A New Civil Infraction

@2 Will you guys do a story on what's in this new proposal? That's kinda vague…

As for @3, why don't they just send it to collections? Better to get some back rather than none, given the deficit.

Crosscut has a good article on the Vision Line.

http://crosscut.com/2010/02/02/eastside/19630/

#2 – I don't get it. Yesterday, Nick is against assigning new police powers in an effort to limit violence associated with panhandling, saying “you can't legislate away fear.” Today he's for assigning new police powers in an effort to deal with nightclub violence and “rowdy behavior.”

Most of the arguments against Burgess' legislation yesterday fell into the category of “we already have a law for that.” How is this any different?

You're right, the ideas come from the same law enforcement philosophy. The good news is that both ideas will be enacted and we'll end up with a safer downtown without having the over the top laws that Sidran/ Carr and Nickels wanted.

I'm with you, David.

While I support HB 3181 (hazardous substance tax), I really object to the legislature diverting the revenue to the general fund. The urgency of addressing stormwater runoff to protect and restore already degraded rivers, lakes, aquifers, and Puget Sound is clearly articulated in the legislative findings of the bill (and the governor and legislature have set a goal for having Puget Sound cleaned up by 2020). What the legislature is saying by diverting the revenue from 3181 is: 1) that preserving (and expanding) other state programs is more important than the environmental benefits of remediating our stormwater impacts and restoring Puget Sound and 2) that we should only address (and pay for) ongoing non-point source pollution in years when all other state programs are funded. This is a very bad precedent to set – if the revenue picture doesn’t improve by 2015, does anyone believe that the legislature won’t continue to pay for other pet projects through the unmitigated damage that stormwater runoff is doing to the state’s waters?

What's wrong with over the top laws? Seattle specializes in them

Licata is “looking into” what to do about people who owe the city thousands of dollars in parking fines?

Is he serious? Licata almost single-handedly led the city into this hole by leading a repeal of the impound ordinance in 1999. While that ordinance was in effect **miraculously** the irresponsible, uninsured habitual offender dangerous driving set would pay their fines to get their cars out of impound.

Thanks to Licata's “progressive” theory that every human has “the right to drive” with or without a license or insurance, the city let those habitual offenders keep their cars – and let them off the hook when it comes to paying fines.

And now he wonders how to fix the problem he helped cause.

I swear, Licata would make a great Tea Party leader – airhead populism seems to be quite popular these days.

Safer downtown? Burgess's proposed ordinance is a City ordinance; so would Licata's. We do have other geographical areas in this place besides downtown. Control of drunks fighting and throwing things at property outside bars and taverns at 3 AM: good (and I believe they do that in Fremont, which isn't downtown). Banning homeless people asking for money (who don't assault people or property) from ALL areas within 15 feet of an ATM: bad.

dude, the car impound was for moving violations. And car impounds were illegal under the US constitution it's taking property without a hearing and we lost a big court case on that. this $50 million is for parking tickets. There's no taking of your car involved in parking tickets. Different issue. Licata isn't in charge of collecting parking fines. If he is taking interest good for him.

The city attorney is in charge of this. He represents us, the people. The Seattle Muncipal Court judges are, too, it's their orders that are routinely flouted, and they don't seem to care all that much.

$50 million in unpaid court oders (a/k/a fines) would pay for lots of library hours, more cops, more pedestrian stuff. When we're cutting right and left this huge receivable is simply not acceptable.

I really doubt if Macy's had $50 million in unpaid bills they'd be as lousy in collecting it as the City of Seattle is.

Why?
Becuase the people in charge of this stuff just get to keep their jobs whether they collect or not. If they have to cut services or tax us more to make up for this revenue loss, nobody connects the dots, and so their massive inefficiency goes unnoticed.

$50 million is owed. They don't collect. what, me worry?

ple out there owing hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines?”

Wow, $50 million owed, we don't collect it…then it gets wiped out eventually….as we cut libraries and struggle to fund 21 more cops.

