Street Sweeping Ticket - but no Street Sweeping?

[JeffeVerde]

(in Azusa, California)

At the start of the year, Azusa implemented a "beautification program" where every street is to be swept once a week. I work from home, and I see parking enforcement out writing street sweeping tickets twice a week (opposite sides of the road are done on different days). But I've yet to see a street sweeper on my street, and I've seen the same trash in the gutter for at least two weeks running, so I'm quite certain sweeping isn't being done weekly or even bi-monthly.

Where a sign is posted -

No Parking
Street Sweeping
(day)
(time period)

is a ticket valid if the street is never actually swept? It would seem that just as the "No Parking" is constrained by the stated day of week and time period, it should also be constrained by the stated purpose. Wouldn't this be akin to enforcing a "when children are present" speed zone when there are no children present?

California - What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JeffeVerde

(in Azusa, California)

At the start of the year, Azusa implemented a "beautification program" where every street is to be swept once a week. I work from home, and I see parking enforcement out writing street sweeping tickets twice a week (opposite sides of the road are done on different days). But I've yet to see a street sweeper on my street, and I've seen the same trash in the gutter for at least two weeks running, so I'm quite certain sweeping isn't being done weekly or even bi-monthly.

Where a sign is posted -

No Parking
Street Sweeping
(day)
(time period)

is a ticket valid if the street is never actually swept? It would seem that just as the "No Parking" is constrained by the stated day of week and time period, it should also be constrained by the stated purpose. Wouldn't this be akin to enforcing a "when children are present" speed zone when there are no children present?

California - What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Yes, the ticket is valid.

[I_Got_Banned]

Street sweepers are expensive... So maybe they're trying to generate enough revenue so that they can buy the sweepers first and then they'll get to the actual sweeping part!!!

Also, I would think that a street sweeper might not be able to dig trash out of the gutter depending on how deep that gutter is and/or what angle the brushes are set to.

And to add to Zigner's response, even if the street sweeper was done sweeping for the day, you are in violation and you might get cited if you park in that zone during the time stated on the sign.

[JeffeVerde]

Can you point me towards any supporting documentation? Not to be argumentative, but if the "street sweeping" part of the No Parking sign is irrelevant, by the same rational, couldn't an officer ticket cars any day of the week, because the date and time period are irrelevant too?

Originally Posted by Zigner

Yes, the ticket is valid.

Banned - I suspect the city wide posting of Street Sweeping No Parking signs was more about revenue than beautification. I walk my dogs down the same street every day and from identifiable debris both in the gutter and on the street, I'm quite certain that the mile stretch of road I walk has not seen a street sweeper in at least 3 weeks.

As for being in violation any time during the posted time period -- in the city I used to live in, traffic patrol actually drove just ahead of the sweeper, and once the sweeper had passed, the area was open for parking again. I believe that's the point of purpose-stated parking control - once the event has occured, the parking restriction is no longer in effect. In this case, it appears that the event never occurs, which brings into question the validity of citing vehicles for impeding a non-existent street sweeper.

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Street sweepers are expensive... So maybe they're trying to generate enough revenue so that they can buy the sweepers first and then they'll get to the actual sweeping part!!!

Also, I would think that a street sweeper might not be able to dig trash out of the gutter depending on how deep that gutter is and/or what angle the brushes are set to.

And to add to Zigner's response, even if the street sweeper was done sweeping for the day, you are in violation and you might get cited if you park in that zone during the time stated on the sign.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by JeffeVerde

Can you point me towards any supporting documentation? Not to be argumentative, but if the "street sweeping" part of the No Parking sign is irrelevant, by the same rational, couldn't an officer ticket cars any day of the week, because the date and time period are irrelevant too?

Banned - I suspect the city wide posting of Street Sweeping No Parking signs was more about revenue than beautification. I walk my dogs down the same street every day and from identifiable debris both in the gutter and on the street, I'm quite certain that the mile stretch of road I walk has not seen a street sweeper in at least 3 weeks.

As for being in violation any time during the posted time period -- in the city I used to live in, traffic patrol actually drove just ahead of the sweeper, and once the sweeper had passed, the area was open for parking again. I believe that's the point of purpose-stated parking control - once the event has occured, the parking restriction is no longer in effect. In this case, it appears that the event never occurs, which brings into question the validity of citing vehicles for impeding a non-existent street sweeper.

