Thanks Christine, that means a lot.

I don't dream Councilman Fulop to be anything and I don't dream any single individual anything more than human. This is why I fight my own battles and work as hard as I do for my community. There are a lot more community activists out there and we all have the choice to support the initiatives and issues that we feel are a priority rather than stick behind one individual. I think you will find Councilman Fulop in full agreement with this philosophy as well. Think for yourself and do for yourself. An elected official voting as a true representative of her/his area does not need to fool people or keep them silent and apathetic... make them believe in them. S/he needs their constituents to be active, aware, and free thinking.

Only time will tell if people will care enough to vote their conscience and elect representatives that vote in the best interests of the people.

On your point about the current directors not knowing the policy, there is only one director, Mary Spinello. Until about 7 months ago she sat on the Council arguing for a better booting and parking policy. So I doubt very much that she some how erased her memory of the ordinances. I would be very happy to set up a personal meeting between you and her though if you really think she doesn't know the policy.

However, I think what you are saying is that even those in higher positions within the JCPA don't know their own policy. On this I would not be surprised. Many people who park on the Hoboken border get ticketed by JCPA. So some don't even know where JC ends.

It is ashame that the JCPA is an autonomous agency.

Althea,

Nothing personal, really. You have to understand that for those who have lived in this city their entire lives, proposed ordinances mean nothing when existing ones are not enforced.

If Fulop gets this ordinance approved and enforced, I will give him credit. Until then, it's just business as usual and they are all part of it.

I understand the functions of the branches of government. It is EXACTLY why I am so frustrated by all of the rhetoric spewed by politicians.

Also, I'm not talking about PAST directors of the JCPA. I'm talking about current ones. They don't know the booting policy.

I hope Fulop turns out to be everything you dream he can be...truly I do. Good luck with that, and I guess time will tell.

Hi Christine,

Not sure why you are so hostile. I have both ordinances. I understand the differences. I have extensively researched them and as you can see they are different per my above points. I find it odd that past directors don't know about the ordinance since there were numerous council caucus meetings where the directors were called in to discuss the issues (I can lend you my tapes of these meetings).

You were stating the one that is being proposed is the one that already exists and you presented this in the most condescending manner possible.

If you are now talking about enforcing the existing ordinance, I'm right there with you. I would go much further than you on this in requesting a whole bunch of existing regulations be enforced, especially the safety issue of cars being parked too close to intersections being ticketed.

However, I think your anger is misdirected by thinking the legislative branch of our government is the branch that should be enforcing these rules. They lack the authority. This power lies fully with the Mayor's office. This is the branch of government you should be angry with, as I know I am constantly frustrated trying to get laws enforced.

However, for the legislative branch you should be looking at criticizing the actual merits and changes in the ordinance.

Thank you for the very belittling offer of sending me copies of the ordinances. I have both and have thoroughly researched both. So you agree there are definitely differences, this is good. That what is being proposed is clearly not the same as the one already in existence.

Again, not sure where your anger comes from or why you feel the need to be so condescending, but please feel free to contact me any time with your phone number (i will send you mine) and I can explain the differences and who/how the law is enforce and/or you can enlighten me on what I am getting wrong here. I am more than happy to listen to what you have to say because it sounds like you care enough to retrieve ordinances and understand the issues (not just accept them).

Sincerely,

Althea

Althea,

With all due respect, I have the existing ordinance on my hard drive as well as the one that preceded it. I've read both in full. I guess I'd have a little more respect for our councilmen/councilwomen if they merely enforced EXISTING ordinances. An ordinance that has been in existence since 2003 has been ignored for nearly 7 years. The JCPA is actually unaware that the ordinance exists. I know this because I have contacted directors and asked them.

If you or anyone else considers this a "complex issue", I guess I must be brilliant. They can pass any new ordinance they like, but if it sits in a drawer unenforced, its contents are irrelevant.

Get it?

If you would like to see what's already in existence, I can send it to you personally. It was sent to me directly from City Hall.

With all due respect Christine, have you fully read Councilman Fulop's ordinance? Trust me, if he were presenting an already existing ordinance then the legal department and Healy administration would have been more than willing to point that out immediately.

