Postal workers continue to get ticketed for a ‘violation’ that a lawyer contends doesn’t exist on the books.
The sun is high, and the RBC students who drive themselves to school are away, meaning long stretches of Hudson Avenue have no cars parked at the curb.
But the doldrums of summer haven’t stopped what a local attorney contends is the unlawful issuance of tickets to Postal Service workers who park their cars on the residential street.
Bill McCarter, of the firm McCarter & Higgins on Drs. Parker Boulevard, has filed suit in state Superior Court in Freehold asking a judge to order Red Bank to stop issuing tickets for a violation he says doesn’t exist in borough ordinances.
The ordinance that’s cited on the tickets “has nothing to do with parking on residential streets,” McCarter wrote in a complaint submitted to the court this week. “Despite the posted signs, there is no ordinance in the Borough of Red Bank restricting parking on any residential street to residents only.”
The lawsuit is the latest element of McCarter’s assault on an ordinance amendment adopted by the borough council earlier this year at the behest of what McCarter says in the suit was a few residents who “complained to the governing body that non-residents were parking in front of their homes, which for reasons unknown offended them.”
McCarter says the amendment was unconstitutionally tailored to benefit one group of citizens over all others. Or, to be more accurate, he says it would do that, if it actually reflected the council’s intent. McCarter contends that all it does is allow residents to obtain stickers for their cars, without prohibiting anyone else from doing anything.
“It doesn’t say anything about people not having a permit not being allowed to park on” streets with so-called resident-only parking, McCarter tells redbankgreen. Nor does any other ordinance, he claims.
Back in May, Red Bank Judge William Himelman dismissed a ticket issued to McCarter’s client, Tai Troung, a postal worker. At the time, it was unclear why Himelman ruled as he did — he gave no immediate explanation. But after McCarter interpreted the dismissal as a possible ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance establishing permit parking, the borough sought a clarification. Himelman responded with a letter saying he’d shot down the ticket because it cited the wrong ordinance.
The ordinance cited on Truong’s ticket, 8-2.6, pertains to paid parking permits. Hudson Avenue residents can obtain permits for free.
McCarter says there is no other ordinance on the books that would make it illegal for someone to park on a street where the borough allows residents to obtain parking permits.
(McCarter also contends the borough isn’t even following its own laws, issuing permits on request to Hudson residents without requiring any proof that they have no parking available on their own property, as the ordinance requires. The homes on Hudson, he says in the lawsuit, “almost universally have on-site parking space[s],” and thus wouldn’t qualify for permits.)
Given that McCarter won Truong’s case at municipal court, why is he suing? Because Truong, he says, received an identical ticket just six days after the first one was dismissed. McCarter says the borough court would not dismiss the second summons over the phone, so he had to make another trip to the weekly cattle call known as municipal court to get the summons dismissed.
Truong, McCarter says in the lawsuit, has been wronged by the two “unfounded” summonses and faces the prospect of more unless Red Bank is ordered by the Superior Court to stop issuing them.
McCarter also contends that on June 26, at least three other postal workers had their cars ticketed solely for violations of 8-2.6.
More broadly, the lawsuit is McCarter’s effort to overturn the resident parking concept on constitutional grounds. He contends there is no state statute allowing towns to enact resident-only parking laws, and even if there were, he writes,
…the right to use the public highways is a right available to all the public, and not just the persons who resident adjacent to such highways. Accordingly, any such ordinance would be a violation of the public trust doctrine under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
Red Bank Borough Attorney Tom Hall tells redbankgreen he has not had a chance to closely study the Truong lawsuit, and declined to comment on its particular assertions.
On the general issue, though, he tells redbankgreen that while the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of municipalities to create resident-only parking zones, “no New Jersey court has ever specifically ruled on the issue” of whether they’re allowed under the state constitution.
Here’s the ordinance that started this dispute: Download hudson_permits.pdf
Here’s Himelman’s letter explaining his dismissal of the first Truong ticket: Download HimelmanOpinion.pdf
Here’s the complaint McCarter filed against the borough this week: Download complaint_truong_red_bank.pdf
And here’s the text of 8-2.6 as we found it at General e-code, a municipal law database:
(A 2006 amendment created a 30-day permit available for $100.)
How many of my tax dollars are going to pay for this because a bunch of numb nuts are pandering to some residents who do not want to share their street with the rest of the community? I hope all the costs associated with this special interst project get charged to the residents that benefit from it. I personally like getting my mail, and wish my postal carrier to have a parking space while doing the job.
We can't thank Mr Mc
Carter with all his help.
