Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Unsolicited advice
Next Post: Three Strikes Is Too Many; SEVEN TIMES Is Too Much
Posted in:
* Rightly or wrongly, lots of senior citizens have disabled placards in their cars. Taking away their freebie ain’t gonna be easy…
Hundreds of thousands of disabled people who have been able to park for free at metered spots throughout Chicago and the rest of Illinois would feed meters like everybody else under a proposal being drafted by a state lawmaker.
State Rep. Karen May (D-Highland Park) announced her idea on Wednesday — the same day Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced a city ordinance to crack down on the growing number of able-bodied people who are illegally using disabled-parking placards to avoid paying the city’s escalating meter fees, set to rise to $5.75 an hour in the Loop in 2012 and to $6.50 in 2013.
State law long has allowed disabled people to park free all day in metered spots — a benefit that dates back to when public transportation wasn’t handicapped-accessible and meters had to be fed with coin after coin.
But a Chicago Sun-Times investigation published this week found that — with one disabled-parking placard in circulation for every 13 passenger vehicles throughout Cook County — the system is widely abused in Chicago. The number of parking tickets and court cases involving placard abuse has increased dramatically, the newspaper found, with people using relatives’ placards, fake placards and even stolen placards to park for free. […]
“There’s a disconnect. Just because you’re handicapped doesn’t mean you should park for free. You should be able to park close,” said May, who expects to have a bill ready by early next year. “I think we will be creative in finding a provision that protects the disabled community and cracks down on the people who are abusing.
“It’s an affront to the disabled community that all these people are abusing it.”
Abuse is certainly a problem, but the “disabled community” might also be affronted when they can’t park for free.
Thoughts?
…Adding… Dan Johnson in comments makes a very valid point…
I think Rep May is right, but unfortunately, all the parking meter money will go to Morgan Stanley. They must have anticipated when they paid the city $1.2B for the revenue over the next 75 years that they would not be getting any revenue from the disabled. To change the law now would be a windfall for Morgan Stanley and should require, at least, a corresponding cut in the parking meter rates to offset that windfall.
Handing more boatloads of money to Morgan Stanley won’t be a great vote for anybody.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:19 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Unsolicited advice
Next Post: Three Strikes Is Too Many; SEVEN TIMES Is Too Much
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Just because you’re handicapped doesn’t mean you should park for free. You should be able to park close.”
‘Nuff said.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:20 pm
This issue is relevant for me because I do most of my driving to take my disabled mother places.
My initial reaction is that it makes more sense to have direct means testing of parking fees.
But as someone on FB noted, it’s unreasonable to expect a disabled person to walk down the block to pay for a ticket and then bring the ticket back to the car and then go about his/her business.
The system implemented in Chicago is simply not practical for people with mobility issues to navigate.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:23 pm
I think Rep May is right, but unfortunately, all the parking meter money will go to Morgan Stanley. They must have anticipated when they paid the city $1.2B for the revenue over the next 75 years that they would not be getting any revenue from the disabled. To change the law now would be a windfall for Morgan Stanley and should require, at least, a corresponding cut in the parking meter rates to offset that windfall.
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:26 pm
I think Carl makes a good point about the downtown pay-to-park machines.
I doubt if anyone wants to take this vote.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:40 pm
I am disabled and have a rightful placard. I walk with a cane and can not walk far at a time or stand for long. I also work at a building where I can park close. However, for times that I do use metered parking in a downtown setting the one reason not to feed parking meters for me is that I can not make a second or third trip back to the meter without difficulty. And I am spending money at the stores and restaurants that I visit downtown. This would be such a burden on me that I would not be able to park in most downtown areas.
Comment by IL USA Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:43 pm
Rep. May is right. And while we are at it, let’s start making Church’s pay taxes. No snark.
Comment by Bitterman Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:43 pm
Of course, a solution would be to put the boxes by the disabled spots.
May’s right (did I just say that?), but so is word - few would want to take that vote.
Comment by Thoughts... Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:43 pm
And while we’re at it - what’s up with all of the close-in spaces for hybrids and electric vehicles? Shouldn’t those be the ones that allegedly green retailers want driving around looking for spots rather than their exhaust-spewing brethren?
