C4, Fox 45, Initial Success and a Response to the Baltimore Sun

Wow. It’s been a whirlwind lately. We had the Fox45 story run at 5 and 11PM. I had a really nice discussion with C4 on WBAL 1090, and this morning I had a 3 minute spot during Fox45’s morning show, which I think went really well. But, I’d like to spend some time discussing the most recent stories that have emerged in the print/internet media.

First, Alisha Marchewka, one of our own Baltimore Scofflaws, was highlighted this morning by Stephen Janis of Investigative Voice. http://www.investigativevoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=369:scofflaws-strike-back-city-judge-waives-1900-in-fines-for-unpaid-tickets&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=44

You should read the story, but essentially Alisha discusses her court date fighting these tickets. Bottom line: it would seem the judge she faced agreed with our plight. She explained her situation, mentioned the letters of delinquency were sent to her old address in Oregon, and the judge stopped her mid-sentence and said, “I believe you.” Waived the fines. Wow. Congrats to Alisha! $1,900 down, perhaps millions to go. It’s also interesting to read just how disorganized the act of getting a trial and understanding her rights ultimately became. Bottom line: Request an officer! Read the story, and you’ll see why.

Some have argued that this should have been our initial recourse. However, given the arbitrary nature of these decisions, coupled with the fact that the law firm told me without the proper documentation and proof of payment, there’s no point to request a trial, I think we still need to push for our goals. Especially for those who no longer live within a convenient distance to Baltimore. I heard one story of a Scofflaw on the West Coast who was told she would have to address each of her four tickets INDIVIDUALLY in court. Whether this is true or not (and I’ll talk about this later), it is troubling that deliberate stumbling blocks are being put in our way to mitigate this situation.

Secondly, following Gus Sentementes’ fantastic story in the Sun on Monday, the paper saw it fit to print an editorial concerning our viewpoint entitled, “Pay Up”. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.parking21apr21,0,3513949.story

Again, I highly recommend reading the opinion before reading my commentary below. I’d like to respond within their space, but I’m not sure how much room I’d get or if it would even run at all. So, I’ll write-up something succinct, send it in, and see if they print it. But in the meantime, let’s look at their argument point by point.

In the Opinion of the Sun: Scofflaw motorists owe Baltimore roughly $181 million in overdue parking fines. That's a potential windfall - about six years' worth of slots revenue once gaming comes to town.
Not So Fast: Last I checked, it was $132 million, but if they found a new number to share with us, even better. Also, a windfall represents an amount of money that one does not expect to have or find, like the $40 million dollars the City of Baltimore just found in its couch cushions like week (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-cityaccount0415,0,4992609.story). Sadly, the city has publicly stated that we represent a viable revenue stream, so it sounds like less of a windfall and more of a demand. Also, it is illogical to compare the revenue garnered through gambling to the money they are attempting to extract from us. When one places a coin in a slot machine, there is an implicit understanding AT THAT TIME that one’s money could be headed to the state coffers. That person is a willing participant in his game of chance. To view our unknowing government funding as an equivalent participation is myopic and ludicrous.

In the Opinion of the Sun: Or put another way, it's enough to lower the city's property tax rate by nearly 50 cents for one year; right now, city homeowners are picking up the tab for parking violators.
Not So Fast: I wasn’t a math major, but I’d love for someone to explain how a “rate” can be reduced by “50 cents”. I was led to believe a rate, in the manner they are referring (namely a percentage and not a scientific measurement), is a unitless ratio created by dividing two numbers. If anyone can show me how to reduce 20% by 50 cents, you get a gold star. So, I’m not even sure what that number means. Did they mean to say “reduce the rate by 0.5%”? If so, someone in their editorial staff needs to crack an algebra book. Secondly, if it is our contention that the revenue was generated falsely, through either incompetence, deliberate action, or both, then the city should not count on this imaginary, contrived amount of money to reduce the average taxpayer’s burden. Also, I find it hard to believe that even if the city were to collect $132 or $181 million dollars from us, that city homeowners would ever see their “50 cents”, as it would be applied to a city surplus.
UPDATE SINCE PUBLISHING: It would appear I'm wrong on this point, at least the math part anyway.
This was posted by Courtney later that day:
Just a note of clarification for your second editorial point - property tax rates are typically expressed as a dollar amount per $100 of assessed value. Baltimore City, for example, is $2.268 per $100 of assessment (http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/taxrate.html).

