The Fight Against Crime: Notes From the Front : The Principle’s the Point in Ticket Battle

Parking tickets--like flea bites--are annoying as all get out, but one of those things that people accept as one of the inevitable hassles of life in the Big City.

You get your ticket, you stuff it in the glove box, you pay it in two, maybe three months--by which time the penalty has, like, quintupled, of course. But you do pay, and you keep your mouth shut about it.

Of the approximately 3 million tickets issued in the city last year, only 5% were contested--and only 2% of those 5% beat the rap.

That’s a lot of work just to save $30, but for some, it’s the principle of the thing.

Take John Romano of Chatsworth.

Several weeks ago, Romano said, while visiting his son in Encino, he got a parking ticket as he helped his disabled wife out of the car.

Romano said he tried to explain to the traffic officer that he was blocking an alley only for a few minutes because his wife--who has multiple sclerosis--could not manage to get out of the car next to a curb. Besides, he said, other cars had plenty of room to get by.

The officer, Romano said, didn’t seem to care.

“He gave me the ticket and left. I was absolutely incensed. It was just so obvious.”

With each new development in his saga, Romano gets a little angrier. What pushed him over the edge, turning him into a scourge of the bureaucrats, was his discovery that because of a recent change in state law, he is not be allowed to have his day in court until he goes through two administrative reviews.

Even worse, he said, is that before he can get the second administrative review, he must pay the ticket. What are the chances the parking lords will pay much attention to him once they have their money?

Now, Romano is invoking the U. S. Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and throwing in phrases like “Whatever happened to common decency?” to make his point--which is, well, to make a point.

“The way the system stands now, you are guilty until proven innocent,” he said. “I never thought I’d see the day when that happened in this country.”

On the other side is the city’s Department of Transportation, which enforces parking regulations through its 610 traffic officers, the ticket-writers in gray-blue uniforms.

The catch: The transportation department is also the agency charged with ruling on complaints like Romano’s.

Not surprisingly, there is a bit of bad blood here. After all, in his anger, Romano complained to the mayor’s office, to at least one member of the state Assembly, and to various people within the Department of Transportation.

“Everybody knows him here,” said Michael Inouye, the department’s parking administrator, clearly unhappy at the mention of Romano’s name.

“He railed (at) me, absolutely back and forth.” Inouye said he really wants to settle Romano’s case--fast--”to get him out of my hair.”

The problem dates back to April of this year, when the state Legislature enacted a law decriminalizing parking tickets to free municipal courts--where parking offenders could previously demand a trial--to deal with weightier issues.

Now the law states that citizens must first appeal to the Department of Transportation, which investigates. Those who lose can ask for an administrative review, at which a department arbiter hears from the complainer--and any witnesses--but not the traffic officer, who is not required to show up.

This makes Romano particularly angry, as does the fact that such hearings are handled by the same department that issued the ticket. Inouye said the review is completed independently, although he acknowledged he controls the budget for such administrative reviews.

Finally, if the complainant is unhappy after the second review, he can take the case to court.

So far, Romano’s case is still in the first step--but he promises to take it all the way if he has to. All the way to Municipal Court.

Or maybe higher, judging by his anger.