Public comments for: Standardizing Fines for Street Cleaning Parking Violations

Comments

Comment:
I concur with mostly all of what Mr. Mark S. Travistky states. I wish to further OBJECT to this new rule because it puts a big burden on the average motorist who already receives far too many unfairly issued parking tickets. So instead of lightening the load for the average New Yorker, DOF, through this rule-making, is knocking that person down - instead of helping them up. I object further because DOF has misrepresented their position by saying its a "standardized" fine. This COULD BE TRUE if everyone's ticket for an alleged violation of code 21, street cleaning rules, was $65. But when DOF has different schedules of fines, namely, for those in the stipulated fine program, who pay only $20- instead of $65- the fines are not standardized at all. In fact, the disparity deepens with these changes. Unfortunately, the DOF today is not the DOF it once was and as we all know, it is a matter of public record that even former Commissioner Stark, is litigating against DOF for unfair property tax formulas that your administration promised to resolve six years ago - but has not done so. For all of these reasons - and others - I therefore respectfully submit my opposition to this proposed rule. Respectfully submitted, Glen Bolofsky.
Agency: DOF
Comment:
The STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE adduces no logical, impelling, or credible justification for the rule-- 1. The STATEMENT declares: "There is a need for greater enforcement to clear vehicles from these parking zones in Northern Manhattan and the other four boroughs in New York City to permit efficient and effective street cleaning." But DSNY’s Annual Reports describe street cleanliness as improving nonstop: DSNY's 1999 Annual Report states, "...Fiscal Year 1999 was a record-breaking year for street cleanliness. Eighty-seven percent of the City's streets were rated acceptably clean...." Fast-forwarding to the 2018 Annual Report, "...Continuing to provide clean streets, this year we achieved a 95.1% average cleanliness rating..."! 2. The STATEMENT declares: "...Between Fiscal Years ('FY') 2016 and 2018, 94% of street cleaning parking summonses issued by DSNY were for violations that occurred outside of the Restricted Area and were only issued to vehicles that were preventing street sweeping operations...": (A) "Between 2016 and 2018" means FY 2017; why not just write that? (B) How could a street cleaning parking summons be issued outside the Restricted Area for a reason other than an alleged street cleaning parking violation? (C) Why does DSNY appear to be the only agency authorized to issue street cleaning parking summonses? (D) Why is there no information to validate contrasting summonsing statistics between street cleaning rules mileages in the higher-fines Restricted Area and the lower-fines areas of comprising the rest of the city? The higher-fines area is much smaller, and the expected issuances there would be much smaller than issuances in the greater area of the rest of Manhattan and the other boroughs. 3. The STATEMENT declares: "...Over time, the number of street cleaning parking summonses that DSNY issued has increased, from 189,000 in FY 2015 to 323,000 in FY 2019, a 71% increase...." But the numbers of street cleaning parking summonses issued by DSNY, as well as by all other authorized agencies, are meaningless in isolation. What matters is whether there is a need for greater enforcement as determined by data that aggregate street cleaning parking summonses ultimately sustained following hearings and appeals, plus summonses settled without requests for hearings, plus summonses otherwise allowed by recipients to stand uncontested. 4. The STATEMENT concludes: "Making the fines inside and outside the Restricted Area the same citywide will encourage motorists to move their vehicles out of these zones in Northern Manhattan and the other four boroughs so that DSNY equipment can operate more effectively and efficiently in order to meet its goal of providing clean streets in these neighborhoods for New York City residents and workers." But the anemic content of the STATEMENT vitiates the proposed rule, and the proposal does not even rely upon support from DSNY or any other quality-of-life or environmentally interested agency.
Agency: DOF