UPDATE: See letter from Carmen Lopez to City Attorney Chris Meyer. Lopez receives response from Associate City Attorney Michael Jankovsky about her Tuesday hearing being open to the public.
Ms. Lopez
With regard to parking violation hearings, General Statutes sec. 7-152b(e) provides that the hearing officer “shall conduct the hearing in the order and form and with such methods of proof as he deems fair and appropriate.” However, I see no reason why 1-225(a) wouldn’t apply, as a violation hearing is a “meeting” of a “public agency”, within the meaning of 1-200. As such, the hearing must be open to the public.
When it comes to looking after her father, retired Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez can’t seem to catch a break from peeling off parking tickets from her car.
In 2017 Lopez took her elderly father to a Downtown barber shop on Broad Street. She parked outside the shop and waited for her dad. She was later jolted by a $40 parking ticket without ever being told, warned, advised or otherwise notified that pulling over into an empty space for more than 5 minutes will result in a $40 ticket. Lopez leveraged her legal skills to shear the ticket and save thousands of others the same headache. The city has since reformed its parking meter policy.
Now, Lopez shares, looking after her father again she received a ticket for parking in a non-existent sidewalk. At this rate the parking tickets may be worth more than her car.
Lopez shares the details with a call to action as she again fights City Hall.
In the words of the late great sage, scholar, philosopher and baseball player, Yogi Berra, I am getting the feeling of “Déjà vu, all over again.”
I guess Joe Ganim’s police department believes that if at first you don’t succeed, keep trying.
They must think that even if you don’t succeed the second time around, you will at least make the object of your ire, jump through additional legal and procedural hoops.
You guessed it folks, they couldn’t get me for the meter parking violation last time, so they have decided to issue a ticket to me for parking on a non-existent sidewalk in a residential zone in the City’s Lake Forest section.
I always thought I knew what constitutes a sidewalk.
You don’t have to have a law degree to know that a sidewalk is a paved walkway used for pedestrian travel usually situated adjacent to a public highway. It is usually of a lighter color than the macadam color on the roadway, and is not painted green so as to distinguish it from the grassy areas.
I bet that is what you thought a sidewalk was, too!
But after all, this is Bridgeport and Only in Bridgeport can Joe Ganim’s Police Department issue a parking ticket for parking on grass in a residential area.
On February 22 of this year, I parked in front of my Dad’s home on Lakeside Drive. This is a residential area. There are no “no parking signs” on either side of the street, nor are there any paved sidewalks provided for the use of pedestrians. The only signs in the area are signs announcing speed bumps, which are designed to deter vehicles from driving at an excessive rate of speed.
The area in question is immediately in front of my Dad’s house. We always mow it and keep it free of debris and other objects. I am quite confident that if a pedestrian tripped or fell in this area, the City Attorney would not concede that the City is the party bound to keep the area in repair (see General Statutes section 13a-149).
There is no sign designating the area as a City right-of-way or instructing motorists not to park in the area. This is particularly interesting in that this area is directly in front of the Lake Forest Beach.
I parked partially on the grassy area adjacent to the street as a matter of safety. Parking a vehicle totally within the travel portion of the highway would create a hazard to both pedestrians and motorists.
So, in today’s mail, I received three days’ notice that a hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 25 at 11:35 AM. Therefore, I am now preparing for another hearing before an unknown hearing officer who will decide what a sidewalk is and whether or not I parked on one.
Please feel free to join me for moral support on Tuesday June 25 at 11:35 AM in the Wheeler Room of the City Hall on Lyon Terrace.
Maybe one of you can help me provide expert testimony to Joe Ganim’s Police Department on the legal definition of a Sidewalk.
Some of you may think that this is another in a long line of examples of the Ganim machine abusing power, because it rules a City without checks, balances or accountability.
Tsk, tsk, you folks are obviously cynics!
Lopez subsequently wrote this letter to City Attorney Chris Meyer:
Dear Attorney Meyer:
As you undoubtedly know, I have appealed a ticket issued to me on February 22, 2019.
The ticket was issued for “Sidewalk area violation.”
I was parked in front of my dad’s home on Lakeside Drive, where there is no sidewalk and no “no parking’ signs.
On February 25, 2019, I hand-delivered to the Traffic Bureau a request for a formal hearing pursuant to C.G.S section 7-152b.
I have been informed that City Employee Steven Auerbach has posted on the Only in Bridgeport blog the following:
Steven Auerbach says:
This is not a public hearing . The hearing will however, be recorded as all hearings are recorded and we will be happy if required to share all information. This will not be a show. We are all fans of Carmen Lopez but she has a hearing that was scheduled per her request. If she wants to request the transcripts and /or recording I guess there is a process. All hearings are behind closed doors and all those waiting for a hearing wait in the lobby. If Ms.Lopez requires you Maria to be in the Hearing as her legal adviser I guess I would allow that. She would have to request that.