The downside of blogging, with respect to print media, is that one can go back and change whatever one chooses. Namely, correct the past. In the spirit of fairness to our detractors, aside from blatent typos, all prior errors in fact or logic will be preserved as it would be for traditional print media. As an aside.....oops.

In the Opinion of the Sun: The late fees are what get most people in trouble, but given the parlous state of the city's finances now, calls to cap the $16 monthly late fee are premature.
Not So Fast: We have to clear up some vocabulary here first. The word parlous means to be dangerously cunning or shrewd. If the point of the article is to highlight how the city needs our money, then perhaps the city’s finances could best be described as “perilous”, thus making our calls to end the monthly late fees premature. Shrewd is a word that implies some level of planning or execution, which I would say the city has lacked thus far. Secondly, if the Sun is willing to admit the “late fees are what get most people in trouble”, then why not advocate for the benefit of the people rather than the usurious system that is currently in place?

In the Opinion of the Sun: Some motorists weren't notified of outstanding tickets because they changed addresses or live out of state. But much of the money is owed by commercial car rental companies that were left holding the bag for tickets accumulated by their customers. That's where the city should focus the bill collectors' efforts.
Not So Fast: So here, the authors concede leaning on Big Business is acceptable, however, harassing John Q. Public is a little more distasteful. I was under the impression the idea of American democracy was equality for all. Why should a company, which represents substantial tax revenue for the city, receive less sympathy in the face of injustice than me? Or you? Is this the city’s plan for attracting business and law-abiding tax payers to live in Baltimore?

In the Opinion of the Sun: And then there are the habitual scofflaws who simply ignored the citations - they don't deserve much sympathy.
Not So Fast: Agreed. However, they are a lost cause. If they truly don’t want to pay any tickets, why will they care about a letter from a law firm or even having the possibility of their credit ruined? I’ll save you the suspense, their credit is already ruined, and if they just register their cars in the names of other people, what can the city do? Nothing. Again, they cannot in expect this income.

In the Opinion of the Sun: In just three months, the debt collectors have recouped $11.6 million for the city.
Not So Fast: …and made $2.9 million for themselves when they took a 20% cut of the action. I wonder how many cents that would reduce the city’s property tax rate?

In the Opinion of the Sun: Critics think Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, a national law firm specializing in government debt collection, is too aggressive because it tracks down violators more efficiently than the city can. But that's why it was hired.
Not So Fast: In this paragraph, the authors are combining two actions that are unrelated. There is no doubt Linebarger is efficient. I don’t think anyone could argue against that point, and frankly, I don’t think it bothers anyone that they were. In fact, I wish the city had been able to do the same years ago! However, “tracking someone down” and “aggressive debt collection” are two different activities. Efficiently finding us is perfectly acceptable. But using harassing phone calls and disseminating false information to scare citizens into payment programs that still accrue late penalties (despite being told to the contrary), is despicable, and these are the actions of which we disapprove.

In the Opinion of the Sun: The firm does offer to work out a payment plan for scofflaws that stops the penalties from accumulating, though drivers could still face restrictions on renewing their license or vehicle registration. And the firm doesn't report to credit bureaus, as some have charged, so an overdue ticket won't affect drivers' credit ratings.
Not So Fast: We’ve addressed these charges above.

In the Opinion of the Sun: Motorists who think they've been ticketed improperly can always go to court, where they are at the mercy of a judge - a sympathetic one, they hope. An amnesty program would help cash-strapped drivers, but a law prevents such relief until 2013, and it needs to be changed. Another four years is too long to wait, especially when it's city taxpayers who'll be footing the bill.
Not So Fast: First, the injustice we’ve been subjected to should not be a matter of opinion, where we hope a judge will agree with us. It should be a matter fact. Namely, this situation should never have progressed to this point, and ticket amnesty would completely correct this travesty of mismanagement and disorganization. Secondly, how can the authors contend we should pay the entirety of our fines while simultaneously suggesting the laws surrounding amnesty should be updated? And lastly, the fallacy of the Baltimore Scofflaws stealing from city taxpayers has been outlined above.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the authors of this editorial, that for the reasons outlined above, I respectfully disagree.