Opinion: Lovely Rita, Meter Maid – Thoughts on the Proposed Parking Ordinance

Editor’s Note: OMP resident Lou Santucci says there are multiple problems with the proposed parking ordinance on the agenda of the August 12 Township Board meeting. Read on for his thoughts, and if you’ve got something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb

The week of August 11 is packed full of important items, including two Township Board meetings. One to discuss the winery lawsuit in closed session, the other to discuss the disposal of Township properties, among other things.

The Board meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, has a number of other items on the agenda. Lost in the mix is agenda item 9(b) — “Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance #60, Parking Ordinance” — which has the potential for a lot of mischief and could create a dangerous situation if enacted in its present form. (View the proposed ordinance on page 294 of the meeting packet here. -jb)

This proposed ordinance has several problems, which I’ll highlight below. This proposal should be scrapped or re-worked before going forward.

Conflict of Interest

The ordinance specifically names two people from the Township as Enforcement Officers of the parking violations; namely, Township Supervisor Maura Sanders and Ordinance Enforcement Officer Dave Sanger.

First of all, It is obvious to me that no ordinance should be voted on by a person who is expected to enforce the ordinance. This time, in addition to Dave Sanger being one of the persons who would be an enforcer of this ordinance, we also have our supervisor named as another enforcer of the ordinance. (more on this later).

Initially, let me say that neither Dave nor Maura should vote on this ordinance, given the clear conflict of interest. Even if there is no benefit to either of them, if they vote on this, as our own Township attorney has written in the past on other situations, even the appearance of a conflict of interest should have them abstain from voting on the ordinance.

It might even be argued that Dave stands to gain financially if he votes for this ordinance. Dave gets paid for his work as an enforcement officer, and one could argue that he, therefore, has an interest in expanding his work load. With a financial interest at stake, he surely has a conflict of interest.

Wouldn’t it be preferable if these two individuals simply abstain from voting on this ordinance, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

Our Own Rita, Meter Maid

I cannot get the great Beatles song “Lovely Rita, Meter Maid” from the “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” album out of my mind when I think about our supervisor handing out tickets. I just do not think our Township supervisor should be going around the peninsula ticketing people who are parked in a no parking zone. I don’t know about you, but to me, there is something unseemly, if not weird, about that image.

In addition, given the potential for aggressive push back, do we really want to put our supervisor and zoning enforcement officer in a potentially explosive situation? Only a policeman should be handing out these tickets, especially if the fines are not more reasonable.

Doesn’t our supervisor already have enough to do dealing with more important issues facing our Township? Should our chief executive also be our township parking enforcer, prowling around, ticketing cars? In addition, the way the ordinance is written, any place that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) places a “no parking” sign is game for a ticket.

We have already seen a letter from MDOT to the sheriff to enforce parking restrictions on a “certain” right of way land down by the lighthouse, highlighted in an attachment to that letter. Curious that this land is near the supervisor’s property. (View the MDOT letter on page 66 of the July 10 Township Board meeting packet here. -jb)

Now, I have no quarrel with posting no trespassing signs on your property, but I do find it odd that the one area on the whole peninsula, and maybe the county, that MDOT is highlighting to the sheriff for enforcement and MDOT help in court, etc. is adjacent to the supervisor’s property. Coincidence? MDOT copied her on the letter. Would MDOT write such a letter for you or me? I don’t think so. Did she ask MDOT to intervene? I don’t know, but if she did, then there is an even clearer conflict of interest if she votes for this ordinance.

I have submitted a FOIA request to MDOT on the background of this letter and am waiting for an answer. I think Maura should withdraw her name as a designated parking enforcement officer and not vote on the ordinance. I will be interested to see how this plays out and if any of the Board members see the serious issues raised here and vote to remove the supervisor position as one of the named enforcement persons.

Will MDOT and the County Road Commission Put No Parking Signs in the Designated Areas?

This is a complicated procedure and one which I think is unnecessary. Dave Sanger has alluded to the complications involved in getting both bodies to weigh in. In the case of the Center Road situation, even the State Police get involved. Traffic studies need to be done and other matters need to be looked at.

For years, people have parked on the roadside down by the boat launch, and to my knowledge, there have been no serious traffic issues. So, why be a solution in search of a problem?

The No Parking Issue Regarding Seven Hills Could Be A Constitutional Violation

The ordinance will result in “no parking” signs on Devil’s Dive Road and Seven Hills Road surrounding the Seven Hills complex.

Singling out one merchant, as is being done here, runs afoul of the due process right of Seven Hills. There is a long-standing Supreme Court case (Nectow v. City of Cambridge) that could apply in this situation. It is one of the rare cases where a zoning regulation was struck down on substantive due process grounds, not judicial takings.

It ruled that ordinances that appear retaliatory, discriminatory, or purely aesthetic violate the due process rights of the targeted person. I think the Seven Hills inclusion is clearly discriminatory, if not retaliatory.

The Fines Are Exorbitant and Will Unduly Punish Violators

The ordinance proposes $150 for the first violation and $500 for the second. Wow! This is higher than any parking violations in any nearby jurisdictions. Traverse City has a $35 fine for parking violations. Grand Traverse County has an $85 fine. Empire has a $10 fine for first offense and $25 for a second offense. Elmwood’s fine is $35, Garfield is $65.

The level of fines proposed by this ordinance is not a welcoming signal to visitors who may find there is no place to park in the designated areas, and especially by the boat launch on Center Road. Perhaps the fines should be more in line with other surrounding jurisdictions and be more reasonably related to the seriousness of the infraction.

I know many people here want to keep out visitors and feel they bring too much traffic, but do we really want to punish people who are just trying to enjoy for a limited time the same things we can enjoy every day? Let’s be a welcoming community and not perpetuate the invisible gated community reputation we already have.

Will the issues raised herein, if not addressed, provide a remedy for a person to challenge a ticket that they receive?

I could envision a defendant in court challenging a parking ticket on the grounds that it was based upon an illegally passed ordinance unless the issues raised are addressed in a legally valid ordinance.

For all of these reasons, the ordinance should be withdrawn or at the very least tabled for additional study to address the questions raised herein.

– Lou Santucci, OMP Resident

Also Read…

Opinion: Peninsula Township Should Work To Accommodate Seven Hills’ Growing Pains – That’s What the Public Supports