Comment
Seasonal tidings
Ahappy story, sort of, for this first week of Advent. All but the deepest ritualized furrows of a Catholic upbringing have receded from this weary corpus, yet the urgings to prepare for something big, bound up in these next four weeks, still prod. With such prompting, we shall turn a corner of sorts. Explore a (marginally) different path.
Earlier this summer, I told you the story of a resident, farmer and business owner I referred to as Ted (Permit holders excepted, Times Comment, July 13, 2022). One day in June, Ted and his dog were out for a walk on the Hillier beach—a meditative experience they had enjoyed many times before. But on this day, they returned to find a ticket on their windshield. A $400 ticket. Ted had dutifully acquired a resident’s pass permitting him to park at the end of Bakker Road. But on this day, he had driven the wrong car.
In my telling of the story, the tale was illustrative of the excesses of a nascent tourism deterrence force (TDF) run amok. For Ted, it was more about the feebleness of policy execution. The only sign posted along Bakker Road read ‘Permit Holders Excepted’. Nothing about parking. Nothing to say, at all, about what activity permit holders were being excepted. (Leave aside that ‘excepted’ is the wrong word here. The TDF was likely looking for exempted, meaning free from or excluded, rather than excepted, which means omitted. In fairness, this columnist should hardly throw stones for misusing terms—but for goodness sake—the sign had three words, 33 per cent of which were used incorrectly.)
So Ted appealed. After a screening process to determine whether the ticket was valid, Ted’s case proceeded to the adjudicative phase. Shire Hall provided Ted with the Rules of Procedure, and a hearing was set for November 17.
I don’t have the space to provide a proper Law and Order account of the hearing, so a truncated summary must suffice. In his ruling, the Adjudicative Hearing Officer (AHO), observed that the municipality isn’t required to prove their charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather the presumption in this court is that the County acted properly. You may want to let that notion steep a moment.
Ted valiantly argued that none of the signs along Bakker Road expressly prohibited parking. He added that weeks later, a ‘No Parking’ sign was tacked onto the post bearing the ‘Permit Holders Excepted’ sign at Bakker Road. This, he contended, was an admission of the fatal flaw in the original sign. (Confusingly, in his ruling, the AHO repeatedly referred to the original sign as ‘Permit Holders Only’—which I prefer, simply for the clarity of the implied us-and-them chauvinism.)
The AHO agreed that posting ‘Permit Holders Only’ signs without a clear indication of what precisely a permit is for was insufficient to sustain the charge. The AHO cancelled Ted’s ticket.
I want to imagine Ted stepping out of Shire Hall into brilliant sunshine, skipping down the steps, aglow in victory. But I understand the hearing was conducted via Zoom—so not quite the same opportunity for dramatic flourish.
Ted won his day in Shire Hall court. So what does it mean for the rest of us? For starters, we are out $400. It costs us, taxpayers, money to send folks down to Bakker Road, North Beach Road and Huyck’s Point Road every day. To put $400 tickets on cars. It costs money to process these charges. To conduct appeals. Pay AHOs and the administrative hearing support staff. In the end, we got nothing but the warm feeling of a happy ending.
And perhaps I should leave it there. But how many folks didn’t appeal? Didn’t feel they could fight Shire Hall? How many lasting impressions of Prince Edward County have been formed by the searing heat of $400 tickets?
A proper accounting of the cost of the TDF is necessary when a new council deliberates the County’s budget in January.
How much does it cost taxpayers to kill a flea with a bulldozer? Compare 2019 to 2023. Do the measures taken in response to 2020 still make sense? If council members are still unsure, look hard at the net cost of the Tourism Deterrence Force. The enforcement costs. Administrative costs. Legal costs. You must satisfy yourself that the cost/benefit remains sufficient for this burden. Or if it even exists any longer.
Comments (0)