New Haven Independent

Posted by: DingDong | June 18, 2008 9:59 AM

The question is not whether or not you should park to get a bug out of your eye, the question is where you should park to get it out of your eye.

If you are parked in a no-parking zone, you may be decreasing the visibility of an intersection and creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians and other drives. Continuing to drive to look for a legal spot may do the same but then raises the question -- why do we have so few available legal spots? Answer: parking spots are highly subsidized and underpriced. If the city charged more for parking, there could always be an available spot on each block. The city could also earn some money.

(As an aside, does this mean I can park wherever I want from now and remain in the car as long as I say I have a bug in my eye? I don't doubt Mr. Mensah's integrity and I am sure he did have a bug in his eye, but how are parking agents supposed to sort out the valid from the fictitious excuses?)

Posted by: Walt | June 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Could be wrong, but my recollection of the law is that if you are sitting in your car with the motor running, you should not be charged with illegal parking, but if you are in a "No Standing" zone you could be ticketed.

Probably got my definition from Bill McGrath,Brian's father(?) and former traffic and parking czar himself.

Definition could be helpful to Mr, Mensah,

Posted by: Ms. K | June 18, 2008 11:20 AM

The entire traffic and parking department, and the City of New Haven, for that matter, needs to be revamped. My boyfriend borrowed his mother's car for a few months while saving to get a new car. His mother is a Hamden resident and her car is registered in her name in the town of Hamden. He received a parking ticket in early February, for parking too close to a "No standing" sign in front of his apartment in New Haven. After appealing the ticket, stating that he parked it there for the few months he had it because he could easily hear if someone messed with the car, Traffic and parking disagreed and asked him to pay the ticket. He paid it. Last week, he received a bill for New Haven taxes, stating that he owed City of New Haven taxes on a vehicle that is clearly registered in his mother's name in the town of Hamden. Fighting back and forth with the Tax Office, City Assessor and the CAO Office, all have agreed that it doesn't seem right, but said "we can't help you, you'll have to pay it." It's funny because Brian McGrath was the individual that requested that my boyfriend be taxed for the vehicle, because he "parked in New Haven for three or more months." How is it that an individual can be taxed for a car that is registered in someone else's name, in another town? How can you give ownership of a car to another person. As we continue to rectify this situation, I realize how sad this municipal system is. They will do anything to get a dollar from anyone who steps foot in this town. Maybe that's why the population has decreased. I'm preparing my exit as we speak.

Posted by: jo | June 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Walt - no - not in a "no standing" zone. You can't idle in that zone.

What makes Mensah's stop legal was that it was necessary for safety and health. This interest overrode the other one, of maintaining a free 'no standing" zone. It was a bit of an emergency.

the decision was right, but why they threw a second ticket on him is a mystery -- he should be reimbursed for that hassle.

Posted by: jo | June 18, 2008 11:30 AM

walt- sorry, reread, you did say that.

Posted by: Deuce | June 18, 2008 12:22 PM

I don't believe his "bug in the eye" story. It's unique though, have to give him credit for that.

Posted by: Reference | June 18, 2008 12:23 PM

Ms. K,

I'd referr to CGS 12-71 (f) 2:

"(2) Any motor vehicle or snowmobile registered in this state subject to taxation in accordance with the provisions of this subsection shall be set in the list of the town where such vehicle in the normal course of operation most frequently leaves from and returns to or in which it remains. "

If he admitted to keeping the car in New Haven then it sounds like the tax is legitimate.

Posted by: Rob Smuts | June 18, 2008 1:56 PM

Ms. K - the issue you describe never came through my desk (CAO's Office). If it did, I would not have agreed that it "doesn't seem right," though you are correct on the: "we can't help you, you'll have to pay it."

Whoever was the owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying taxes for the vehicle for the time it is kept in New Haven. There seems to be no dispute that the vehicle was kept in New Haven for a prolonged period - therefore, taxes are owed.

