Bill to Eliminate Free Parking Could Help Disabled People Find a Spot

Disabled drivers face all kinds of obstacles but not necessarily financial ones. Image: Melanie Curry/Streetsblog California
Disabled drivers face all kinds of obstacles but not necessarily financial ones. Image: Melanie Curry/Streetsblog California

Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a bill that would require some people with disabled parking permits to pay, rather than park for free as long as they want. If it works, A.B. 2602 could free up parking spots for every driver, including disabled people who most need them. It could also potentially discourage some driving by people who now park free for as long as they like.

As currently written, after several amendments, Gatto’s bill would separate the idea of “free parking” from “access for disabled individuals.” It would create a two-tier system whereby people could obtain disabled placards the usual way and use them to park in blue parking zones on the street and in parking lots. But they would no longer be allowed to park for free at metered parking spots.

Some people would still be allowed to park without paying, but they would have to meet certain conditions—for example, if they can’t reach a parking meter or handle coins—and they would have to apply for a special sticker to put on the placard.

The bill is one among several previous efforts to deal with cars that sport disabled parking placards taking up a high percentage—sometimes all—of the street parking spaces in high-demand areas. “Parking placard abuse” has been decried for years, but it’s been difficult to figure out a solution in part because it’s difficult to get data on how much fraud there actually is.

What is certain is that as long as drivers with placards can park for free for as long as they want, and enforcement is ineffective, the incentive to “abuse” the placards is pretty high.

Some have called for enforcement to be stepped up, but even this isn’t as simple as it seems. This bill’s first draft called for stricter oversight by the DMV and more frequent certification of eligibility. But the DMV already has procedures to prevent the misuse of placards, including a system to weed out placard holders who have died.

Other solutions have been floated, including increasing “sting” operations, or refining the list of medical practitioners who can certify someone for a disability, or creating stricter regulations about what counts as a qualified disability. All of those solutions have deep flaws as well. Many people have disabilities that aren’t that obvious, and it’s not pragmatic to chase down and question people who don’t “look” disabled. Clamping down on medical practitioners would shift the onus of enforcement to overburdened medical staff—whose primary, and conflicting, interest is, and should be, their patients’ well-being.

According to the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis [PDF], there isn’t a lot of data about exactly how much placard abuse there is, nor what form it takes. What everyone “knows” is that there are a lot of disabled placards out there, and they are taking up a lot of parking spaces, and something needs to be done.

It’s a sticky issue. San Francisco convened a working group to study it several years ago, when the city was rolling out its SFPark program and realized the large number of disabled parking placards was hampering its effectiveness. The Shoupian program sought to free up parking spots by pricing them based on demand, but demand was difficult to ascertain when so many parking spots were filled by drivers that didn’t pay and didn’t move. Participants in the working group included disability advocates and planners, and the group concluded [PDF] that the solution was to charge people to park. But as a city San Francisco was powerless to fix the problem, because current state law prohibits charging disabled people for parking.

Meanwhile disability rights advocates have actively opposed changes in current law, calling instead for more enforcement and saying that access to parking is a civil rights issue.

“We recognize that parking is a privilege,” said Anthony Goldsmith with the Californians for Disability Rights. “But it’s a privilege that ameliorates civil rights barriers.”

“We’re not ‘Californians for Free Parking’,” he said of his group. “I understand the idea [behind the bill], that a person with a disability with no reasonable reason not to pay for parking should do so. Our concern is that this law doesn’t do away with the intent of existing law, which is to ameliorate barriers in streets and parking facilities for people with disabilities.”

He pointed out that many cities still have old parking meters that require coins and lack curb cuts that allow people to more easily reach meters. The bill was amended in part in response to similar critiques, and Assemblymember Gatto has said that he is committed to working with interested groups to craft a bill that works for everyone. Goldsmith acknowledged that “conceptually, it could work, as long as the categories of those who continue to get this privilege are broad enough to not negatively impact people with disabilities.”

“I think it’s going in a good direction at this point,”  he said. “Hopefully we’ll come to a resolution.”

