Update: I talked to some attorneys about this and they all disagreed with me on the tax issue. One attorney said it was a ‘government services fee’ basically you are leasing the space from the city so it is a fee. But they all agreed with me that the council really should have approved it in a 1st and 2nd reading so there would have been a public hearing before its implementation.
—————-
When I saw the story yesterday that they were going to start metering on Saturdays I wondered when the city council approved this. Well, they didn’t because they did not have to. According to charter, ordinances 77.080-77.082 gives the parking director and strangely the city engineer the authority to determine when they can charge these fees. A few months ago when they banned monster trucks in DTSF the council did discuss Saturday metering but never gave a timeline or even voted on it, so I was expecting a vote this Spring. But I would argue that it DOES NOT give the director the authority to make this move;
The director of public parking facilities shall establish the hours during the day and night when parking meters or gates must be used and when the time limitations shall be effective,
Notice it says the director can determine the TIMES during a specific day, but it DOES NOT give him the authority to pick the days of collection, which he did here, SATURDAY.
I would encourage an attorney with some free time to go DTSF and park at a meter on a Saturday, receive a ticket then challenge that ticket in court by saying the director didn’t have the authority to pick a NEW day to start metering.
There is also the labor involved. Obviously they had to hire some new people to watch the meters. Was this in the budget? Did the councilors approve that? I doubt it.
This is a MAGA move by our Mayor. You don’t have the authority to start TAXING constituents on a new day without the approval of the policy body which makes taxation decisions, because as Staggers once said, you can call it a ‘parking fee’ but let’s call it what it really is; a ‘tax’.
The parking division also has a revenue issue putting most of their yearly earnings into bond payments for that color fart bunker ramp. The parking division needs more money, and they are coming for yah. I have contended that the city make ALL parking DTSF FREE, 24/7 except meters on Phillips, I would have them running non-stop, 7 days a week, and I would charge $5.00 an hour. If you want people coming DTSF to shop, may I suggest more FREE parking in ramps.
Next will be Tariffs. We know this isn’t democracy. Trump proved it’s not a Republic either. The city charter is questionable regarding constitutionality. Many lawyers collect parking tickets knowing there’s no court process. When it comes time to elect another mayor, vote for the candidate who pardons parking tickets. Meanwhile, it’s entertaining watching the Parking Director act important.
Scott, also note Charter Article II, Section 2.12, which reads:
In addition to other acts required by law or by specific provision of this charter to be done by
ordinance, those acts of the city council shall be by ordinance which:
(2) Provide for a fine or other penalty or establish a rule or regulation for violation of which a fine or
other penalty is imposed;
(3) Levy taxes, or impose or increase fees;
Can we challenge the fact that the city council has NOT given to the city government the ability to change the times of which a fine or penalty can be imposed on the residents? Let alone, could this additional time period be looked at as a “tax increase” since the residents were not yet taxed in the evenings or on weekends?
I do agree with you, a good constitutional, law attorney independent from City government should look into this to see if the City is in fact violating its own Home Rule Charter, if so, this is a class 2 misdeananor penalty…
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s attorney said on CNN today that if the USG can get Kristi Noem out of CECOT, then they can get his client out of that prison, too…. What? Noem was in prison? They finally got her, huh?
#RIPKricket!
Excellent Update Scott, so it is true, the charter section 2.12 stands, and if allowed to go in place, the City Council again, broke the rules of the charter. While it would not be a new tax (or fee), the charter clearly says that all taxes and fees to be increased must be voted on by the council. While you highlighted city ordinance, what people should be looking at, is Charter Article II, Section 2.12.
I will provide a link to a document I created the City Charter, turn to page 15, which explains this…
https://apihoard.webit.com/api/v1/File/5786A05B5E4EEAC42D9C2DE89F732048/5786A05B5E4EEAC42D9C2DE89F732048.pdf
The Public Parking Division while per the ordinance that Scott highlied has the ability to expend the hours, the “Charter” restricts the increase of revenue (taxes and fees) to voted on by the City Council.
Another example of this City Council becoming more corrupted by each day…breaking their own rules!
But, we are the government. So, how can one fee oneself? This sounds rather out of body, if you ask me. Perhaps, it is existential politics, I don’t know. But can one fee themselves to death? AND, if you don’t pay the ferryman are you still dead, or is that merely purgatory? Is there a fee for purgatory #LeaveItToTheCatholics .
Scott, that is lawyer talk also. The constitution defines taxes to be Direct or Indirect. They cannot directly tax property without your consent (vote). That leaves us with three types of Indirect Taxes – Excises, Duties, Imposts. The tax in question is a Duty, which is a fee applied to a service provided by the city government. It does not matter if it is a tax or fee, it is a tax. And the charter says they cannot increase our taxes and fees without a vote of the city council. Here is another example of the city government violating our charter. I went round and round with Joe Batchelor this past weekend on social media, no one understands that a fee is constitutionally a Duty. A Tax.