Comment by Thoughts... Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:46 pm
Another example of politics getting in the way of sound policy. I think its a great idea to get rid of fraud/abuse in any system, but I also believe in doing the same with LINK cards and Medicaid.
We have seen what kind of attacks come to those who sponsor or vote for these measures - not hard to imagine how difficult this en-devour will be.
If my recollection is correct when Chapin tried to make sure only those who need LINK get LINK by putting safeguards and reforms into the system to stop fraud, he was said to be “picking on poor people” - can you imagine what people will say about “picking on the disabled and elderly”?
Could be a political death sentence.
Comment by Moderate REpub Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:48 pm
I would add to my earlier post. I would pay but if there’s a way to extend the time limits in many areas which range from 1 to 2 hours on average to maybe 3+ hours. I would pay as a disabled person. It is the returning to the meters to add more money or move my car because it hit the time limit that will make it impossible for me.
Comment by IL USA Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:49 pm
Dan Johnson’s right. Which may be a line from Blazing Saddles, but whatever.
Also, I’d feel better about this if the three spots closest to the fee boxes were designated handicapped parking only. A lot of people with the placards/plates won’t be able to walk half a block to pay and then half a block back to their cars, then go wherever it is they’re going.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:51 pm
Handicapped parking is free and pretty much available where I live, so this isn’t an issue.
For Chicago, this is a bad idea.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:56 pm
Here’s the solution Mom and I have.
Charge money for the placards and means test the amount.
If you’re poor, the placard is free.
If you’re doing a little better than dirt poor, you pay a little.
If you’re going OK, you pay enough that it pinches enough that you wouldn’t get one unless you need it.
This would cut down on the number of placards, thereby increasing the availability of spaces to park.
And the revenue would go to the state, not some foreign investors.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:57 pm
Handing more money to Morgan Stanley and other financial sector companies is why Rahm Emanuel got elected.
The financial sector put up the money for his campaign. They made him rich in the twenty minutes he was out of politics.
It shouldn’t shock people that squeezing the disabled to help Morgan Stanley is a Rahm Emanuel priority. Rahm’s an honest politician. Once he was bought, he’s gonna stay bought.
BTW, is Karen Mary shopping for a job at Morgan Stanley by any chance?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:01 pm
Am I the only person who didn’t realize handicapped parking is free?
Comment by Shore Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:14 pm
I presume that Rep. May’s final agenda before leaving office will also include:
taxing retirement income
codifyng the IHSA private school multiplier in law
putting Cook County property tax assessments on the same system as the rest of the state
perhaps there’s a question of the day here …
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:14 pm
Question: Would making disabled people pay for parking or pay for placards be legal, given the requirements of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)?
Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:15 pm
- Am I the only person who didn’t realize handicapped parking is free? -
Nope.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:17 pm
Timmeh: No. Alexandria VA had a similar program and stopped it last year. They said they couldn’t afford to let the handicapped park for free at the meters anymore.
Of course, Alexandria must get the money from the meters, unlike Chicago.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:33 pm
Dan may be right, but I don’t know. If the disabled have to pay for parking, then the city is in essence creating more metered parking spots, which means metered parking spots could be removed elsewhere in the city (like the street in front of my house which was free until last year!). Dan could be right, but someone should check the fine print in the lease contract.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:38 pm
Here’s some journalism I would like to see by Rich or someone else.
I would like there to be a matrix of the retiring legislators and what kind of jobs they are seeking and potential employers they have discussed working for.
Seems like it’s relevant to know if legislators are seeking jobs from institutions with a financial stake in the legislation being passed (or blocked) in Springfield.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:46 pm
“Would making disabled people pay for parking or pay for placards be legal, given the requirements of ADA”
Totally legal.
“Charge money for the placards and means test the amount.”
Totally a better way to go on the fraud/abuse side.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:57 pm
I wish I knew more about that meter contract. Need to bone up on it - I have a lot of questions now.