Also read the ordinance you posted, which specifically states that this rule excludes zones 3 and 8 which is exactly the reason for the new ordinance. Here is a list of zones:

http://www.jcparking.org/PDF/ZONE%20PERMITS%20ALL%20ZONES.pdf

The problem that exists now is a LACK of a uniform policy. People are thanking him because they are residing in Zone 3 OR the JCPA has over stepped their bounds and booted outside these two zones even though there is a current ordinance forbidding it. Upon setting their own policy, the JCPA has illegally booted (just as you point out) and then even when found free of guilt, after a lengthy battle with the JCPA and having to go through the court system, the JCPA claims the right to keep the booting administrative fee of $45.

What Councilman Fulop is doing is creating a fairer policy, extending the hours, reworking some of the system to maintain and improve the needs of residents, but also help businesses thrive. In addition, if found not guilty when booted, you receive the full refund of your money, not partial.

Even the City's attorneys agree that some of the ways the JCPA has been interpreting the current ordinance (2 hours in one spot they equate to 2 hours in a zone) is wrong.

So really this is a very complex issue and the new ordinance, whether you agree with it or not, offers many new remedies and clarifications.

I suggest that you read both ordinances. This might help you gain a better understanding of the issue and what is actually being proposed. There are a ton of articles on this as well.

ORDINANCE 03-001 has been in existence since January of 2003. Nothing against Fulop, but why is anyone thanking him? He didn't even vote on it and doesn't know it exists apparently.

It is a 3-page ordinance. that supercedes Ord. 99-179. It says that unless a person has 3 outstanding tickets and has received failure to appear notices on those tickets, their vehicle cannot be booted or towed unless they are in Zone 3 or Zone 8 OR if there is an emergency situation.

If anyone talks to Fulop, tell him that the city clerk file no. is Ord. 03-001. Anyone can see this information. Tell him if he'd like me to do any other research for him, please send me a private message.

Christine

Quote:

To your point about street sweeping, last year the NY Times ran an interesting opinion piece (by a former NYC Dept. of Transportation asst. commissioner) about the right and wrong ways to keep city streets clean: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13nelson.html

The type & frequency of Jersey City street sweeping falls squarely into the "wrong" category (wrong equipment, inefficient, costs too much, etc.).

Why, oh why is this still being debated. I have addressed this several times. The ordinance ALREADY EXISTS. Why doesn't somebody call a meeting and I'll BRING THE COPY???

This is NOT NEW. There is an ordinance that has long been in existence that states that with the exception of one area downtown and the area around the college, booting is ONLY ALLOWED if the person has 3 unpaid parking tickets!!

This is NOT NEW.

I guarantee it.

Thank you.

Sorry for the exasperated tone, but I feel like I'm typing in invisible ink!!!

It is about time. The booting policy is completely unfair and needs to be changed. Go Steven Fullop!!!

Next, we need to address the sweeper scam! That things doesn't even pick up garbage of the streets, just smears it around. I'm sick of the $42.00 tickets already, either get something that really cleans the streets, or let us sleep in peace in the morning.

I know Steven a little, and he seem to really care about our city. Lets hope the system doesn't break him down (for our sake).

It's about time. Kudos to Steven Fulop! I would have left Jersey City by now if I didn't live in his ward.

When Vega forcibly removed the proposed ordinance from debate and said it hadn't been sufficiently thought out or researched, I was really angry. I wonder if Vega, other council members (besides Fulop) and Healy had received campaign donations or other compensation from the company that actually owns, maintains and releases the boots. I'm speaking of the company you call and give your credit card information to get the boot released.

The parking authority has taken a lot of money that never was rightfully theirs to begin with, and Healy doesn't want to give the slightest bit of lip service to get it refunded to the people who wrongly paid it. How he was re-elected I will never completely understand.

Bravo, Steve Fulop!

Resolution will make it easier for residents to park, avoid booting

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/pages/f ... ce=lead_story_left_column

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/printer_friendly/5014371

An ordinance proposed by City Councilman Steven Fulop that would revise the city?s parking regulations has been withdrawn temporarily until the executive director of the Parking Authority can address the council about it.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009
By AMY SARA CLARK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Two ordinances, one to bar the city from booting illegally parked cars unless the owner has three unpaid parking tickets, and the other to create an Animal Control Committee, will be introduced at tomorrow night's Jersey City City Council meeting.

Both ordinances are proposed by Councilman Steve Fulop.

"We're still booting on the first offense," said Fulop.

At last night's City Council caucus, Mary Spinello, who recently stepped down as Ward B councilwoman to take the helm of the Jersey City Parking Authority, said the city boots 100 to 200 cars a week.

