RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Before praising the enforcement has anyone considered what they are enforcing?

I parked one night on 7th Street. No signs, no visible curb painting, right permit.

Got a ticket under some JC statute about parking where it's not permitted. Took picture after picture of how barely any red paint was visible during the day, certainly not at night. Sent them in.

One day get a notice that I'm overdue on my ticket. The judge had ruled and decided I didn't need notification- despite following the rules for submitting pictures for a trial as laid out by the JCPA.

Total moneygrab, and why the JCPA should be abolished.

Honestly I prefer to see people who park in places that create a danger to other drivers and pedestrians, get points and lose their licences. Hard to prove who parked the car though, so I guess hitting them in the wallet is the next best thing. JC fines should triple though - they're way too low.

Looking for red paint on the curb after the fact, kind of misses the point.

This wasn't a dangerous spot and there was no visible paint at night. It's not just.

And I send the pictures to the person I spoke to at the JCPA after multiple unanswered calls.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Before praising the enforcement has anyone considered what they are enforcing?

I parked one night on 7th Street. No signs, no visible curb painting, right permit.

Got a ticket under some JC statute about parking where it's not permitted. Took picture after picture of how barely any red paint was visible during the day, certainly not at night. Sent them in.

One day get a notice that I'm overdue on my ticket. The judge had ruled and decided I didn't need notification- despite following the rules for submitting pictures for a trial as laid out by the JCPA.

Total moneygrab, and why the JCPA should be abolished.

Honestly I prefer to see people who park in places that create a danger to other drivers and pedestrians, get points and lose their licences. Hard to prove who parked the car though, so I guess hitting them in the wallet is the next best thing. JC fines should triple though - they're way too low.

Looking for red paint on the curb after the fact, kind of misses the point.

Prismatic wrote:
I got two within the last month over by Warren and Bay. Same cop too. One was for blocking the crosswalk( which I was over by a few) but paid up. I get another a week later in the same area for "blocking an intersection".... while my car was parked and not even on the corner or crosswalk.

bondman99 wrote:
Everyone had a first post, right smart guy? Keep your stupid comments to yourself.

radryan03 wrote:
I say ticket away! There needs to be more punitive damage to disobeying the laws and regulations of JC.

I would feel lucky to have gotten away with it for a year... the somewhat backwards reality of this is I have been subsidizing someone's (or many people's) shitty parking with my tax dollars...

Tax gaps - lets step up vehicular fines... it's a treasure trove in JC.

Toonces wrote:
This is great! Hopefully, like I mentioned, if it's changed it's accompanied by painting the curbs yellow, to make it obvious.

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Before praising the enforcement has anyone considered what they are enforcing?

I parked one night on 7th Street. No signs, no visible curb painting, right permit.

Got a ticket under some JC statute about parking where it's not permitted. Took picture after picture of how barely any red paint was visible during the day, certainly not at night. Sent them in.

One day get a notice that I'm overdue on my ticket. The judge had ruled and decided I didn't need notification- despite following the rules for submitting pictures for a trial as laid out by the JCPA.

Total moneygrab, and why the JCPA should be abolished.

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Before praising the enforcement has anyone considered what they are enforcing?

I parked one night on 7th Street. No signs, no visible curb painting, right permit.

Got a ticket under some JC statute about parking where it's not permitted. Took picture after picture of how barely any red paint was visible during the day, certainly not at night. Sent them in.

One day get a notice that I'm overdue on my ticket. The judge had ruled and decided I didn't need notification- despite following the rules for submitting pictures for a trial as laid out by the JCPA.

Total moneygrab, and why the JCPA should be abolished.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Like my post said, the state is allowing exceptions in certain municipalities:

http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... g/extended-parking-zones/



Quote:

jklm wrote:
http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/t ... 9/section-39-4/39-4-138-6

39:4-138.6 - Municipal authority to set certain permissible parking distances

2.A municipality may mandate by ordinance the permissible distance a person may park a motor vehicle from a crosswalk, side line of a street or intersecting highway, or "stop" sign. A municipality may not, however, permit parking within 25 feet of a crosswalk or side line of a street or intersecting highway or within 50 feet of a "stop" sign in a school zone during hours when school is in session.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Part of Fulop's platform includes increasing parking availability by getting rid of the 25 feet to the curb rule:

25 feet to the Curb Parking Permitted
The population growth of Jersey City has become an increasingly difficult obstacle for
residential parking. It requires proper planning to insure that the City residents can
find parking with relative ease and accessibility. Recent New Jersey State legislation
recognizes parking issues in urban areas like Jersey City and has permitted
municipalities to eliminate the 25 feet from the curb restrictions that currently exist if
the City passes enabling legislation. Similar to recently enacted legislation in Hoboken,
Steven would enact this policy at the municipal level. It will be an opportunity to
increase residential parking by hundreds of spots for Jersey City residents.

So we shall see.

