This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Criticized Parking Permit Ordinance Pulled

Residents speak out against law that would have charged for overnight parking permits.

The Chatham  Borough Council will return to the drawing board after council members unanimously decided Monday to withdraw a controversial ordinance that would have charged residents for permits to park on borough streets from 2 to 6 a.m.

About two dozen residents came to Monday’s council meeting to voice concerns about the ordinance that would have charged residents $250 to acquire an annual permit to allow overnight parking. The proposed ordinance also included temporary overnight parking permits for people visiting Chatham Borough residents. These permits would be eligible for two-week increments with only three such permits issued per address per year.

The ordinance also allowed residents living within 700 feet of a municipal parking lot in the central part of the borough to park from 2 to 6 a.m. in municipal lots.

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

While saying that residents had raised legitimate concerns about details in the ordinance, council members did not concede that the fundamental impetus behind the ordinance was flawed.

'It's Not Going to be Perfect'

Find out what's happening in Chathamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Councilman Gerald Helfrich explained that the present ordinance prohibits parking on streets from 2 to 6 a.m. but the police department has for decades employed the practice of not issuing tickets if residents called in advance and notified police about people who had to park on the street.

“But the police didn’t have the authority to do it,” Helfrich said

That practice had generated few problems until the police department switched its dispatching to a central country facility, which saved taxpayers about $200,000 a year. However, residents calling the county center to notify authorities about cars parked on the street late at night began to generate problems for a center which dispatches for a number of county municipalities, Mayor Bruce Harris explained.

In all, Councilman James Lonergan explained, the ordinance would affect more than 50 households who consistently call to notify police of the parking.

Lonergan said parts of the proposed ordinance needed to be reviewed, including the weight limits of vehicles that would be allowed to have permits. Those limits would not have allowed mini-vans or SUVs weighing more than 5,000 pounds to park on the streets.

Lonergan also said the council should reconsider the 700-foot requirement for municipal lots and the provision that cars could only be parked in front of the properties where they are registered.

“It’s not going to be perfect,” Councilman John Holman said about any parking ordinance.

'Really Bad Idea'

Council members said they were pleased to see the number of residents attending the meeting.

“Come back to us with solutions,” Lonergan said, adding that the issues that prompted the ordinance are still outstanding.

Harris noted that nobody from the public spoke in favor of the ordinance. The mayor said he was “surprised” that more residents had not approached the council sooner about the ordinance as it was developed starting last summer.

Many of the residents who criticized the ordinance at the meeting came from the North Summit Avenue area. They expressed worries that the permits would lead to more residents parking on the streets.

“I think it is a really bad idea,” Mary Jane Dobbs, 10 N. Summit St., said, adding that the ordinance would hurt Chatham’s small-town atmosphere.

Bernie Vella, of 58 N. Summit St., criticized the application process for obtaining a permit, particularly the requirement that the police and borough engineer have to determine that there is no alternative to parking on the street.

“The only thing not being asked for is proof of citizenship,” he said.

Ian Horowitz, 44 Meadowbrook Road, said the ordinance was like “using a bazooka to kill a fly.”

Horowitz said the ordinance was “utterly misguided”  and would have caused “unintended consequences.”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?