Although it is not a ‘public hearing’ in the sense that any member of the public can speak, that does not mean that any member of the public can be excluded from the hearing.
The FOIA Section 1-200 (1)(A) defines a public agency. The police department and its traffic bureau are clearly public agencies. Both Steven Auerbach and the designated hearing officer are clearly City Officials. If they are not Civil Service Employees, then they serve at the pleasure of Mayor Joe Ganim.
Is it your legal position that this hearing, convened pursuant to a municipal ordinance, in compliance with a State Statute, is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
This would seem to be a ludicrous position, given that Mr. Auerbach states that the hearing will be recorded and copies of transcripts will be available.
Clearly, none of the statutory exceptions to the open meeting law contained in Section 1-200 (6) of the General Statutes is applicable to this proceeding.
Furthermore, pursuant to General Statutes Section 7-152b (g), this matter is entitled to judicial review in the Superior Court.
Such matters are not to be held in Star Chambers with the public excluded.
Given that the hearing is scheduled for this Tuesday, the courtesy of an immediate reply is requested.
Very truly yours,
Carmen L. Lopez
The Bridgeport Police Department, under Chief Perez’ leadership, has become the enforcement arm of the Mayor Ganim, Mario Testa and the corrupt DTC.
I truly believe Judge Lopez is being targeted just as I know I am being targeted by the BPD.
This is an outrageous abuse perpetuated by Mayor Ganim and Chief Perez.
Well I’m not a public safety official but if “Parking a vehicle totally within the travel portion of the highway would create a hazard to both pedestrians and motorists.” Then there should be no parking signs for the safety of both and pedestrians and motorists. Good luck on your judgement day. JS
PS what room was hearing in? JA
P.S what room is the hearing in? JA. I’m sure you will get a just ruling and balance and accountability will prevail.
City Council Chambers in the Wheeler Room(s).
LOL Joe& Mario use the police dept as their henchmen..Marilynn Moore’s headquarters parking will be the next target Joe &Mario give orders to “get”
The blame goes to Stevie A. he’s NO genius and this is job and he created this problem.
I will only say this. If the hearing date is not convenient, I will be happy to reshedule. As for the hearing, please do not invite company- only you and your attorney will be seen by the hearing officer. Your ticket was denied by a police officer. You have been scheduled for a hearing. You will be treated respectfully like every other taxpayer and out of towner. There is an ordinance in place. There is no parking on the grssy area in front of a home. all tires must be on the asphalt. If June 25 is not convenient, please call and we will reschedule. If the 27th is more convenient I have hearings scheduled. The council people and neighbors have been complaining throughout the city about crs parked on grassy area’s . The police Dept. as well as the Peking enforcement officers that are paid by the taxpayers are just doing their job, To assume that Mayor Ganim or A.J. Perez micro manage parking tickets is just absurd. This hearing will not be circus. Sorry. I will not allow it, The hearing officer will have all information and photo’s. You can contact most every council person and they will tell you the number of complaints,
In Fact, Black Rock Councilmen Pete Spain and Michelle Lyons just passed another ordinance regarding cars parked on Private property on lawns, If a motor vehicle is parked on the lawn- in front of the house, the side of the house the rear of the house or any combination – if not on concrete, asphalt or gravel, Zoning, police and parking enforcement officers will tag. Because Bridgeport constituents have complained incessantly about cars parked on grassy areas and front lawns. We are the Park city, The council did their job and the city officials will do theirs. That is all I care to share. Because of your hearing , there have been no late fee’s. You will find the hearing officer to be fair and consistent. If he /she wasn’t we would have no use for them.
Steve,,,it’s not a matter of having an ordinance. it’s a matter of having an ordinance ENFORCED! there is a HUGE difference. the powers that be in City Hall and the Morton government center don’t get that!
Steve, you cannot tell people that they cannot invite members of the public. Any member of the public may attend as this Hearing is an extension of a public agency governed by the Freedom of Information Act.
People do get upset when people park on grass areas/front lawns. No one cares about parking directly in front of a home.
I lived on this very street for two years. There are no sidewalks. This is not a sidewalk or lawn.
This ticket is just ridiculous.
I can and I did
Steve, have you ANY understanding of the Freedom of Information Act?
Does the City of Bridgeport have to face the FOIC again?
The Hearing officer(s) is appointed by Mayor Ganim to make decisions and conduct business on behalf of the Municipality.
