Sheila St. Residents Escape the Hammer

Is something news when nothing happens? You bet!

At tonight’s City Council meeting there was a significant item on the Agenda – a proposal to create no-parking zones on both sides of Sheila Street from Route 47 east to Central Parkway. And not only a no parking zone on both sides of the street, but also a tow-away zone. And 24/7, not just during the 2:00-6:00AM overnight parking ban. The only street in Woodstock when a parking violation would result in towing!

This item was on the Consent Agenda, meaning that it would get swept up and passed by the City Council along with all other items on the Consent Agenda, unless a Council member or a member of the public, with the consent of a Council member, had the item removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion before a vote.

Indeed, the proposal was pulled for discussion by Councilwoman Larson, and shortly thereafter discussion began. A local property owner reminded the Council that this topic had come up in about 2000 and had been voted down then. Then a young woman who lives in the area spoke about the importance of parking for guests during a family party.

I addressed the Council on the complete unfairness of the proposed ordinance, as it struck at the segment of Woodstock population unable to represent itself before the political powers. I spoke about the financial harm to a vehicle owner or driver who parked, for example, to run groceries into the apartment or take the kids inside from the bitter cold, and who might return to find a police officer issuing a ticket for the parking violation and having the car towed ($135.00) and then stored ($35.00/day) until the owner could accumulate the funds to bail out the car. To some, a simple parking violation might result in loss of the car (for lack of funds to get it out of the impound lot), loss of job (no transportation), loss of housing (no money to pay rent), etc., etc.

After I completed my remarks, the Mayor duly cautioned me about my collective remarks about a segment of the population not having a “voice” with which to represent itself. Hizzoner has “cautioned” me on previous occasions after I’ve left the microphone; perhaps next time I’ll stay at the microphone and reserve the right to speak in rebuttal to his comments about my comments.

When it came time to vote, the Mayor explained to the Council that there would be a motion to take action. Is this like, getting ready to get ready? That’s what it sounded like to me. So I expected that they’d first vote to take action on the vote, and then they’d vote on the ordinance. Not how it happened. With one vote, the Council wisely voted down the proposal – unanimously.

One man asked if just one person could stir up such a hornet’s nest (my words). Yes, indeed, said the mayor. Well, it all depends who that one person is. Many have approached the City Council with requests, only to be met with silence or lengthy explanations by the Mayor as to why something is not going to happen.

How it happened that one resident was able to get the mayor’s ear and cause the City to expend funds to send letters to 34 area property owners, and then get a two-page letter from Public Works to the City Manager and a proposed ordinance drafted, only to have it die without support when it was time to vote, is truly amazing. Why didn’t this get shot down right in the beginning?

We can’t get a sidewalk-shoveling ordinance started here. We can’t get a Vehicle Control Agreement in effect at Jewel to protect hundreds of shoppers and employees from errant drivers who have learned they can blow off stop signs and park in Fire Lanes and Loading Zones. But we can threaten low-income residents with having their cars towed in the middle of the afternoon for parking in front of their homes?