Illegal Parking In Handicapped Spots

Since City business affects all of the people who live and work in that City, it can be reasonably argued that a City truck can park wherever necessary to accomplish that business, because the City serves the common good. That truck might have been parked there for good reason. One logical reason might be that the truck required a wider parking space, and a handicapped space would fill that need. But, since the City establishes and enforces the parking codes, it can also suspend them for City vehicles, when necessary, to accomplish its own work. Parking in a handicapped spot does not endanger the public welfare, so it should not be viewed as a terribly serious offense on the part of a municipality.

If public officials can take the time to respond to all complaints or requests that would be good for public relations. But, given the demands on their time, it is simply realistic to expect them to prioritize these matters. If a matter is truly urgent, one should expect a fairly prompt reply. However, Victor's complaint was not an urgent matter. It was not an ongoing problem. It was not even an inquiry into why that truck was parked there. It was simply a letter of complaint about a City truck that was occupying a handicapped spot on one occasion. And his first e-mail was not worded in a way that suggested a reply was necessary.

Handicapped parking spaces are a privilege and not a right. No one is guaranteed a handicapped parking space, no matter the nature of their disability--the first ones to get there get the available parking spots. Maybe that City truck should have been parked there, maybe not. Either way, it did no more than briefly inconvenience Victor, just as if that spot had been taken by another handicapped driver. As a handicapped person myself, I fail to see why this incident should cause the mayor to treat this as a matter of the utmost importance.

I'm not arguing there could be a reason (see what I wrote above), but this citizen does deserve an explanation as this citizen pays the mayor's and the city employee's salaries.

The mayor and city employee are not above scruity.

Perhaps this complaint was not urgent - neither was mine or my daughter's request for her school report. However, our city mayor and/or assistant (who has a much higher population than Victor's) did spend the time to address both - and within 24 hours.

Victor's concern/complaint is much more important than either of ours - if this mayor would like to be re-elected - wouldn't it be smart to address some one's concern? The mayor has other people working for her - she doesn't need to address, but some one in their office does.

I say vote her butt out.

And I think after several weeks of not addressing isn't making it of the utmost importance.

How come my mayor was able to address a child's questions within a day?

How come my mayor assistant was able to address my question within hours - certainly I did not expect that and also an offer to arrange an office visit with him if I would like. That is addressing your concern.

That was Victor's original e-mail to the mayor.

He is not asking her for an explanation of why the truck was parked there. He is not asking her to clarify City policy regarding the parking of City vehicles in handicapped spots. In fact, he is not asking her for a specific response of any kind.

What Victor does do in his letter is simply make a request (or give an order, depending on how one views it)
.

In other words, Victor tells the mayor not to let it happen again.

That does not really require a response, other than the form e-mail which Victor received acknowledging his e-mail and thanking him for his comments.

Perhaps, eventually, Victor will get a more personal response, but I don't think I'd hold my breath waiting for it. His e-mail really doesn't call for a reply beyond what was expressed in the perfunctory form letter he received.

I could understand that - but I thought Victor sent a follow up? Ideally Victor could have sent that letter again (and in the RE please reply or response requested) - and then write could you kindly let me know if this has been handled or could you confirm that this will not happen in the future.

I still think that a quick email back stating this has been handled and thank you - would have been ideal - but, yes, the way that is worded does not imply you would need or want a response.

I did send a follow up message!

I finally got what I wanted, a response!

The email below, which you sent to the Mayor, was forwarded to me because the vehicle you cited is assigned to the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant. I am the Back River Plant Manager and accountable for all of the employees assigned under me. Based on the information you provided I was able to determine exactly who was driving the vehicle and took appropriate disciplinary action against the employee.

I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention and assure you that this employee will not illegally park in a handicapped parking space again while driving a City vehicle. I apologize for any inconvenience this matter may have cause you and if you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Nick Frankos

Plant Manager

410-396-9814

Awesome - I'm glad that your concern was handled appropriately - would have eased you a little if the mayor did say that your request was forwarded to an appropriate party and you should be hearing a response.

I'm glad you received a satisfying response, Victor.

excellent

Find out what appropriate disipline this means?
I'd be interested to know what appropriate disciplinary action they determined was suitable.

Such actions/records even in a government agency tend to be not a matter of a public record

I'm just happy that the driver of the city truck was given a reprimand. If it's on his work record he most likely will not park in a handicapped spot again!