Deskripsyon
I am extremely disappointed that the City of Malden is giving out $50 parking violation tickets without having the appropriate signage alerting new residents as to these restrictions. When the fees were doubled, the city council rightfully pushed back on that without proper signage. It is disappointing that the director of public works seems more interested in a regressive revenue-raising scheme than in ensuring residents are aware of what is going on in their city. If he was really concerned with "sign pollution", which is nonsense, then the system would give first-time street sweeping parking restriction offenders a warning instead of scamming them out of $50 dollars. If the city cannot afford to put up the proper signage so residents and visitors are aware of restrictions, then Malden should give warnings to first time offenders as a cheaper alternative to raising awareness of these restrictions that are not obvious to new residents.
8 Komentos
City of Malden (Beripikadong Opisiyal)
Malden (Rehistradong User)
Isinara Parking Department Malden (Beripikadong Opisiyal)
Each year, prior to street sweeping season, the City distributes flyers to every household notifying them of the schedule for the upcoming street sweeping season. Flyers are also left on every car on the street. We encourage residents to also sign up for our 'street alerts' which will notify you the night before your street is swept. That said, we do understand that for visitors and new residents they may miss this. For that reason the parking clerk is very flexible for those who appeal a first violation. Please contact us at the parking office and we are happy to help, 781 397-7196.
As for the times, residential sweeping is from 7:30 am to 12:00 am. If you received a ticket at 7am for a residential neighborhood street (Daily street sweeping starts as early as 5am) please contact the parking office at 781 397-7196.
Malden sweeps our streets more than any surrounding community. The times and enforcement are both intended to help be as effective as possible in this effort.
Anonymous (Rehistradong User)
Ghazi (Rehistradong User)
Malden's street sweeping ticketing program is illegal. It's that simple. It's truly difficult to make a constitutional issue out of parking tickets. But that is exactly what the city has done. The city knows perfectly well that they fail to provide notice (ie., signs) sufficient to meet constitutional (due process) muster. Sticking flyers under windshield wipers once a year on whatever vehicles happen to be parked on a particular street on a particular day is NOT legally sufficient. It is not even close.
The city is abating those tickets because they have to. That isn't just because the scheme fails to provide legally sufficient notice of the regulations, but also because there is a specific state statute that requires it. For a first offense in a year in a particular city, an abatement is mandatory under MGL c. 90 s. 20A. So they really aren't giving you anything at all. In fact, they are taking something away, because you won't have that abatement to use later, when you might need it. What they are giving you is NOT a judgment in your favor. All they are giving you is something to which you are entitled.
In addition, when they do that, they are using up your one annual abatement. And when you get a ticket for parking around the corner on street sweeping day on your street, believing that you were OK there, and you get a ticket, that abatement will no longer be available to you. Sorry, Charlie.
Now, when I say that the ticketing is "unconstitutional" I'm not using that word the way so many people like to: simply to describe just about anything they don't like. I use the term in the legal sense based on experience and research over more than 20 years practicing law. I'm in the due process business, actually. I also happen to have successfully brought suit against them on a related notice issue. They agreed to a judgement in my favor after being warned by the judge about the risk to their "system" if the suit continued to move forward.
So the city is well aware of its untenable legal position here. Even the city council has expressed seeious concerns. They know. It's not a secret. So challenge these tickets whenever you think you have a valid legal claim. And in my opinion, the lack of effective notice relative to street sweeping violations is just such a situation.
One final thing just to be clear. No one is arguing against street sweeping. Everyone understands the need to clear vehicles to facilitate it. Just put up some signs, please. That isn't just the fair (and constitutional) thing to do, it is the most effective thing to do, as it would facilitate compliance far more effectively than the current approach. If you want people to follow a rule, give them reasonable notice of it. You'd be amazed by what you can accomplish that way.
Alrad (Rehistradong User)
Parking Department Malden (Beripikadong Opisiyal)
In addition to flyers on every car, we also visited every single home and left the street sweeping schedule there. This is of course in addition to the various ways we use social media and proactive notification systems to inform residents. I understand that whether this constitutes proper notice is subjective. That said, our intent as a newly formed parking department to put forth a proposal soon dealing with the topic of signage relative to street sweeping.
While you are correct on the requirements of MGL c. 90 s. 20A relative to the first ticket, the City of Malden (like many larger cities) has adopted MGL c. 90 s. 20A1/2. The language in that statute is
quite different.
Ghazi (Rehistradong User)
It is NOT subjective. There is a large body of case law. And the practice is in direct violation of clearly established and consistent legal precedent. That precedent forbids exactly this sort of practice. Street by street designations that are not posted violate the substantive due process protections of the US Constitution. It's NOT a close call. It's black and white. And the city knows it.
As far as whether we are a 20A or a 20A 1/2 jurisdiction, that's VERY interesting. In fact, I repeatedly asked the city which was applicalble over two years ago and was never provided an answer. I asked because the city specifically cited the 20A one annual abatement rule, and used it to deny an appeal, prior to me being forced to file the suit I won. Absent an answer to the contrary to the very simple question I had asked, the only reasonable conclusion was that we were a 20A jurisdiction. Again, the city SPECIFICALLY RELIED on the 20A language in denying my appeal. I have it in black and white. And NOW you're telling me that that isn't the statute that applies -- after your hearings officer relied on it and forced me to file a claim in superior court? Wow. That's absolutely outrageous.