The parking ordinance would also require the JCPA to refund money to drivers who are found not guilty of the parking violation by a municipal court judge.

In addition, it would allow residents to use their residential parking permits anywhere in the city except Zone 8, which is in the vicinity of New Jersey City University, at the request of Ward A Councilman Michael Sottolano. Currently, residents' permits are valid only in their home zone.

The ordinance creating an Animal Control Committee would replace a stalled ordinance that would create an Animal Control Commission.

Jersey City's legal department had argued against the commission, saying it would usurp power from the director of the city's Department of Human Services, which oversees the Animal Control Division.

The new ordinance, which was approved by the city's attorneys, makes clear that the committee will only serve in an advisory capacity. It also reduces the number of members from 19 to 13, and creates the committee, initially, for just one year.

Quote:

Which zone is the exception downtown? I think a lot of people would find this useful if you posted it publicly. I know JC is pretty corrupt, but I hope people aren't afraid to make laws public.

There is already an existing ordinance regarding booting that states that, with the exception of the zone around Jersey City University and one zone downtown, booting can only be applied to vehicles with 3 outstanding tickets.

I have a copy of the ordinance. It was faxed to me by an administrative assistant at City Hall. The funny thing is that it's not online...it's that one section of a larger ordinance that wasn't scanned onto the online ordinance library (strange, huh?). If anyone wants a copy, or details, I'll pass it along.

it is absolutely sickening to deal with the jcpa zoombies.

well, people seems to be a very generous statement of these creepy subhumaniods enforcing poorly written rules.

if they only passed a simple iq test. it is a bitch to deal with the deep left tail of humankind's normal distribution.

i have been booted/towed many times. twice within a 24 hour period for a barely expired permit and once because i was parked on a dead end st and my car was dented up so they thought it was stolen, joyrided and ditched - the PA called the cops to tow it. i never got refunded.

now i wipe dog doodie on the boots.

life is full of little pleasures and small victories.

The zoning rules are created to cause confusion and generate money it seems. Why can't downtown be one large zone? Bottom line, we all want to park closest to our homes anyway. As far as the scratch-off decals go, they had no business asking for a license or registration. I was told and the parking authority that ANYONE can purchase those and they don't have to be residents of JC.

I've had some major issues with the parking "authority", and if anyone is organizing a class action suit, PM me.

The whole reason to have parking permits is to deter out-of-towners from commuting here for the trains to NY. That should be the only reason.

I have a major problem with the "zone system". I live right on the border of two zones. If there is no parking on my street I am forced to park 2 blocks away in another zone. When I do, I get a ticket for it. Do I really need to print out a zone map and keep it in my car? I shouldn't have to. The zones should be larger, or have more flexibility.

I had a situation a few months ago where I went out to my car in the morning because I had to drive to a meeting. A meter-maid was issuing me a ticket even though I have a sticker on my car. As I ran over and questioned her, she either didn't speak english, or pretended not to. I tried in my best spanish to explain, and pointed at the sticker on my car. She said (I think this is what she said) That the ticket was already written and it was too late. Anyone who works for the city should be required to communicate in ENGLISH.

The next day I got booted, and I called the parking authority. I was told I got booted on that street because and I quote, "There are million dollar homes on that street, don't park there if you aren't supposed to." I got extremely pissed, but was also laughing at the man on the phone, and told him that I live on that street.

I explained the situation, that I HAVE a permit, and have no idea why I am getting tickets. I told the man that If the boot wasn't removed in an hour I was going to call every news station in the area and threatened to call a lawyer...

Check out this picture I found on one of my favorite sites. How much do you want to bet this picture was from JC Parking authority? (the phone number even starts out 20... like 201)

Take note of the text of the 5th amendment of the United States constitution, a document which does apply (although City Hall seems unaware of it) to municipal governments up to and including Jersey City.

Quote:

The booting of cars is carried out in an entirely illegal fashion. The fact of the matter is that a ticket can be contested in court, so the $52 fine can be overturned on appeal if, say, the officer issues it at 7:50 AM rather than 8, when the parking exclusion comes into effect. By the way, I have on two occasions confronted a JCPA officer doing exactly this with my car, harrasing them so much that they have left off this sort of illegal ticketing, at least to me.