Read the state law, Steve.
https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2012/title-7/chapter-98/section-7-152b
This is not a public hearing . The hearing will however, be recorded as all hearings are recorded and we will be happy if required to share all information. This will not be a show. We are all fans of Carmen Lopez but she has a hearing that was scheduled per her request. If she wants to request the transcripts and /or recording I guess there is a process. All hearings are behind closed doors and all those waiting for a hearing wait in the lobby. If Ms.Lopez requires you Maria to be in the Hearing as her legal adviser I guess I would allow that. She would have to request that.
Steve, you are wrong. We don’t have a dictatorship.
You cannot deny the public’s right to know.
Judge Lopez knows more than every attorney in the City Attorney’s office combined.
The last time her hearing was held it was done in public.
LOL@ Stevie trying to tell Judge Lopez how the system work,and what HE will &won’t “put up with”.Steve,stay in your lane here,you’re nothing more than a Ganim/Mario ass kisser that was given a patronage job to keep you around to do their bidding.How dare you come here and talk down to Judge Lopez like that.You’re a clown and that post proves it.
One has to wonder if (1) a “grassy area” is the same as a lawn? (2) If the a “grassy area” must be adjacent to a sidewalk, thereby causing the vehicle to cross the sidewalk to make it to the “grassy area.” (3) On the side street where I live (Connecticut and Logan) patrons of a local small game club have been violating my grassy area for decades, the fire hydrant is also frequently block when said revelers decide they must park close. I think this “grassy area,” not LAWN (per city ordinance) will be another black eye to parking enforcement. BTW if city agents patrol, collect coins out of the parking meters, and write tickets, what does LAZ do?
Stevie A. is really showing what super big ass kisser he is with his post, forget the number of spelling errors because is post was at 11:24pm so he was probably half asleep but first Stevie A. writes “As for the hearing, please do not invite company- only you and your attorney will be seen by the hearing officer,” who the hell gave Stevie A. dictator authority to tell Judge Lopez who could attend the hearing? Stevie A. has the implicit authority from the dog whistle rom Mayor Ganim and DTC Chairman Mario Testa to protect them and to promote them. Stevie A. problem is he’s dealing with Judge Carmen Lopez and he’s “TRYING” to tell her what to do is a joke and there will be a price to pay and it won’t be about paying a parking ticket.
What I find upsetting no one really seems to care about Judge Lopez’s claimed and the hazardous conditions created by parking on that particular highway, be it a legal or not. She only parked on the grassy or sidewalk area because “I parked partially on the grassy area adjacent to the street as a matter of safety. Parking a vehicle totally within the travel portion of the highway would create a hazard to both pedestrians and motorists” .And from the picture provided cars are parked on that street creating a hazard to pedestrians and motorist. As well as most of the other grassy/sidewalks areas have telephone poles wires overhead and seem to be part of someone’s property. In any event as to what’s the legal definition that constitutes a sidewalk is irrelevant to the issue of safety. There should be no parking signs on that street and Judge Lopez should pursue ordinances and have them placed along the highway because of its hazardous condition to public. If she doesn’t after they her hearing to resolve the definition dilemma of what constitutes a sidewalk. A. she really doesn’t care about the safety of the pedestrians and motorist or B. she is lying and playing political games at the taxpayers expense because you all seems to agree political corruption is prevalent in the Port. I don’t need support or a hearing to determine the truth. (A.or B) I’ll await to see if No Parking signs go up. I will monitor the progress to the “hazardous conditions” on that stretch of highway and keep OIB posted on it development. Best ESL Class ever. 🙂 JS
P.S To my prophet Eminem. In the words of Challenge accepted Ernie. 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-yKhDd64s
God be the Glory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV2ssT8lzj8
By Steve’s words, it leads me to believe that there has been conversations about this ticket around The Morton Center. Steve obviously has been “coached”. His response sounds like the attorney’s office has already gone over this with Steve, what to say and how to say it.Its obvious.
Harvey Weintraub- Thank you for thinking I sound like an attorney.
Steve, what I’m saying is,you wouldn’t respond like you did in your original post unless the city attorney’s office went over what position to take.Its ok Steve, we understand you were given the job because of your loyalty to Joe &Mario, not because you have any experience in dealing with these matters.You should bring “company” with you too, a city attorney to guide you.
Ok, Harvey, are you saying the City, the Port, the largest in Connecticut, attorney’s office went over with Steve’s, the city’s largest cheerleader, position on a parking ticket that was posted on a blog, OIB, by a ex-judge before he post response on OIB blog? Do you people actually read the stuff you write before flies out of your mouth? 🙂 http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kj6njv/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-war-on-christmas–friendly-fire-edition—bill-o-reilly-s-philosophy
Enough!
Ms. Lopez has shared her information and Lennie posted it. Nobody is aware of any of the hearings. Other than this.