Posted by: Josh Erlanger | June 18, 2008 2:59 PM

Mr. Smuts as long as we know you are reading can you tell me why cars are allowed to park in the "no parking tow zone" between crown and chapel on church street. Every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night cars are parked from the fire hydrant to the turn and in front of the FedEx bus stop. No cop ever tickets them and no one ever gets towed. Seems to me like the cops are letting it go because the bars pay them overtime. This is the type of "broken windows" policing that always gets over looked in this city.

Posted by: fairhavendoc | June 18, 2008 3:19 PM

Ms. K's issue is not made any easier by Mr. Smuts. "Prolonged period" is a very fuzzy description. If a car spends 4 out of 12 months in New Haven, is the owner supposed to pay 4/12 of the New Haven car tax and 8/12 of the Hamden tax? I can guarantee our city government won't figure that one out. Is he supposed to pay full taxes in Hamden AND New Haven? (I can already answer that...no.) Doesn't it seem reasonable that if a car spends >6 months in any location that should be the place to pay taxes to? Mr. Smuts, you can't leave us hanging on what you have said.

Posted by: Doriss William | June 18, 2008 3:41 PM

The bug-in-the-eye story may or may not be true. That is a determination the meter maid makes at the time of the incident. Stranger things happen in the normal course of driving about town,... or in life. The real question is, is the claim at all credible?

If credible, the benefit of the doubt should go to the good citizen driver, and not the city. Unfortunately, in New Haven, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the city, and this is clearly wrong. And this is the exact reason why many of us have chosen to leave, as Ms. K above suggests. Who needs these kind of citizen-unriendly hassles when there are so many nice places to live in Amerika?

A motor vehicle is taxed in Ct. once for the location where it is garaged for over 1/2 the year. That would be 183 days out of 365 days. Am not aware of pro-rating this tax amongst jurisdictions anywhere in Ct. This is an outrageous money-grab on the part of the city. And what about those illegally parked cars on Church St.? New Haven, Looooking Goood!

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 18, 2008 5:23 PM

"Whoever was the owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying taxes for the vehicle for the time it is kept in New Haven."

Great, now that we have that settled, when are we going to start taxing commuters' cars? They park here an average of five days a week for eight hours a day. So tell me genius, when will the car taxes for commuters begin?

Posted by: kris | June 18, 2008 7:25 PM

Hey Rob, what if I spend more hours a year at work in new haven than I do at home in wallingford.That means my car is with me in new haven while I am at work..do I owe new haven taxes??Please let me know so I can hurry in and pay my taxes so you and John can have matching armoires.

Posted by: kris | June 18, 2008 7:33 PM

Ms. K. Dont go by what Rob says. You only pay taxes to the city that you keep your car in for the majority of the year.Call Richard B.the atty. generals office and see what they say .Rob ,why dont you look into all the cars in new haven that have plates from the carolinas,youve turned a blind eye to that for years.Just pull into a housing project parking lot or a church and you will see tons of people from the carolinas "just visiting" ofcourse.

Posted by: A Nony | June 18, 2008 7:36 PM

Excuse me, -Fairhavener-, but if I'm not mistaken, both your car and Jeep are still licensed and registered in Michigan, even though you've lived here for several years now. Correct me if I'm wrong . . .

Posted by: che15 | June 18, 2008 8:00 PM

I have to say i find it very hard to believe this guy got a ticket for getting a bug out of his eye. i understand the parking authority can be tough but i doubt they ticketed this guy for getting a bug out of his eye. i have a feeling this guy is full of $hyt. pay the ticket and stop making excuses

Posted by: No ticket | June 18, 2008 9:32 PM

Parking and standing are not the same thing.

Posted by: Ms. K | June 18, 2008 10:00 PM

Mr. Smuts,

My point is that he is not the owner of the vehicle. He got a ticket on the vehicle, contested it in his name, since he was the one who drove the car, paid the ticket and was then issued a tax bill in his name. How is it that a person who is not the registered owner of the vehicle can owe taxes on it?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | June 18, 2008 10:05 PM

I know how you can get around from paying taxes on the car,There is no law that says that a person from another state who does not live in this state can not let you drive there car for as long as they want you to, Due to the fact that as long as that person can prove that they pay there taxes in the state that the car is registered in.

