[Editor’s Note: Community activist Cary Anderson has made residential parking violations a focal point of his newest campaign. After quoting extensively at the outset from Ari Noonan’s Editor’s Essay of Dec. 8, Mr. Anderson documents his reply in lengthy detail. Mr. Noonan’s response will be carried separately.]
Mr. Noonan, I would like to quote the most offensive portions of your Dec. 8 essay:
“I understand the activist Cary Anderson’s complaint about non-neighborhood residents parking on ‘their’ streets in ‘their’ neighborhood.
“But isn’t this our city?
“What if I said, ‘You do not live on my street. You may not use it at any hour of the day. And, heaven forfend, you may not park there or I will have your car permanently impounded?’
“Who made you king of the fiefdom?
“Ladies and gentlemen, when you choose to reside within a baseball throw of Downtown, the busiest thoroughfares in Culver City, and then expect to dictate terms about who will and won’t be allowed to drive along or park on your streets, I believe you have struck an unreasonable note.
“If you lived in Studio Estates, out on the West Side or on Culver Crest, you might have a beef.
“But not if you live on the perimeter of Downtown. Then you have ceded a portion of your glassed-in privacy.”
Rebuttal Time
Mr. Noonan, this is everyone’s city, and it is our neighborhood.
You mentioned Studio Estates might have a beef if they had parking in their neighborhood. Let’s use Studio Estates as a hypothetical example.
Only a few blocks away is the Culver Center. Let’s say the city took part of the Culver Center property to build parking structures, then started charging for parking.
Let’s say Culver City wanted new businesses to move into the Culver Center. So the city changed the parking requirements. The city put a special overlay zone on the Culver Center. Businesses only needed 25 percent of the parking required for the rest of Culver City.
Let us say a small business with only four or five employees moves out. The business may have had 20 customers a day. A restaurant remodels and moves in. People dining outside are not counted as needing any parking.
Parking in Studio Estates
Inside only needs 25 percent of the requirement of the rest of Culver City. They build the building out and remove the entire previous Employee Parking area behind the building.
Let’s say the restaurant and bar business has 50 employees. The business does not want to pay for parking. So they park in Studio Estates, and they walk to work.
Let’s say the restaurant is very popular and is full to capacity with hundreds of patrons. Some don't want to pay for valet or self-parking.
Why should they when they can park a few blocks away in Studio Estates and walk to their destination?
At closing time, a hundred people leave to find their cars. They urinate on trees and walls in Studio Estates. Signs clearly state that you can’t park at the street parking meters by the Culver Center between midnight and 8 a.m.
The Attitude of Police
Police ignore these illegally parked cars every day. When they get a call from dispatch because someone complained about the 15 cars illegally parked, they show up and write a few tickets. They ignore some cars.
The police park in front of the restaurant and bar, talk to someone, then they drive back to the illegally parked cars.
An officer gets out of his car and removes a ticket from ONE car.
Should the residents of Studio Estates be upset that someone got special treatment?
Who knows how many vehicles get special treatment and don’t get parking tickets?
They put officers on overtime and write 44 tickets at the meters in one weekend. Allegedly, the overtime costs the city more than they made in tickets.
I forgot to mention in my hypothetical example that some parking in the Culver Center already was taken to build a 24-screen movie theatre.
Residents Win a Point
The city wanted a magnet to draw people. The neighborhood protested. Instead, the city built a 12-screen theatre. The city even closed three public streets to allow more room for development.
The residents of Studio Estates pay the city to do studies to see if they can have preferential parking to protect the neighborhood from people looking for free parking.
They seek protection from the people the city drew in.
Residents obtain the required signatures and pay their fees.
The City Council realizes that, at the least, the closest street to the Culver Center is going to have parking “issues.”
The Culver Center employees and patrons cannot park in Studio Estates between 6 p.m. on Friday and midnight Sunday on only one street of the Studio Estates.
The city waives the annual permit fee for this one street.
One Time Only
Parking enforcement actually enforces the first weekend the movie theatre is open. The city writes 60 to 70 tickets. After a few weeks, the city stops active enforcement.
The people on the rest of the Studio Estates’ streets are living on unrestricted streets. So employees and patrons park there.
The residents of the one street that does have parking restrictions find out people go to the movies and the Culver Center during the week also.
The city tells them they have to choose. They can be protected between noon and midnight by having one-hour parking only. The off-limits rule on the weekend is removed. They have to help out the businesses by giving up scarce residential parking to give convenient parking to Culver Center patrons who don’t want to pay for parking.
Parking enforcement should patrol and chalk tires. They don't. A person has to call.
You Wait and You Wait
Parking Enforcement shows up two hours after being called. They chalk the tires. Four hours, not two hours, later, they come back.
Their excuse for the delay: They are too busy to return in one hour.
Street sweeping tickets, by the way, make the city the most money. Therefore, that is the priority. The “No Parking from 6 p.m. on Friday to midnight on Sunday” restriction is eliminated.
This is the peak movie viewing time of the week. The most affected street quickly finds this out.
If residents want to change it back, it will cost them $1,800. But enforcement will not change.
I forgot to mention in my hypothetical example that the city had a 67-car parking lot between the Culver Center and Studio Estates.
Bad News: Lot Was Sold
This was a buffer zone for the neighborhood.
People looking for free parking would park on the lot first. The parking lot is sold as "surplus" property since parking structures had been built. The city knew that, with liberal parking requirements, new business would flock to the area.
If they have inadequate parking, they could always portray themselves as victims later. The area with sub-standard parking requirements is a great success.
Go figure.
The city is the victim of its own success?
It is not the city’s fault?
More Violations
Remember in my hypothetical example I said the restaurant had 50 employees? I understated the amount.
