Parking for the Disabled--abuse or Over-use?

Conclusions 10

• CL1
  used by someone who transports the blue placard holder, if the holder is not present; and, if the authorizing documentation accompanies the registered holder, when the
• CL2
  blue placard is displayed. California Vehicle Code Section 4461 specifies the possible penalties for the misuse of a blue placard. These possible penalties, including a criminal misdemeanor charge, are printed directly on the documentation a blue placard holder is supposed to carry; the severity of these possible penalties is meant to deter misuse. Because blue placards are issued to persons with permanent disabilities they become a permanent benefit. They are reissued every two years in order to reduce the unauthorized use of such placards, in the event the authorized holder has died or moved out of California. Blue placards are a State program without any control or restrictions by local jurisdictions. The most a local jurisdiction is authorized to do is set up a local oversight monitoring committee. This oversight committee, with access to DMV data, would be able to track whether any of the many health care providers authorized to certify eligibility are authorizing numbers of blue placard applications far out of proportion to their professional colleagues. The DMV acts only as a passive custodian of the information contained in blue placard applications. It is up to each jurisdiction whether to set up such a local oversight monitoring body and then do its own research into DMV records. In an effort to address the problem of abuse the City's Board of Supervisors is currently considering proposed ordinance amending the City's Traffic Code to provide for the establishment of the "Disabled Parking Review Panel" to monitor applications for placards and the health practitioners who certify them. Board of Supervisors proposed ordinance File No. 070409, introduced March 27, 2007. The Department of Motor Vehicles also issues "red" placards to those with a temporary disability. These red placards automatically expire after six months. Though the red placard allows for the same parking privileges as a blue placard, the six months maximum makes it much less likely to be subject to abuse. Accordingly, this report will not address any aspect of red placards. IV. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND STATISTICS ON DISABILITY According to information published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 26, 2007, which was gleaned from data at the DMV and at the California Department of Finance, approximately 50,000 blue placards have been issued to residents of City of San Francisco. That is more than double the approximately 24,000 assigned to San Francisco residents in 1996. This, according to statistics from DMV and the California Department of Finance, is slightly less than 7% of the City's population. This 7% is statistically very close to the ratio for each of the other Bay Area counties and for the State of California as a whole. The other eight Bay Area counties have also experienced a doubling in the numbers of authorized blue placards in the past ten years. United States Census Bureau statistics from 2000, and the estimates for 2004, indicate that the percentage of people age five or older with a disability in each Bay Area county ranges from 15 to 20%. The data indicate that the number of people in the Bay Area with any form of disability (15-20%) is more than double the number of currently-authorized blue placards in each of the Bay Area Counties (7%). These statistics do not bode well for citizens who routinely engage in the competition for curbside spaces. In other words, if everyone with a permanent disability also acquired a blue placard, then practically overnight there could be another doubling of blue placards issued. Additionally, the aging of the population in San Francisco, as well as the longer life expectancy, means there could be even more people who would qualify for a blue placard under current criteria. Misuse of a blue placard by the able-bodied makes it harder for the disabled to maintain independence and mobility, if they cannot find convenient parking. V. ENFORCEMENT DIFFICULTIES The portability of blue placards may have unintended consequences. Because not every disabled person with a blue placard also drives, a caregiver may put the blue placard in the vehicle's glove compartment, ready to be used when transporting that person. This very portability makes blue placards easily available to family members or friends, who borrow them to avoid paying parking meter fees and/or obtain multi-hour parking near their own destination -- even though the authorized holder is not being transported. Often, a person has a disability not readily apparent due to the absence of evidence -- such as a cane, crutches, walker, wheelchair, prosthesis, and/or guide dog. For instance a person with pulmonary or circulatory impairment can meet the criteria for permanent disability, yet not fit the visual stereotype of "disabled." Both the portability of blue placards and law enforcement's need to directly observe a failure of compliance, sometimes results in the decision of non-disabled people "to borrow" a blue placard from the holder and to take their chances on evading observation and enforcement. In some parts of San Francisco, such as downtown and nearby areas, curbside spaces are frequently filled throughout the work day with cars displaying blue placards. Census data indicate that rates of full-time employment (25%) and of under-employment (66%) of people with disabilities are so low as to call into question whether all such cars displaying blue placards in the crowded central business district are actually transporting the disabled holders of the placards. Legal requirements more cumbersome than those required for issuing normal parking violations impede the issuance of citations for violations of blue placard laws. Any enforcement action must be based on "probable cause," i.e., some observed violation of parking laws -- such as overtime parking at an expired meter. The requirement of the actual observance of a probable violation of blue placard compliance means that any jurisdiction seeking to enforce compliance must allocate substantial resources of staff and time to the effort. