)
Malden 311 (Constituent Services Representative) (Verified Official)
Malden 311 (Constituent Services Representative) (Verified Official)
Closed Parking Department Supervisor (Verified Official)
Ghazi (Registered User)
That's very interesting. A couple of years back, I was written a ticket by an overzealous parking enforcement officer when I had pulled to the side of the road, literally for less than 30 seconds, to let my wife, who was in view and approaching, into the car. It was on a secondary road. While parking was not allowed, the vehicle was neither blocking traffic, unreasonably close to an intersection, nor parked, as that term is defined in numerous state regulations (the general rule is that temporarily stopping to load passengers IS allowed in places marked no parking). The city insisted that it was a violation nonetheless. Despite me being absolutely entitled to it, the city refused to provide a copy of its own regulation defining "parking" (because, I believe, they don't have one) and denied an appeal. The city's attorneys maintained the position that the vehicle was "illegally parked" all the way up to Middlesex Superior Court, where the city, after having been told by the judge that they were about to have a much bigger problem if they persisted (given the failure to produce the regulation), finally conceded the point and agreed to a judgment in my favor. It was utterly ridiculous that it had to go that far -- and it was 100% the fault of the city. The resources the city wasted (taxpayer funds), being unreasonably obstinate and defending an obvious mistake to the very end, were considerable.
That was of course the prior regime. I will say that the current leadership of the department is both more responsive and more reasonable. I doubt/hope what happened a couple of years ago would ever repeat. And I certainly wish the current leadership was in place back then. I would have loved to have had the statement "unless they dismount vehicle this is not a parking infraction" from the head of the department at that point.
That said, this kind of inconsistent enforcement, across numerous city departments (not just parking enforcement), is the kind of thing that residents find terribly frustrating.
Anonymous (Registered User)