As for knowing that handicapped plates/placards get free parking - I definitely knew. Around my building in the loop, it’s almost impossible to get a street spot during a weekday because of all of the placards. And I see those people…and yes, there’s fraud.
Comment by Thoughts... Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:00 pm
I’m not sure that wheelchair users will be able to access the parking meter boxes — aren’t they too tall to be reached from a sitting position?
Comment by Jabes Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:00 pm
Those darn “disabled people” get all the perks, hmmm Folks need to realize that it may take someone without a disablity 20 minutes to park and take care of their business but it may take a person with a disability 2 or 3 times that much time causing them to pay more to park simply because they have a disability. Just a thought, instead of punishing those that really need the service why doesn’t Chicago enforce the current law and make the punishment for fraud enough to discourage the behavior.
Comment by justpeachy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:09 pm
I thought the deal with the city was with LAZ Parking.How did morgan Stanley get into the act?
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:15 pm
great idea Rep. May but lets not stop there. Include city cars and lets change the law that allows reps and senators to speed to and from Springfield. May should add that to her bill.
Comment by Tom z Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:36 pm
Carl’s idea is a good one. Might consider taking it one step further so there’s one system that works in the city as well as downstate. One type of placard makes the driver eligible for marked handicapped parking spaces (the kind in parking lots, for example). Parking on “metered” streets would require payment. A second type of placard, one that allows the driver to park w/o paying a meter would require an annual fee. Tiered, means tested, or flat fee. It would depend on how much it costs to implement means-testing, I suppose.
Comment by Indeedy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:37 pm
“May — who has announced she will leave the General Assembly when her term expires in January 2013 — said she’s begun the process of drafting legislation to end free parking for all but a select group of people with disabilities statewide.”
Forget the revenue implications…when did it become ok in politics to question how disabled a person is?
Comment by Kyle Hillman Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:17 pm
The Secretary of State police were writing down the plate numbers of cars parked in handicapped spaces at Wal-Mart today. This has always made Secretary White upset, so I am sure this will be happening around the state. Good.
Comment by john parnell Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:24 pm
I think the disabled should be able to park for free, but I agree the abuse needs to be combated.
I’m intimately familiar with the current system; my mom has a placard, my since deceased father-in-law was wheelchair bound with a placard, and my best friend has handicapped plates on his cars plus a placard for when he is in someone else’s car.
As noted above, the State already issues “permanent” handicapped license plates; a lot of disabled people (or another family member) with a car have those plates.
Not that is isn’t done, but most people don’t steal handicapped plates and put them on their cars. Most of the abuse occurs with either stolen or duplicated placards. The placards either have the word “permanent” or a date on them but are hard to read even when standing beside a car. You pretty much rely on seeing the blue /white tag & symbol.
If this is about curbing the abuse, just do away with issuing “permanent” placards; issue new, different colored ones every year. Going to an annual color scheme should make fraudulent ones easier to spot. At minimum, it will require the cheaters to make new ones every year.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:43 pm
For the abusers of disabled parking, ramp up the amount for the penalties/fines. When somebody finally gets nailed with their first $1,000 ticket or fine—that will probably reduce the problem to a large degree. That is one way to make believers of the disabled parking abusers. And, “Handing more boatloads of money won’t be a great vote for anybody.”? Ahhh, I believe that I can think of someone. I just got off of the phone and told my broker to buy some more Morgan Stanley stock. Just teasing, of course.
Comment by Wilson Pickett Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:49 pm
My father was a disabled vet (RIP dad). In my opinion, all disabled vets should park for free.
Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:15 pm
The way to greatly reduce fraudulent use of the placards is to end free parking. Otherwise, as meter rates rise, so will fraud.
My friend Dan can blame Daley for this windfall to MS.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:18 pm
The people I know who really qualify for handicapped parking permit, refuse to be seen as an person who needs to use a handicapped parking spot.
And the abled-bodied ones consider it a perk.
Sick.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:20 pm
Handicapped should pay like everyone else in Illinois
Comment by Observer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:27 pm
=== a benefit that dates back to when public transportation wasn’t handicapped-accessible ===
And just how many El stops are ADA-compliant now?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Nov 18, 11 @ 10:39 am