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Department of Parking & Traffic (DPT) has developed a special unit for enforcement. Working in this special unit also requires additional training -- in conflict resolution and in sensitivity to people with disabilities. DPT's policy requires the presence of two Parking Control Officers for the issuance of a citation regarding blue placard laws. One officer interacts with the driver, while the other officer is there as a potential witness, in the event the citation is challenged. This burdensome process results in the issuance of fewer citations for blue placard violations than for any other type of parking offense. This DPT unit also engages in "stings", whereby City blocks observed to have a disproportionate number of people using blue placards are the object of a stakeout by DPT enforcement staff who watch for violations. While somewhat successful, the sting operations are limited to two a month, until more Parking Control Officers are hired and trained. VI. APPLICATION PROCESS AND IMPLICATIONS State law authorizes many and various health care practitioners – from audiologists all the way through to some categories of social workers -- to certify someone as eligible for a blue placard. This very multiplicity of types of certifiers also makes it easier for anyone to shop around for a practitioner who will quickly sign one's application for a blue placard. Further, since certification does not automatically require an actual full-scale exam by the practitioner, the application can be completed by office staff -- figuratively rubber-stamping the application. There is little incentive for practitioners to say no, but considerable incentive to agree to the certification. Practitioners might worry that their failure to sign the authorization may result in the loss of their patient to another practitioner. VII. CONCLUSION Misuse of placards hurts people with disabilities. Misuse also lessens cash revenues for both the City's General Fund and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), which includes the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). Blue placards allow people to park all day -- and all night -- without paying a fee, without risk of a citation. The unusual benefits of blue parking placards -- free and nearly unlimited parking at a metered space, for up to 72 hours make them attractive in a City with limited curbside spaces, practically guaranteeing misuse. The low staffing levels at DPT impede all enforcement efforts, such as citing individuals and conducting neighborhood stings. This difficulty of enforcement, plus the wide-open eligibility criteria, the multiple types of health care providers authorized to sign-off on eligibility – all contribute to the probability of abuse -- first, in the issuance of and, second, in the use of blue placards. Furthermore, California's blue placard provisions were enacted in the 1980s, prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since the initial legislation, the State of California has never entertained any significant revisions, either to the qualifying criteria, or to the free and practically unlimited time for which a blue placard can be used at any one space. The Civil Grand Jury does not know if DPT collects data from blue placard citations or analyzes data for whether: Blue placard citations are fined at the maximum levels possible;
• CL3
  There is consistency in imposing fines for blue placard misuse; and/or
• CL4
  There are actual guidelines for hearing officers and others involved in
• CL5
  levying fines for blue placard citations. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance File No. 070409, discussed earlier, also amends the Traffic Code to add a $100 local surcharge to some of the existing fines for abuse of disabled parking laws. The additional collected revenue would be used for the purpose of improving enforcement of the disabled parking laws. VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding I: San Francisco has no direct control over the issuance of blue placards to residents. Finding II: San Francisco can only monitor the issuance of blue placards for apparent compliance. Finding III: State law allocates to local jurisdictions only a small percentage of the fines collected for citations for blue placard abuse. Finding IV: The Board of Supervisors has before it a proposed ordinance which appears to address abuse in the issuance and the use of blue placards. The Office of the Mayor(60 days), Responses required from Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days)
• CL6
  the Americans With Disabilities Act are still fully appropriate for California's changing population, or whether blue placard eligibility criteria should be changed; Consideration of whether there should be any time limitation[s] on curbside meter parking. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), Responses required from The Office of the Mayor (60 days), San Francisco State Legislation Committee (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days),
• CL7
  There is consistency in imposing fines for blue placard misuse; and/or
• CL8
  There are actual guidelines for hearing officers and others involved in
• CL9
  levying fines for blue placard citations. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance File No. 070409, discussed earlier, also amends the Traffic Code to add a $100 local surcharge to some of the existing fines for abuse of disabled parking laws. The additional collected revenue would be used for the purpose of improving enforcement of the disabled parking laws. VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding I: San Francisco has no direct control over the issuance of blue placards to residents. Finding II: San Francisco can only monitor the issuance of blue placards for apparent compliance. Finding III: State law allocates to local jurisdictions only a small percentage of the fines collected for citations for blue placard abuse. Finding IV: The Board of Supervisors has before it a proposed ordinance which appears to address abuse in the issuance and the use of blue placards. The Office of the Mayor(60 days), Responses required from Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days)
• CL10
  the Americans With Disabilities Act are still fully appropriate for California's changing population, or whether blue placard eligibility criteria should be changed; Consideration of whether there should be any time limitation[s] on curbside meter parking. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), Responses required from The Office of the Mayor (60 days), San Francisco State Legislation Committee (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days),