The restaurant had 140 employees on the payroll. The employees who don't park in the neighborhood, park in the 67-space lot for free. Even the manager, and he can afford to pay for parking.
Or he will park, only steps away from work, in a loading zone or park blocking a driveway for his entire shift.
Oh, and the hypothetical example given above is the current condition and reality right now.
Not in Studio Estates but in the Downtown Neighborhood.
Would residents of the Studio Estates be written off as a "mob"?
Would they be maligned in the press?
Would it be Studio Estates’ problem because they “choose to reside within a baseball throw of” Overland Avenue, one of the busiest thoroughfares in Culver City”?
Equal Treatment? Doubtful
Would 119 angry people from Studio Estates be ignored after learning how Culver City manipulated the rules to obtain their goals?
Mr. Noonan, since you decided to get personal by saying, "Who made you king of the fiefdom?" I will tell you that you may have thought you were entitled to free parking in front of the School Board headquarters when your office was in the Culver Hotel.
The sign says one-hour parking, but I guess that doesn't apply to you. I guess it also doesn't apply to the restaurant employee I recently documented parking for eight hours in front of the headquarters for three straight days.
The heck with someone who actually has business at the School Board headquarters.
Who Has the Upper Hand?
But then again, I am no "king of the fiefdom."
I guess I should not "expect to dictate terms about who will and won’t be allowed to drive along or park on [our] streets."
Please forgive me for trying to protect our little niche of the city.
Our homes.
If employees and patrons had any respect for the Downtown Neighborhood, it would not be a problem. The "Mob" would not be angry.
The respect will never happen.
I guess I could just do as one former City Council member said years ago, "Sit down, shut up and go away."
But… no, that is not going to happen any day soon.
I guess I should not be upset when several employees of Downtown parked for free by tricking a parking meter for more than six months.
We Are a Free Parking Lot
I thought since they got caught on video and got away without criminal prosecution or jail time, they would park where they are supposed to.
In one of our lovely Downtown parking structures.
But, no.
They can and do park in front of the late activist Jackie McCain's old house for free all day.
Driving in from Oxnard, Culver City is after all their town.
The heck with the people who actually live in the neighborhood.
We are the back alleys of Downtown.
We are a free parking lot.
I fought for years to get broken and missing curbs replaced a block from the $22 million City Hall.
The Real Bosses
The city could care less. City staff, Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Assn. actually control our quality of life.
Not us.
The President and Chief Executive Officer of The Culver Studios (a Chamber of Commerce member) flatly refused to make one of his tenants stop telling people that they could park for free in the Rancho Higuera neighborhood.
He was at a recent City Council meeting because he thought a new Preferential Parking Zone was going to affect Culver Studios’ paid metered street parking. He thought it would prevent parking overweight trucks on the street. It didn’t affect metered parking spots.
A former Mayor and the President of the Chamber of Commerce also showed up to complain. He blames residents for the problem. They should not park on the street in front of their homes. They should park on their property so that non-residents can park for free in the neighborhood. The Chamber of Commerce worried more about business interests than about residents.
Go figure.
The Meter Is Running
In November of last year, the former City Council stopped parking meters from being placed on Lafayette so business owners and employees could still park for free.
Meters on the shortest Main Street in America are going to be replaced with new meters but meters on Lafayette are not going to be installed at all. The Council also squashed hiring three new Parking Enforcement officers to improve enforcement.
Culver City allows meter feeding in Downtown because it is about the money. They could care less if there is no turnover in short-term parking. Park all day if you want. Just make sure the city gets paid. The Ccty is worried more about business interests.
Don’t ask. Don’t tell.
Culver City has not asked employers where their workers are parking. The Downtown Business Assn. wants no responsibility for employee parking by its members.
Does This Move Make Sense?
Originally, Culver City was going to pay from $50,000 to $90,000 for a parking study of Downtown. The cost has grown to more than $200,000.
The Council raised parking ticket fines city-wide last November to make an extra projected $205,000 per year, without any additional enforcement or officers.
But the city may get a $200,000 parking study to tell them that sub-standard parking requirements have caused a parking problem.
Go figure.
What is the difference between Studio Estates and the Downtown Neighborhood?
Would Studio Estates stand by and watch Culver City manipulate the rules to obtain the city's goals?
Would they allow a development affecting parking in their neighborhood?
Would they allow a different set of rules in their neighborhood than the rest of the city?
I don't think so.
Dumping on Culver City
I recently documented a driver of a heavy dump truck who drove for miles through the Downtown and Rancho Higuera residential neighborhoods.
He drove south on Irving from Culver Boulevard, east on A Street, south on Van Buren, east on Lucerne, and north on Higuera before turning east on Washington and parking on McManus. This was a clear violation that would have been citable by the Culver City Police Dept.’s Commercial Truck Enforcement.
The driver parked a full block south of Washington in a residential neighborhood.
Do heavy trucks driving illegally on streets cause damage to the street and utilities under the street?
Last Saturday, the water main blew under the same street the heavy dump truck drove on, at Washington and McManus, spraying water 40 feet into the air, forcing a shutdown of eastbound traffic.
Damaging Our Streets
A beer truck driver routinely parks behind the movie theatre to deliver to Downtown. The driver parks at a red curb on A Street, He doesn’t use the loading zone on Culver Boulevard The driver is forced, by the one-way street, to drive his heavy truck through the residential neighborhood to complete his over half-mile circle past homes and the school.
Van Buren has already suffered a water main break across from the school, due to heavy vehicles and construction.
But I guess I should not, ”expect to dictate terms about who will and won’t be allowed to drive along or park on [our] streets”.
Mr. Noonan, I guess you “believe [I] have struck an unreasonable note”.
Go figure.
Mr. Anderson may be contacted at CaryAnderson@ca.rr.com