The first draft of Gatto’s bill would have allowed local jurisdictions to eliminate the free parking after a public process, but that would have created a patchwork of confusing local differences. Now, with the creation of a two-tier system, the bill comes closer to practices that have met with some success in Illinois and Michigan. Even so, it’s not a silver bullet. San Francisco recognized that, in addition to eliminating free parking, it would need to increase the number of blue parking zones to make sure there was enough parking for people who need it. And a two-tier system may be just as ripe for abuse as the existing one, especially if one of the problems is counterfeit placards.

In addition, it will be tricky to find the sweet spot between being too restrictive and too broad. Too restrictive, and some disabled people will be severely affected. Too broad, and there isn’t much difference between a two-tiered system and the current one.

A.B. 2602 passed the Assembly Transportation Committee on Monday with ten votes in favor and none opposed.

 

  • Indeed, the disabled are some of the biggest beneficiaries of bike infrastructure. Unfortunately, several types of CA bikeways are defined by law as being exclusively for use by bicyclists.

  • neroden

    You mean shame on Anthony Goldsmith? Agreed.

    Good for Mike Gatto.

  • neroden

    In Portland they have a special “even more disabled” placard which means “I cannot use the parking meter”.

    Normal disabled placards can park in the handicapped spaces but must pay the meter. They still get extra time IIRC.

  • neroden

    My girlfriend has a permanent parking placard because of severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. She has enough money she can afford to pay for parking.

    It doesn’t do any good if all the handicapped spaces are blocked. It’s very important to charge money for the parking spaces so we can actually park next to our destination. This is true nationwide.

  • Len Conly

    If being unable to afford the meter price is an issue, people with low incomes could logically apply for a placard allowing them to park for free at metered spaces. The important thing is to insure that disabled have priority in spots that ensure less walking to a destination.

  • Stvr

    Shame on this “disability advocate” for completely misunderstanding how to get his constituents what they need

  • hyllas

    When I was temporarily disabled (in a walker) I got a short-term placard. It was nearly useless, except in the lots where there was an attendant directing people. There was always a handicapped spot available at those lots. I think that kind of says it all. I would have been happy to pay for a spot if I could have gotten one.

    Once I was able to hobble around a bit better I went back to riding my bike everywhere–with my cane strapped on the bike–because it was the only way I could be sure to get a parking spot close enough to my destination that I wouldn’t collapse en route. Now I find it ironic when people complain about bike infrastructure by saying, “What about the disabled?”

  • thielges

    When this change was floated in SF it was supported by many in the disabled community for exactly the reason stated here: it frees up metered parking for everyone, especially disabled drivers who really benefit from parking close to their destination. There are many blocks of metered parking in SF that are 50% or more occupied all day with cars displaying disable placards. This causes disabled drivers to park further than necessary from their destination.

  • Richard

    Instead of paying at the curb, if this is a problem for some, perhaps people could just pay for the placard itself?

  • gary

    I thought there was talk of stricter enforcement of disabled placards a year or two? ago what a joke and lie. Everytime I go to Safeway, two, three times a week, I see new higher end cars parked in the blue zone.

  • shamelessly

    I think this law was originally created with wheelchair users in mind, and ensured that if someone in a wheelchair couldn’t easily reach a meter to put coins in it, they wouldn’t be denied use of metered parking spaces. In addition, given that many people with disabilities need extra time to get between their parked cars and their destinations, the law effectively releases people with disabilities from the time limits normally imposed on metered spots. Important goals that hopefully have more finely targeted solutions today.

  • p_chazz

    I’ve never understood the rationale for allowing disabled people to not pay for parking. If a disabled person has the means (and many do, considering the number of luxury SUVs with disabled plates).

  • gb52

    I’m not sure you can ever have enough blue spaces for all the placards in a given place. But paying for parking is a step in the right direction. While we can get into a long debate about cost and accommodation, there are many people that cant afford a car and are not being served in this two tiered system of transportation for the have’s and the have nots.

    Essentially SFpark would dictate a price where there would always be a space available for the majority of the time, which would allow the disabled to have quick access to a space, so the creation of additional blue spaces should not be needed except in locations like doctor’s offices.