Posted by: Deuce | June 18, 2008 10:47 PM

Smuts is wrong. Vehicles are taxed where the vehicle is domiciled. One pays taxes to the town where they live. Vehicles used for business are taxed where those vehicles are used for said business.

Posted by: omerta | June 19, 2008 7:52 AM

The message is dont come to New Haven in your car. Youll get hassled and ripped off. There are nice Malls in Meriden and Milford with big free parking lots. Go there to shop. If your looking for entertainment then go to New York or Boston which have much more than New Haven. If you have a job here there are nice houses in the suburbs like Hamden or Bethany.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 19, 2008 10:36 AM

A Nony,

First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about. Second, I wish I could register my car out of state. I think the car tax is ridiculous. I paid tax on it when I bought it, why do I have to pay it over and over. Why don't we have an underwear tax? Or a shoe tax? And don't blah blah me to death about what the tax pays for; cities all over the US make do without a ridiculous car tax. Third, I was obviously making a mockery of Smuts' statement. I do not suggest that we start collecting taxes on commuters' cars (maybe someone thinks that's a good idea? Maybe it will pay for the trolley? Or everyone gets new credenzas?).

Not to change subjects, but I actually don't blame a lot of people for wanting to live places where quality of life issues are important and the city enforces them. If my car taxes went towards that you would never hear a peep from me about car taxes again.

BTW, OMERTA is right.

Posted by: Deuce | June 19, 2008 12:50 PM

Fairhavener,

You do pay tax on underwear and shoes. That's the state sales tax you pay on clothing. Just sayin'

Posted by: JP | June 19, 2008 4:09 PM

Deuce I think his point is that he already paid sales tax on his car when he bought it. Now hes paying property tax on it as well. You pay both for cars unlike shoes where there is no property tax. Just sayin.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 19, 2008 4:24 PM

Deuce,

JP obviously got it. You don't pay an underwear tax every year like you do for a car.

Posted by: DingDong | June 19, 2008 6:40 PM

The car tax was added, if I'm not mistaken, when tolls were abolished in Connecticut. Even if I am mistaken about the history, the point of the car tax (and the reason there it exists, while there is no clothing tax) is that using a car creates wear and tear on the roads that has to be paid somehow. I would support a higher gas tax and elimination of the car tax, though, since gas taxes would a be more efficient way of raising revenue. Good luck getting legislators to raise the gas tax nowadays, with all the hullabaloo about gas prices.

Posted by: Walt | June 20, 2008 1:21 PM

Car tax (similar to that on Real Property) is a local tax and is based on the car's value and existed long before the tolls were eliminated.

This is why the Governor proposed its elimination a few years ago and why the Towns opposed it.

Goes to the Town for general fund. Has no direct or necessary relationship to maintenance of roads.

Toll money went to the State. Those fees were dropped for safety reasons and because if the State continued tolls, it would have lost many, many million sof $$ in federal assistance

State gasoline taxes on the other hand, go to the State, part to the General Fund and part for roads.

Federal gasoline tax is used, at least partially, for maintenance of federal roads like the Interstates.

I'm certainly not an expert on this, but believe I'm much closer to accuracy than Dingdong.

Just from memory. Corrections are welcome

Posted by: Walt | June 20, 2008 1:32 PM

Further, because part of the State gasoline tax is based on a percentage of the wholesale price, the State is now making extra big bucks from us because of escalating prices.

They never mention the State's monstrous windfall profit on our gasoline buys, but instead try to look magnanimous by postponing a comparatively small increase in the tax which had been scheduled to be implemented this year.

Posted by: Tony | June 21, 2008 10:07 PM

Where does all the money go that the casino's give to the state.with all that money we should not have any kind of taxes.