The $110 "fine" is not contestable in court. Which emans that even if the ticket is overturned, you still are out $110. That means that the JCPA could conceivably hand out improper tickets willy nilly, knowing that the ticket bit of the fine will be thrown out, but still collecting the $110. This is a fine that is issued, therefore outside of the due process of law meaning that it is an uncontestable fine and is entirely illegal. I would be willing to get into a class action lawsuit on this.

If you have a parking permit for JC, you will still get booted. Even if you have no outstanding tickets. I parked 150 feet from my front door, on grand street, and got booted (despite the fact that I was not violating street cleaning ordinances) because that sliver of grand street, and that sliver alone, is not part of my zone. Strangely, the zone's are not posted (I wonder why), so I had no idea that, having secured a parking permit, I would not be able to use it one block from my front door

I have had it up to here with the JCPA. Their behaviour is abusive, much of their system of applying fines is illegal on its face, and even tickets that are theoretically legal are given out in an illegal fashion. I have lived here for 6 years, paying around $6,000 in property taxes on my shoebox apartment, to fund the clown show on Grove street. It is bad enough that my taxes are, in the main, appropriated through "honest graft" and misapplied.

It is bad enough that the sewer main on Grove street predates the war between the states.

It is bad enough that individuals can literally hammer down two doors to my apartment, a block away from city hall, at 6:30 pm on a tuesday in order to steal all of my stuff, because we don't have the funds or will to run a proper police department in this city.

It is bad enough that our school money is pocketed and we run an educational system that makes Rwanda look good.

After stealing at the very least three quarters of my tax income (and I call paying people for no show jobs stealing amounting to $4500 per year, they have to screw me for an additional $110? Unbelievable.

These guys are idiots. If they stole enough to make themselves wealthy, but left enough to have a city that wasn't a sh#tpile, know one would likely care. But they are so out of control that they have to steal so much that even the basic functions of government, like preventing criminals from stealing, robbing, and killing, and maintaining the infrastructure at such a level that it is capable of removing human waste from people's dwellings, can't be carried out in Jersey city.

How long do we have to live with this excrement, literally and figuratively?

At this point, as the City of Jersey City has become so corrupt and kleptocratic that it has become not public servants, but public oppressors, I consider the foundations of my alliegence to it to have been undermined beyond the point of repair.

Make no mistake- this city government is your enemy. It should be treated as such.

For legal reasons I am not advocating this sort of action in this forum, but how long will it be until someone is brave enough to buy one of those boots that is available at Autozone as a tool fo theft prevention, and start attaching them to the JCPA jitneys? I wonder how they would like that?

Someone (although not me, of course, because it would be illegal might say that the subjects (for, be under no misapprehension, we are not citizens here) of Jersey City do all that they can to assault this tower of tyranny and cupidity by doing all that they can to withhold funding from this monstrosity, and to harass both the masters and their servants by any means necessary.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Boot law gets walking papers

Friday, May 30, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

A proposed ordinance to stem rampant booting by the Jersey City Parking Authority has been kicked to a committee for an overhaul.

Proposed by Downtown Councilman Steven Fulop Wednesday night, the measure was withdrawn from the agenda after Heights Councilman Bill Gaughan slammed Fulop for not doing his "homework" and presenting an ordinance that "didn't make any sense."

"Why should the Parking Authority take it in the neck" by reimbursing administrative fees if a person was legally booted, Gaughan argued, taking issue with a provision in the ordinance that called for reimbursing fees if a judge decides the vehicle shouldn't have been towed or booted in the first place.

Repeating a scenario voiced earlier in the week by Parking Authority Director Mark Russ, Gaughan said many people who are booted purchase residential parking permits after the fact, then show up in court, and unaware judges let them off the hook.

Standing within earshot of Gaughan after the meeting, held at Middle School 4, Fulop, who has himself been booted, accused the council's senior member of "trying to override a judge."

"I've already won," Fulop added. "It's (the ordinance is) moving forward. I'm going to get it changed, that's for sure."

The heart of Fulop's proposal called for the Parking Authority to obey the law that's on the books for most of the city, which prohibits booting unless the owner has three outstanding parking tickets and hasn't responded to notices to appear in court.

Booting for first-time offenses is permitted in two of the city's nine residential parking zones - one area Downtown and another around New Jersey City University.

Gaughan said he'd back an ordinance that permits booting across the city for car owners who have two outstanding tickets or two failure to appear notices.

City Council President Mariano Vega named Fulop, Journal Square Councilman Steve Lipski, a Parking Authority representative, Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy's chief of staff Dominick Pandolfo, and Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly to the boot ordinance committee.