We felt it was illegal with the Resident Permit Parking only but we did not have the knowledge or access to the information that a lawyer has. We felt something had to be done or otherwise the whole town would be permit parking only. Thank you again..Red Bank Postal Worker.
Red Bank Borough Attorney Tom Hall tells redbankgreen he has not had a chance to closely study the Truong lawsuit, and declined to comment on its particular assertions.
Maybe he is checking out whether he represents a resident on Hudson first (for a change).
How about a little civil disobedience??? Someone should just remove the signs. Pat & Co will get the message soon enough
Another two bit town trying to intimidate outsiders from parking lawfully on the streets. Red Bank is going to loose big time with this one. Short of handicap parking, towns cannot "reserve" parking for anyone. Bill McCarter is a very through individual who does his homework. Hopefully he will make short work of this.
Very interesting. I see residential parking zones in places all over the state…actually all over the country. Are they all illegal? Do we live in a "two bit" state in a "two bit" country?
The idea in certain areas (Red Bank and beyond) is clearly to deter people from parking and going off to work for the day. As long as Red Bank can demonstrate that people are actually parking on the street in order to go to work, I don't see a reason for the sign. But people clearly do park in these spots and go off to work for the day. The sign is a no-brainer.
Employers have the burden of making sure that parking is available (not necessarily paid for, but available) for their employees. This is not the burden of Red Bank or any other town….."two bit" or not. This is just the way it works.
And in this case, the residents of Red Bank are the customers of the US Post Office. Since when do customers provide parking for the service providers? Is it not supposed to be the opposite?
Bill McCarter might be a very "through individual", (whatever the hell that means) but he is also a pain in the ass. The idea that a town can not grant the wishes of the tax payers who pay for the paving and maintenance of the road makes for a wishy-washy case at best. He is fighting a concept that is accepted nationwide. It would be better if Billy went flew his flag somewhere else. Perhaps his energy would be better spent fighting for a real cause.
I don't have an issue with the Post Office or their employees. I just think they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. And anybody who thinks that people park in front of their house to go to work should petition their town or city for a "Residential Parking Only" sign
A real interesting post from Mike who not only makes up new rules as he writes but contradicts himself as well. You "don't have an issue with the Post Office or their (sic) employees", and want them "held to the same standards as the rest of us". Exactly my friend. The rest of us who are hip Red Bankers CAN park on Hudson. Saying they can't holds them to a totally different standard.
And when did employers take on the responsibility of providing parking for their employees. Do the Wall Street firms know this? How about Chase Bank on Broad Street? That's not "two bit" That's ridiculous. And here is the big awakening, Mike: the customers of any business pay for and provide EVERYTHING in that business. Without the customers, there IS no business.
Finally, yes; New Jersey has become a two bit state. We're billions in debt, riddled with corruption throughout the government, one of the most expensive and crowded places in the US to live (with mediocre services), and a place far more businesses want to leave than come to. Oh . . . yes . . . most of the parking zones are probably illegal but most folks aren't willing to spend the time and money to take it through the courts. Parking is probably not much of an issue in un-hip towns.
First off Padrone, terrific job twisting my words. Too bad you never accepted that job working on the Clinton campaign. You would have fit in like a pea in a pod. Clearly the standards I was writing about was the standards that most of us deal with when going to work. But I guess you can bend and twist it as you please. When I go to work, I either need to take public transportation or pay to park. And yes, Wall Street firms set up shop where these options are readily available. Albeit, parking can be $375 a month.
And I did not graduate from the University of Dumb Shit. I understand the elementary concept that customers provide everything for the business in terms of dollars and cents and sometimes even more. But save the plumber with his ass hanging out who you let park in your driveway, customers do not provide parking for businesses. Twist away again if you so please.
As for the Garden State, I agree that much is left to be desired. I really thought we had turned the corner when the DMV became the MVC. But it looks like everything is going to hell again. Maybe if Corzine can manage to sell of the Parkway and Turnpike, the foreign buyers will make it all snazzy and people from Michigan won't think the "what exit?" joke is so funny. And have you seen the new double-decker New Jersey Transit trains with the air conditioning units that actually work?…maybe there is hope?
Too bad the news cycle is so packed (Presidential Campaign, a crazy dictator in Iran lobbing missiles at camels, government sponsored entities nearly broke, Jesse Jackson's big mouth, dolphins in the Navesink) because the widespread use of illegal residential parking rules could be worthy of joint congressional hearing. All the populists could use this as way to make a name for themselves. Mayors from all corners of our "two bit" country would be pulling into the Beltway to testify: "Mayor Menna, what did you know about that sign on Hudson and when did you know it?"
Finally, I am not sure if Chase has employee spots near their rear entrance or not. Please go check on that and get back to me on the hop. And when you go, feel free to park on Hudson Street.
