Police: Repeal 'outdated' parking law
Article History
There are updates to this article.

BURLINGAME (Map, News) - Police are calling a long-standing city ordinance that has prevented overnight parking on city streets “outdated” and want it banished by the Burlingame City Council tonight.

The approximately 30-year-old ordinance prevents any car from being parked on a city street or alley between 2 and 6 a.m. The law is only enforced when police are called in, according to a report by Sgt. Dean Williams.

Police said it usually takes just one ornery neighbor for officers to be called in to give $25 tickets to every car on a street, a notion echoed by lifelong resident Gerald Weisl, who used to live in an area where he did not have a parking spot.

“People ought to be afforded a place to park at least one vehicle overnight on the street,” Weisl said.

Residents can qualify for a $10 overnight parking permit but fewer than 100 people in the city typically acquire one each year, Williams said.

Repealing the ordinance would eliminate a neighbor-against-neighbor mentality and allow officers to perform regular duties, said Chief Jack Van Etten.

Some residents, however, said the ordinance can be helpful when driving through Burlingame’s narrow streets and “a ton” of parked cars, said resident Michael Bohnert, a member of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. He said residents believe driving at night becomes more dangerous as the roads narrow even further with cars lining both sides of the street.

By Burlingame police’s count, Menlo Park is the only other city in the county with an overnight-parking ordinance. Police there, however, use two part-time officers to enforce the rule every night between 2 and 5 a.m., Menlo Park police said. Menlo Park’s parking ordinance pertains only to cars parked within 300 feet of a residential zone.

Police are not too worried about losing revenue from permits and tickets. The department makes less than $1,000 annually from the ordinance, Williams said.

mrosenberg@examiner.com  


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

2:32 PM MST on Mon., Feb. 4, 2008 re: "More solar-powered parking meters coming to Baltimore"

Examiner Reader said:
On two separate occassions the meters did not work. The first time it took my money and did not deliver a receipt. The second time it took some of my money, spit out some and did not register some, but kept it. On the first occassion the authority said they would refund my money, but it has been over a month and I have received nothing. I'm waiting for a response to the second incident but not holding my breath

249 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:20 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"

Examiner Reader said:
"This is classic SF Progressive oppression of the poor. By not requiring below market rate units to provide parking, it makes life harder for the poor living there to have the same convenience regarding their cars as everyone else expects." WRONG--this measure will reduce the cost of apartments by $50,000-$80,000. That's a big chunk of change, especially for the poor, and above all for those who can't afford cars in the first place. Why should the government FORCE you to buy a parking space when you don't want one? All this rule is give you FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

179 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:15 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"

Examiner Reader said:
Right on Tom, poor people don't drive so why not take away their parking. You progressives give me the creeps. The minimum is ONE parking space for every FOUR units of housing and you want to take that away. Tom, you and Peskin need to Get A LIFE! I bet that Mr. Peskin has at least 2 parking spaces in his million dollar condo in Nothe Beach. Leave us alone!!!

194 agree | 199 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:01 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 re: "Supervisor’s measure could please opposing sides on parking issues"

Examiner Reader said:
This is classic SF Progressive oppression of the poor. By not requiring below market rate units to provide parking, it makes life harder for the poor living there to have the same convenience regarding their cars as everyone else expects. It makes a hard life still harder. Sad.

185 agree | 215 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:01 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"

Examiner Reader said:
I have been in Baltimore for the last 5 years. I have a disability, because of which my lower limbs are paralyzed. Recently, I have found a spurt in disability tags for parking in the last couple of years. I surveyed 7 vehicles on Redwood street, and found five had disabled tag!!! I have found that some young people in early 20s park their vehicle and walk 5 blocks without any trouble, and I on a wheelchair is unable to get a parking place. Sometimes it has been frustrating. The cops cannot do anything, as long as these disability tags certified indiscriminately by family physicians. Unfortunately, carrying a "illegal" disabled tags no longer is a social stigma. It has become as acceptable as illegal license. I hope, this letter brings some sense of morality and social responsibility to those people using disabled tags. They should understand the hardship they are causing to the disabled community. Regards, Jeremy

341 agree | 361 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:33 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"

kilteddude said:
Does this mean they will stop ticketing legally parked cars? I've got 2 tickets in the last year while parked legally.

348 agree | 330 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "Illegally parked? New system photographs it"

Examiner Reader said:
DAMN IT!

358 agree | 345 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:45 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "New ticket device puts illegal parkers on camera"

Ticket Amnesty said:
Ticket fines in Baltimore are absurd....so, don't pay them. Request and officer when you go to court for your ticket+fines and if he/she doesn't show (they rarely, if ever will) you only have to pay the fine + court costs....goodbye $800 fine on $21 ticket.

640 agree | 368 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.20 seconds)