6/12 Can anyone tell me - or better yet point me to refs online - whether
the city of berkeley has the authority to alter the meanings of painted
parking zones. It seems to me obvious that if the state says that the
yellow zone means one thing, then berkeley can't add restrictions, but
a source of authority would be nice.
\_ http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22507.htm
CVC 22507 covers the right of localities to enact parking
regulations.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21458.htm
CVC 21458 defines the meanings of the various colors, but
gives local authorities the right to define the times.
Hmm, you might have something here. IANAL.
\- this is a total guess, but i suspect in some areas like handicapped
stuff, there would be minimums they could not go below, but i would
think in some other areas they would have wider latitide, perhaps
subject to notification. however, trying to arguing anything
subtle with the berkeley parking functionaries is hopeless and
you probably have no chance of speaking to somebody intelligent
with discretion, since the "due process" [sic] is stacked against
you here for minor matters ... bit on the ass by "de minimis non
curat lex" as it were. berkeley has ignored state law on a number
of things like the concrete traffic diverters. i think loading
zone would reasonably be something with some municipal latitude.
however if the the local rules are not posted that may be a reason-
able defense [in theory] --psb
\_ what additional restrictions did they add? were those restrictions
posted or made available to you as a member of the general public?
if there was a sign nearby you're screwed. if not, throw yourself
on a judge's mercy and see how it goes.
\- part of my point above is "you will never get to see a judge".
if you write up a "mere" letter, it will be turned down without
explanation. if you want to go to a second round, you will
probably have to pay the ticket anyway, take off another day
of your life etc. the only way you can reasonably argue a
"de minimis" case in berkeley is if it fits into one of the
well definied exceptions like "broken parking meter". if anything
if you start arguing with some Xeroxing and Stapling Elf about
"why guido calabrese would say i am right" you start feeling
like you are the stupid one.
\_ It's probably not worth any of this to fight a $28 ticket, but
seeing a judge shouldn't be a problem. Why would this require
two days off work?
\_ They claim that commercial tags/permits are/is required to use
the yellow zone for loading/unloading.
\- hmm, you can certainly ask them "what code am i violating"
at which point it should be easy to look up. i suppose
there is another argument about not enforcing a law
consistency. btw, i have seen some loading zones with
signs that say things like "only applies to vehicles with
at least 3 axels". i dont think you will be able to show
inconsistent enforcement. i think you also will not get
enough of a day in court to make the argument: "i was con-
forming to any reasonable notion of (un)loading ... the
state has an obligation to be explicit about any requirements
beyond the common sense." of course "ratio legis est anima
legis" doesnt apply to berkeley. i hope you fight this
and lets us know how it goes. --psb
\_ I hope he fights this with enough ammo and body armor to
make a good showing at city hall before he goes down.
\_ They are right. Yellow zones are for loading/unloading only,
with drivers in non-commercial tagged cars are usually
required to stay with the vehicle. There are yellow zones are
also specifically marked "commercial vehicles only." No tag,
you lose. If you have a commercial license, you can probably
get it dismissed. |