Quote:

If only that were true!! I don't know about the current balance sheet of the JCPA, but a few years ago it was in the news for managing to run in the red. Think about that, an agency that should make money like it was a mint managing to lose money, and most of it's expenses was "labor costs". How much "no show" jobs, fake overtime and featherbedding does it take to lose money at the business of giving parking tickets? Given that, I'll bet they don't send much to the city these days either.

Thinking about the obviousness of JCPA's mismanagement is probably a pretty good parallel of how the MUA manages to make all it's income vanish also, leaving none for capital improvements.

I was booted on the street I formerly lived in PH one day after my Zone 3 permit expired. One day.

I was technically in the wrong, so be it. Yet on the printed sign the parking authority dork left on my windshield, they mistakenly listed the opening of the office on Central Ave. as 30 minutes earlier than what it was. The next morning I stood outside the fenced entrance and waited while a very obese clerk drank coffee and yucked it up with her pals for 30 mins. before allowing me in.

The entire setup is perfectly representative of how the PA operates - with not even the slightest regard for the residents or anyone besides their little revenue-generating schemes.

I understand for the most part one can avoid being booted, but the JCPA is over the top.

Tickets/booting are obviously a good moneymaker for the city.

I almost feel like, don't even get me started with the boot policy. And I know I'm a new poster on this name, I'm not trying to start anything.

But, who's fault is it?... It's Jersey City's for having and absolutely asinine parking policy. When I borrowed my parents car to move from one place to another I got a boot while my hatch was opened and I was inside getting boxes. Then when I got a car and moved into my new place, I got a boot the first day I parked my car outside my new place. If you just move in, it's incredible difficult to prove that you live somewhere considering you have no proof.

But that's just me. Not to mention, it's not just the $110 for the boot, but also a $42 parking ticket for parking in the 2 hour zone. The signs should specify that you can't park in the same zone for more than 2 hours. As far as I'm concerned, moving your car from one spot to another is moving it. It's ridiculous that people get a boots even the they are responsible enough to move there cars.

I haven't been a big fan of Fulop, but I'm glad he's addressing this issue. I've been booted numerous times. Once on a friday for "non permit parking". Even though I HAVE a permit on my car. You are basically FORCED to pay the fine and give up your right to fight it in court, or you can't drive your car that weekend.

Just out of curiousity, not that I would ever try to do it but has anyone ever tried and/or been successful at removing a DMV boot on their own? Or know anyone that did?

I've heard stories about people removing the boot successfully (without a blowtorch or anything too sophisticated) and driving away, but maybe all that is just urban legend.



On another note, if the whole point of having zones, two hour parking limits, and alternate side parking is so that street parking will be readily available to city residents as well as allow street cleaners to get through, how does booting cars really advance this goal? Wouldn't towing just make more sense?

JCPA's booting policy called unfair

Tuesday, May 27, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City Downtown Councilman Steve Fulop wants to put an end to what he describes as rampant and unfair booting by the Jersey City Parking Authority.

According to an ordinance he plans to propose tonight, the JCPA would only be allowed to boot or tow a vehicle if it has three or more outstanding parking tickets and whose owner has received failure to appear notices from the Jersey City Municipal Court.

Similar regulation is already in effect throughout most of the city, according to city officials - but not everywhere. This ordinance would apply a uniform policy to all of Jersey City.

"Many of the current parking regulations in the city are either discretionary or impose unfair punishment on minor offenders," Fulop said. "We have first-time offenders getting towed or booted and forced to pay hefty fines."

Mark Russ, the JCPA's chief executive officer, didn't return phone calls seeking comment, but city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said what Fulop is proposing is already on the books for most areas in the city's nine residential parking zones.

Local residents and business people can purchase parking permits that allow them to park all the time, Morrill said. But others are limited to two-hour stays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., she said.

Immediate booting is only allowed in Zone 8, an area around New Jersey City University, and a couple other small spots in the city, she said.

But according to Downtown resident Kate Humphrey and others, the JCPA is applying a quick boot before 5 p.m.

Her parents from North Carolina got booted on Dudley Street, even though they moved their car to comply with a sign that restricted parking between 1 and 3 p.m.

Though they moved the car, they never left the zone. City officials say the two-hour restriction applies to being parked within the same zone, even if the car is moved to a different spot.

The toll taken by the JCPA: $110 to remove the boot and $42 for the parking ticket, Humphrey said.