jonetta rose barras: Defanging enforcement
In the flurry of its pre-summer recess activities, the DC Council passed the Traffic and Parking Ticket Penalty Amendment Act of 2018. A compilation of four different bills, the legislation, among other things, would extend the time for paying parking and traffic-related fines, extend the period violators have to plead guilty, set a 10-year statute of limitations — rather than the current 16 years — for the government to collect outstanding debts, and eliminate the suspension of driving privileges because of unpaid citations or failure to appear for a scheduled court hearing.
Go ahead, traffic violators, shout, “Hallelujah!” I know you just hate DC parking and traffic enforcers, riding around on their little Segways or in their tiny cars looking for people who forgot to pay the meters or who stayed too long shopping for just the right Saturday night outfit.
The legislation unanimously approved by the council has adverse consequences, however. It would unquestionably defang critical portions of the city’s traffic reinforcement regimen. It also would snatch millions of dollars in revenue from government coffers.
Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt concluded that there are “insufficient funds” in the current budget to implement the omnibus legislation. He found, more specifically, that the bill would reduce revenues by $32.4 million in 2019 and $127 million over the next four years through 2022. Further, it would increase costs by $203,000 in 2019 and $696,000 over the years covered by the financial plan.
A spokesperson for the CFO said the bill cannot be implemented without a “clean fiscal impact statement,” which means money first has to be allocated. Two sections of the legislation — a community service alternative provided in lieu of paying the cash penalty, and an extension of time for paying tickets — have adverse financial repercussions. However, the section that deals with reinstating revoked or suspended licenses could take effect immediately upon congressional approval of the bill, assuming the mayor signs it.
Adding insult to injury, the council has demanded that within 30 days of enactment of the bill the mayor reinstate any licenses that already have been revoked or suspended for nonpayment of citations or failure to appear in court.
Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Look, it’s fine that council members, having heard complaints from their constituents and in the middle of an election season, are offering more time for residents to respond to any citations they may receive or set up a plan that could extend the time to pay off traffic-related fees. However, eliminating the government’s ability to suspend or revoke licenses for nonpayment leaves the District impotent, without the requisite power to compel payment, and thus unable to fully enforce local traffic and parking laws.
Ward 3’s Mary Cheh defended the council and the actions of her Committee on Transportation and the Environment, asserting that it “undertook a holistic review, with the twin goals of finding reforms that balance incentivizing people to comply with the District’s laws regarding parking and driving, and reducing the excessive harshness of penalties that disproportionately punish lower-income residents.”
Cheh said that increasingly many “jurisdictions have been realizing more and more that existing repayment and adjudication processes for parking and moving violations may disproportionately punish low-income individuals and can have extremely serious consequences in their lives.” She also said that revocation or suspension of driving privileges sometimes results in individuals driving without a valid license. “If a person chooses to drive on a suspended license to avoid losing their job, he or she does so at the risk of criminal punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine.“
At-large member Elissa Silverman was a chief proponent of the legislation, introducing the initial bill to prohibit revocation and suspension, which ultimately was merged into the final omnibus measure. “We should suspend the licenses of unsafe drivers and those who put others at risk, not those who simply can’t afford to pay,” she said. As reason for her proposal, Silverman cited a Rutgers University study that said 42 percent of survey respondents whose licenses were suspended lost their jobs as a result. Of those, 45 percent could not find another job. For those who did find another job, 88 percent had a lower income.
I am, of course, sympathetic to the plight of low-income residents. But poverty cannot be used as an excuse for not following the law, and the law should not be changed every time someone pleads poor mouth.
As Cheh noted, the optimum word is “chooses.” People who want to hold onto their driving privileges may want to choose to follow the law. When there is an infraction, they could choose to accept responsibility and make an agreement with the government to pay the penalty in installments.
The government’s decision to absolve violators or turn a blind eye to scofflaws sends the wrong message about individual and communal responsibility. Stephen Carter, an author and lawyer who has written extensively about ethics and integrity, has made the point that citizens “want our government institutions to reinforce the same moral truths that we teach our children.”
The government, in other words, may want to be careful about the type of relief it offers, ensuring it doesn’t create an environment where people believe themselves entitled to break the law with impunity. A small infraction can mushroom into a larger violation. Before long, that slippery slope has become more than just a metaphor.
jonetta rose barras is a DC-based author and freelance writer. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
.
Comments are closed.