Good on Licata, he should really look into this massive decision to stop enforcing the laws. It means we all pay more or get less in services. If he's turning into someone who is interested in fixing things, good on him.

Why not three stirkes your out on the parking tickets- ticket the same car/driver three times and then impound. You get the car back when all of the tickets are paid. Will end the problem and serve as collection as well.

Carl – The impound ordinance was amended – not repealed – in 2004 to allow certain drivers to set up payment plans for a subset of traffic infractions (not dangerous drivers) rather than have their vehicles towed. The car of dangerous drivers and the cars of people with 4 or more unpaid parking tickets can still be impounded under current law. Licata's amendments didn't touch that part of the law. See here for more: http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up/up_180… Q13 gave Licata a list of violators. One guy has 112 tickets owing the CIty $11,136.53 another guy with 181 tickets owing $ 7,591.

As it relates to the nightlife ordinance – I believe it would simply allow SPD to ticket for noise infractions. Which is much different than allowing SPD to ticket a person who is – for instance – asking for money “while using physical gestures.”

An infraction is not a misdemeanor; it's not jailable and the alleged offender is not subject to arrest. It's the same as a parking ticket or a red light camera violation, except that failure to pay it cannot result in the state refusing to renew tabs since it won't involve a motor vehicle.

Twenty years ago, some members of the City Council proposed booting cars with multiple unpaid parking infractions, a system that works well in east coast cities (in Philadelphia, the boot is big, bright yellow and always on the outside wheel so that passing drivers see it; great advertising to encourage payment). Nice Seattle said no. So what the City Council does is increase the cost of parking and the penalties to cover the losses from the scofflaws.

Come again, LH?

“it (Licata's ordinance) amends the Operation Impound program and eliminates the impoundment of the vehicles of people who are driving with license suspended in the 3rd degree, or people who are accused of having their license suspended because of an unpaid ticket.”

Tell me how that makes people more responsible? The reason Seattle – and other jurisdictions – enacted impound ordinances was simple: without an incentive (like getting your car back) people choose to spend their money on other things besides fines. And why get a driver's license in the first place if you have city councilmembers out there trying to do their best to allow you drive without one?

The argument Licata and others made to repeal in 1999 and 2004 was based on “racial and social inequities” in society. That drivers with suspended licenses – no insurance – lots of unpaid tickets – should not be prevented from driving because of the lack of ability to pay.

The result of this misquided ideology is obvious: the 'scofflaws' spent the city's $56 million on other stuff, since there was no incentive to do otherwise.

I understand and agree with society's obligation to provide food, shelter and health car to all its citizens. But the 'right to drive?' With zero responsibilities? Give me a break, LH.

There is a simple solution here, and it starts with adopting the concept that to operate and park a motor vehicle on publicly owned streets, basic rules and laws should be followed. This country (especially the west coast) has developed a notion that driving is a God-given right; and that idea is embraced by those on both the left (we hate Sidran!) and right (free freeways & cheap gas for everybody!) ends of the political spectrum.

While politicans like Licata will always ignore the devastating outcome of their concepts about driving (go to http://www.nwcn.com and search “hit and run”) I hope that someday society will start supporting and electing leaders who focus on the cause of the problem, rather than the results.

DWLS 3 do not include hit and runs. DWLS 3 drivers have not been found guilty of the underlying infraction. The State Supreme Court awarded a $990,000 class action judgment in the matter:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/arch…

On the other hand, DWLS-1 and DWLS-2 drivers are drivers who drive recklessly, have a history of a bad driving record, or have been suspended because of a DUI.

Nick's amendments also, for the first time, allowed Seattle Police to impound vehicles for drivers charged with driving while intoxicated.

The Council unanimously voted in favor of making these chnges.

Anyone have a study that compares the ROI of the various methods of collection of parking fines?

No, the council voted 6-2 to amend that ordinance.

An ordinance which had led to an immediate 27 percent drop in the number of (expensive) suspended license cases being filed in the first year after adoption.

Indeed, the issue raised in the fizz is budgetary – whether responsible tax payers should be covering for irresponsible drivers.