Quote:

CatDog wrote:
JC really needs to make some laws to override the state law, because 25-50 feet away from crosswalks and fire hydrants and stop signs is just not practical in a city like this. And the selective enforcement makes it all the more frustrating.

jklm wrote:
http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/t ... 9/section-39-4/39-4-138-6

39:4-138.6 - Municipal authority to set certain permissible parking distances

2.A municipality may mandate by ordinance the permissible distance a person may park a motor vehicle from a crosswalk, side line of a street or intersecting highway, or "stop" sign. A municipality may not, however, permit parking within 25 feet of a crosswalk or side line of a street or intersecting highway or within 50 feet of a "stop" sign in a school zone during hours when school is in session.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Part of Fulop's platform includes increasing parking availability by getting rid of the 25 feet to the curb rule:

25 feet to the Curb Parking Permitted
The population growth of Jersey City has become an increasingly difficult obstacle for
residential parking. It requires proper planning to insure that the City residents can
find parking with relative ease and accessibility. Recent New Jersey State legislation
recognizes parking issues in urban areas like Jersey City and has permitted
municipalities to eliminate the 25 feet from the curb restrictions that currently exist if
the City passes enabling legislation. Similar to recently enacted legislation in Hoboken,
Steven would enact this policy at the municipal level. It will be an opportunity to
increase residential parking by hundreds of spots for Jersey City residents.

So we shall see.

CatDog wrote:
JC really needs to make some laws to override the state law, because 25-50 feet away from crosswalks and fire hydrants and stop signs is just not practical in a city like this. And the selective enforcement makes it all the more frustrating.

Everyone is treating the new mayor as if he were a friend or connection in city hall just because they voted for him. Now they want to pass blame for a city agency doing their job. I never saw blame on Healy for parking tickets. Complaints were made because Healy was not tough enough and now the new guy in town is too tough. It seems that more is expected from Fulop than Healy in getting things done.

bondman99 wrote:
Has anyone else seen an increase in parking tickets this week around the grove street area? I don't believe this has been enforced until this week.. so beware! I'll be going to court to fight this nonsense of a ticket.

Thanks Mayor!

duh wrote:
[quote]
mwa7368 wrote:
"I agree that it is arbitrary and sporadic but I think that can be attributed to Healy and the police chief of his admin."

It's gone on long before Healy, and the police chief had nothing to do with parking enforcement, especially concerning matters such as proximity to crosswalks. If Fulop can fix it, more power to him.

"It's not the governments responsibility to provide a street parking space for all of the permits issued, have you ever tried parking in Hoboken or Astoria Queens? You don't know what "Hard to find a spot" means until you have."

Why would you not expect government to address such a gross oversight? If there is an issuance of permits to residents that exceeds the number of parking spaces available, why should that not be something which the government addresses, if not rectifies? Just because So-broken and Ass-tore-ya are doing it all wrong, does not mean we should also. As a resident of the city, if you pay to park your car on the street, and there is not legal parking available, and there is no other alternative (like a public lot for residents), you are in essence encouraged to park illegally (ie, if the traffic light never went red, you would be encouraged to jaywalk), thereby promoting unsafe parking practices, and then punishing someone whom likely would otherwise have done the right thing if the correct provisions were in place.


"I appreciate when the city enforces these laws because despite your position of it being "deliberate and unprovoked punishment" it helps reduce vehicular accidents and keep pedestrians safe. Your narrow self serving position on the law is not in fact what is in the best interest of the majority of the citizens of the city. If you need proof of this just look through some old posts of accidents on Erie street, all the T-bones around 3rd st. The fact that people park right up to the corner on the cross streets mean that people driving down Erie can't see the drivers on the cross street and the other way around."

We?re not talking about parking right up on the corner, so dont take this argument out of context - that straw man shit is just stupid. We?re talking about someone being seven feet behind the crosswalk, which is perfectly reasonable and realistic in a city.

"Your argument about defenders of the ticketing being pulled over for 1MPH over the limit is a real stretch. 1 point for dramatics."

Thanks for the drama point, but that was the intent of the statement, to be hyperbolic, and articulate that the inane ramblings of persons such as yourself, are tiresome and foolish (though I?m not surprised you missed the point). The notion is that pulling someone over for going 1 mph over the speed limit is analogous to ticketing someone parked within 25 feet of the crosswalk, but posing no danger. So, you?re simple, without the capacity for inference. No points.


"If you want your own parking spot you can pay for one in the many private lots around the city, including Newport Mall. "

I could care less. I dont even have a car. It's the principle. Have any of those? It?s evident you take arguments out of context, and repackage them as something else, because you are unable to make an argument on terms you do not dictate. If you are so enamored with the notion of legalism, I can only hope the enforcement you desire will take effect. Those whom tend to judge as harshly as do you, will surely pad the coiffers of this fine city with compensation from innumerable infractions (albeit, all dull and uninspired, much as you seem to be) - it seems to always be the minister preaching against ?gays and degradation? that ends up smoking meth and banging male strippers. I will await your next sermon.

driverjase wrote:
Typical society response. I did something wrong, I think I'll blame someone else rather than admit I made a mistake, learn a lesson, and carry on with my life.

ConcernedJCitizen wrote:
Why are unpermitted vehicles allowed to park overnight in the downtown core?