Mike,
I would disagree with you about who the pain in the ass is…I would put that crown on the fool who started this mess w/ his NIMBY request.
Most, if not all of the homes on Hudson street have driveways that accommodate two or more vehicles, the postal employees do not take up the entire street so I'm at a loss to understand what the big deal is. Most of the residents are at work and the ones that are not can park on the street if the wish. I think that if the residents have such a huge problem with it, then all of you park on street, that would stop it. But to the one who first started this baloney, thanks for spending our borough dollars on such trivial bullshit
Your point about the employees not taking up the entire street obviously was made without thinking. Most people who see a sign that read "Residential Parking Only - Permit Required" have the common decency to not park on the street. As soon as you take down that sign, some people who once paid $50 to park in one of the Borough lots, will simply park on Hudson instead. If you don't think this will happen, you are on dope. And when that happens, the few people who do not have driveways will not have a place to park. It's "Trivial Bullshit" for you. It’s a valid quality of life issue for the residents of the street.
The point here is that for any town to decide who can park where, but there must be a valid ordinance to back it up. There is none in Red Bank for resident only parking areas.
By the way, resident only ordinance have been declared invalid in places where they were passed in order to restrict a certain group of people from parking there. Since most of this is directed against the post office………..
I have a great suggestion for all the Mikes of Hudson Street who want control of "their" street. Since Mike feels that employers have a responsibility to provide employees with parking, how about buying up an extra property or two and building a six story parking garage right there behind the building!? That would give the postal workers their entitlement and Red Bank the garage it so desperately wants.
Hudson Ave only recently became a residential permit parking street, long after other streets in the borough gained this similiar status.
If there is a future reversal on this issue, via the courts or the borough, will this ruling or policy be applicable to all the other streets?
In addition, would an adverse decision reinstate the the prior 2 hour parking limit on Hudson Ave?
To SMF-
True, many other streets have long had 'Residental Permit Parking', but most not 'Resident ONLY Parking', as Hudson Avenue has become. There is a huge difference!
The other streets have a 2-hour limit. A 'Residential Parking Permit' merely allows a resident to park for an indefinite length of time.
Any non-resident IS ALLOWED to park, but is required to adhere to the 2-hour limit.
The street where I live has been that way for years.
The problem is: the 2-hour limit is NEVER enforced!
In the past, a Parking Officer would chalk-mark tires every two hours and ticket the offenders.
This has NOT been done for several years.
My home has no driveway and I have a 'resident parking decal'.
I park in front of my home, but when I go out, I may return to find that spot taken. I simply have to find another spot.
Inconvenient? YES!!! but…that's the breaks, I do not reside on 'Privileged' Upper Hudson Avenue.
——————-
Just a curious thought—
If with my 'resident parking decal', I were to park ALL day on Hudson Ave., would I be ticketed???
Another curious thought—
Almost daily, a Traffic Enforcement Officer is assigned to Hudson Ave. or E. Bergen Place.
What's with that???
To Mike-
"And when you go, feel free to park on Hudson Street."
You are very verbal about this issue, but I have to wonder
if you even reside there.
If you did, you would know it is Hudson AVENUE (not Street)!!!
I'm a LifeLongRBer, and though I do not reside on Hudson Ave.,
I learned to ride a bike on that street, long before the Post Office
was there, and probably long before you were even born.
Most, it not all, of the residents there are 'newbies'.
Obviously, they did not do their homework before moving there.
This is Red Bank…it is what it is!
Hudson Ave. is a PUBLIC street. A property line ends at the sidewalk.
MY property tax pays for it's maintenance.
What right do YOU have to say who can/cannot park there?
Be grateful, the residents are only dealing with adult postal workers.
My home is more in the heart of town, on a much narrower street,
with many more homes without driveways.
Try dealing with the obnoxious, disrespectful students of RBC
on a daily basis. The ones that park in front of your home ALL day,
throw their Dunkin' Donut cups, bags, wrappers, etc. in your yard,
then walk across your lawn. If you say something, they cop an
attitude and then you wait for their payback.
Parking in Red Bank can be inconvenient, especially for
a handicapped Senior Citizen, like myself. Don't even mention
'a quality of life issue'. If I can deal with it, so can others!
One must learn to adapt to any situation.
This issue IS trivial nonsense.
There are many more important things for our courts to address!
The residents of Upper Hudson Avenue
need to get a life,
stop thinking of only themselves,
and start showing some consideration and respect for others.
———————-
Perhaps Mike, you could answer my previous question:
Although I am not a resident of Hudson Ave.,
if my car with a ' RB resident parking decal',
were to park there ALL day,
would I be ticketed???