When cars were seized from the irresponsible, unlicensed and un-insured, suddenly those drivers started paying attention, bringing themselves back into compliance with the law ON THEIR OWN. Our justice system is jammed with revolving-door suspended license cases for the simple reason that the city council decided to remove responsibility from those who clog up the courts.

What's the point of paying fines, when you can just tear up those tickets, and let society pay the price instead? If one actually SHOWS UP to their hearing – rather than toss the ticket in the trash – fines are drastically reduced. By showing even the slightest respect for the law, our fine muni judges are willing to repay the favor.

But the segment of society Licata and others were protecting make a habit of thumbing their noses at the law, with little or no ramifications. And great cost to society.

This is a pretty simple issue, when you get down to it: should society be responsible for your mistakes, or should you? Now that the budget buzzard has come home to roost, Licata is finally paying some attention to the problems he helped create. Not that he's gonna do anything about it.

Sorry about the vote count. I was looking at the unanimous committee vote.

Licata supports impound of the vehicles of parking scofflaws. This is the reason he did NOT try and change the impound ordinance in 2004 as it relates to the impound of vehicles with 5 parking tickets. That part of the law is still in place and Licata has already inquired with SPD why people with hundreds of tickets are getting another ticket, rather than being towed.

The old law made poor people poorer and ignored the reason why most of those that actually were suspended in the first place: not unwillingness to be responsible, but inability to pay huge fines – often equipment violations – in *full* before getting a license restored. Since the law was changed, SMC followed King County's lead. King County has chosen not to punish poor people further by impounding cars. The King County prosecutor and the King County District Court, working with public defenders and with the then county executive, developed a diversion program in lieu of traditional prosecution for DWLS cases . Seattle has now done the same. The approach now works with people who are guilty of the underlying offense to do time payment programs and get right with the court and their obligations.

To be successful in getting DWLS drivers back on the right track, and restore some semblence of sanity to the city's deadly automobile culture, both a carrot and stick method are needed.

The impound ordinance provided the stick, as a community policing adviser noted here:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/imp20.shtml
————
Leo Poort, legal adviser for the Seattle Police Department, each week holds hardship hearings downtown and at the Rainier Valley community service center. Poort has seen 360 drivers pay old tickets and become eligible to drive legally in the first 2 1/2 months of the impoundment program, and believes people are being motivated to clear up records that have been haunting them for years.

“For every hardship I see, I see more cases where the driver has had a license suspended for many years and made no attempt to deal with it,” Poort said. “I've had more than one person say to me, 'This forced me to do what I needed to do.'”
——————–

Shortly after social injustice complaints came in re. the impound ordinance, the city and muni court set up an excellent re-licensing program, targeted to areas which had a high rate of un-licensed drivers.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/defenseupdates/…

That would be the carrot.

Lots of resources, reminders and incentives – and lots of ways to come into compliance with basic laws which affect the safety of our community.

But the loud group of activists ignored all the good things the city was doing, because actual redress of grievances is NOT what they were interested in. (fighting a decades-old civil rights battle is a lot less dull) And the self-appointed activists certainly weren't interesting in getting drivers to be more responsible and safe with the way they drive.

Licata knew about the successes of the re-licensing project. He and other councilmembers knew you REALLY have to want to miss a court date to miss a court date. And you really HAVE to want to avoid paying a fine thanks to a very liberal payment plan. (traffic fine = $70 / latest mall fashion piece from large corporation = $150)

But Licata went right along with the loud, irrational voices – completely ignoring Seattle's progressive policies, and repeating the same tired old 1960's pablum about “fighting the man.”

Great for populist political gain, ala Glenn Beck. Bad for community safety, and communitarian ideals.

While you're at it, LH, why don't you start apologizing for the de-regulation of handguns. Afterall, more young people die via automobile accidents than guns each year. And those driving with suspended licenses are 2-3 times more likely to injure or kill than responsible motorists.

It is often the people who get parking tickets who are uninsured drivers, must be a certain insensitive streak that lazy drivers and uninsured drivers have in common.