At its January 29 meeting, the city council will vote on a new ordinance that would offer free parking permits for recreational vehicles for up to 144 days a year for a resident, 18 days for an out of town visitor. According to the draft proposal, the new law is intended to respond to "an increase in complaints regarding the parking and /or storage of Oversized Vehicles."
As one who's complained about how often
they've put my safety at risk by blocking the view of oncoming traffic
on side streets, my response to the proposed law is, don't do me any
Eliminating permanent RV parking will definitely be a big
improvement. But this proposal will wind up being costly to taxpayers
and is weakened by attempting to accommodate motor home owners. It
be better to start over again.
Here are its two major problems.
1. Parking permits will allow a resident to park an oversized vehicle
for four periods of up to 72 hours per calendar month, making it
possible for an RV to be parked in front of an owner's house every
weekend year-round. Out of town guests of residents may be granted
permits for up to six periods per year of up to 72 hours each, an
additional 18 days, bringing the yearly total to 162 days of allowable
curbside parking. City streets may become slightly safer for drivers and
less trashy by getting rid of permanent parking, but the visual blight
2. Among the reasons listed for denying a parking permit for up to
one year include a two-strikes provision that penalizes an applicant who
has violated the parking time limits two or more times, as well as
out-of-town visitors who are "not a guest of the applicant." There's no
definition of who qualifies as a "guest."
The new law will either
increase the burden on compliance code officers or will be left mostly
unenforced, creating more of the complaints city leaders want to reduce. I'm guessing it will be the latter, since permits will be free and
the cost of assuring compliance has not been addressed. Stepping up
compliance enforcement without a parking permit fee is likely to mean
the costs will be borne by city taxpayers.
Although the ordinance is well-intentioned, it's far too lenient to
make much of a difference to those who share my complaints about RV
parking. Seems to me the hulking eyesores will continue to be as
obstructive and detrimental to the attractiveness of the city's
neighborhoods as they are now.
Here's the link to the draft proposal to see for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/bd7ry6z