From the:

MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA:

CHAPTER 74: TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES;

ARTICLE VIII;

Sec. 74-453. Time restrictions.
(a) The chief of police is authorized to prohibit parking at any time or during certain hours or to limit parking during certain hours on any streets in the city and on any offstreet parking facility which the city owns or operates.
(b) When authorized signs are in place giving notice of this section, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in violation of such sign.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by JeffeVerde

Banned - I suspect the city wide posting of Street Sweeping No Parking signs was more about revenue than beautification.

Also wanted to add that we hear that a lot these days... Almost every driver that comes on here asking questions has one version or another of what you said there...

It goes something like this:

This is more about (money/budget cirsis/revenue) than it is about (safety/enforcing the law/beautification)...

[patstew]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

This is more about (money/budget cirsis/revenue) than it is about (safety/enforcing the law/beautification)...

Clearly, it's about both. It's just a convenient squawk for someone who gets caught.

Let's not be disingenuous here, JeffeVerde. The sign was clear -- you gambled and lost. Move on, nothing to see.

[CdwJava]

You are certainly free to make your claim when you contest the parking ticket before whatever administrative panel or hearing officer the city utilizes.

However, it will be difficult to get around the part that says "No Parking" and gives specific days and times.

Unless the code section under which you were cited includes specific language indicating that it is only valid if the street sweeper is working, then it almost certainly a valid citation.

- Carl

[JeffeVerde]

(Sorry to disappoint, CdwJava and patstew -- but no disingenuity or ticket that I'm trying to dodge. I'm just a concerned citizen questioning what appears to be a micarriage of justice.)

I appreciate the reference to the Azusa Muni Code -- but that doesn't address the issue of enforcing a NoParking-Streetsweeping sign when there appears to be no active streetsweeping program.

Consider this scenario - It's 5am and a driver is traveling at 32mph in a 35mph zone - the road and sidewalks are empty. The driver passes a "25mph when Children are Present" sign, and a moment later a police car pulls out of a side street and stops the driver, citing him for failing to obey the 25mph posting. "But it's 5am, there are no children present -- or anyone else for that matter", complains the driver. "Doesn't matter" states the LEO, "the sign says 25mph, the rest is irrelevant".

Would you advise the driver to contest this ticket? If yes, how does this differ from the "No Parking - Streetsweeping" ticket, when streetsweeping is not being done? In both cases the officer is selectively ignoring part of the posted sign.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by JeffeVerde

(Sorry to disappoint, CdwJava and patstew -- but no disingenuity or ticket that I'm trying to dodge. I'm just a concerned citizen questioning what appears to be a micarriage of justice.)

I appreciate the reference to the Azusa Muni Code -- but that doesn't address the issue of enforcing a NoParking-Streetsweeping sign when there appears to be no active streetsweeping program.

Consider this scenario - It's 5am and a driver is traveling at 32mph in a 35mph zone - the road and sidewalks are empty. The driver passes a "25mph when Children are Present" sign, and a moment later a police car pulls out of a side street and stops the driver, citing him for failing to obey the 25mph posting. "But it's 5am, there are no children present -- or anyone else for that matter", complains the driver. "Doesn't matter" states the LEO, "the sign says 25mph, the rest is irrelevant".

Would you advise the driver to contest this ticket? If yes, how does this differ from the "No Parking - Streetsweeping" ticket, when streetsweeping is not being done? In both cases the officer is selectively ignoring part of the posted sign.

OK, then how about this... You find a code that says that the street sweeper has to be out or that sign is unenforceable. Until then, I suggest that you not park on that street during the times that the sign says "No Parking"...

If you choose to do otherwise and WHEN... Notice I said "when" not "if"... you are cited, contest your citation by using the same argument that you're using here... Oh, and make sure you take your checkbook with you.

Its funny how you're complaining about this now and yet when the city council was holding hearings about this same matter, and I am sure they did, you were nowhere to be found.

If you're that concerned about your community then have a voice, and make sure it is heard... Instead of complaining about the fact after the laws are enacted and the signs are put up!

Even after the fact, you are within your rights to go to City Hall and complain about this "injustice"... Tell them you either see street sweeper or you want the signs taken down... See where that gets you!

Good luck!

[Zigner]

The verbiage referring to the street sweeping is informational. The regulatory portion of the sign is what matters.

Your analogy to the school zone is inappropriate as you are comparing apples to oranges.

[Jim_bo]

DAMNIT!!! This sucks!!! I'm agreeing with Zigner twice in one day!!

He is right, you are comparing apples to oranges. The 25 mph school zone specifies "when children are present" in the statute. According to the local ordnance, they can prohibit parking at their whim.

What you have is not a legal issue, rather it is a political issue. It would be best argued at a city council meeting.