Not sure why anyone would think that Ms. Lopez is a target of anything . she is and will treated fairly and consistent . To imagine any Police officer or enforcement officer is following her is just plain ridiculous and perhaps a little paranoid.
Mr. Macky and Mr. Weintraub, your unnecessary comments speak for themselves.
It’s not that one would think she’s being followed, but a chance opportunity to “stick it” to her. We all know the residents of Easton and Monroe can and will be petty.
By the way, unless there’s some type of “executive session” you could invoke you can’t hold a pic hearing behind a closed door. Additionally if you had that option, but the contestant requested to be heard publicly you must adhere to their request. FOIA is amazing!! Bridgeport deserves Moore!!
Stvie A. it’s MACKEY, Stevie under what authority by law do you have to deny someone attending this meeting?
Stevie’s “authority” is self importance, nothing more. He uses it every morning to buy coffee.
This whole episode is ridiculous.
Judge Lopez claims she received a ticket for parking on a sidewalk. In fact there is no sidewalk.
Steve A. Counters that it is not permitted to park on grass areas of private property and that’s why a ticket was issued.
If Judge Lopez received a ticket for parking on the grass then what Steve writes might apply. BUT, that is not what the officer cited the judge for doing.
Never mind the hearing officer who works for the city, if this went to court it would be dismissed. Judge Lopez was issued a defective ticket. Steve is trying to eanc around the inept work by the issuing officer.
If I break law A and am charged with breaking law B you can’t convict me of breaking law A when I am tried.
You may not be convicted for breaking law A if you were charged with breaking law B, but it doesn’t not mean you didn’t break the law, just got away with it. Lets not forget Judge Lopez claimed parking is hazardous for pedestrians and motorist. Will Judge Lopez follow through in for the safety of the public after this legal issue is resolved or will she continue allowing parking to occur that creates a hazardous situation for the public? That JML time will tell, Signs of No Signs.
Dance around
Sorry for the typo
Last Monday evening Steve Auerbach attended the City Council meeting. We had a brief cordial conversation. I alerted him to the existence of an old meter on a stanchion in front of the Bijou on Fairfield Avenue, likely because one of the new meters had been damaged or was otherwise in disrepair. The issue as I saw it was that said replacement meter only registered one hour of time and would only accept one dollar in a zone where two hour parking was otherewise legal. (I had placed two or three extra quarters in the machine to learn of the disrpair.)
I did not ask for a return of funds. Just asked Steve to fix the issue. He had not been aware of it. Perhaps a little more time spent instructing his “team” and getting feedback from them would contribute to better public service? The meter was still in place today.
THe part of this story that has truthful tread for me is the notion that some people are watched over more closely than others. Three months ago I listened to Myron Dukes tell his story about being denied admission to a public, free, City sponsored event at City Hall by one or more PD personnel who intercepted him, provided no claim of an activity or behavior that would prohibit his entry for a hip-hop, anti-violence, Black History Month event, with music and food and used his photo to identify and deter him. Since then he has filed a claim relating to a violation by the PD of his civil rights. In the initial request he claimed $3 Million of damages. It was denied for lack of evidence. His second request claimed $1 and an apology. It was denied this week. Of course the name of several officers were provided who were in uniform working regular hours or overtime but the City cannot investigate this further?? We are beyond the “freshness date” for a Police Department leadership team whose oath is “to protect and serve”!! The only word missing is a noun that indicates that the Mayor is being served and not the public. Follow this story. (Mr. Dukes and I spoke at the City Council meeting on June 3. We sent the two commentaries to OIB but they have not yet appeared.) It is a live one. Time will tell.
Be Ye’ Judge, Jurist, Executioner or Accused… While it’s nice that people take care of their elderly and infirm family members… Nice car, trashy parking. In what way shape or form is this OK? Half on the pavement – half off the pavement on what had been grass, now mud from trashy parking and the muddy tire tracks going down the pavement as an evidentiary testament. There are City Ordinances to try to stop this kind of trashy parking. All of the above aforementioned types involved in the Legal System should not get a free pass for their violations. Getting repeat tickets for doing the same thing over and over again does not constitute being singled out or “being picked on” nor would/should it hold water in court. But ordinances do need to be un-biasly enforced. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that there is a great deal of biased enforcement of these City Ordinances. Think of it as a kind of “Sunshine Fund” in which City Officials, their friends, family, neighbors and their special relationships (sometimes memberships) with certain organisations (social clubs etc.) get a free pass. No Tickets, No Ordinance Enforcement, Lots of Zoning Exemptions, Free Lunches, Etc. Etc. And the beat goes on… I have been told, in writing, by City Officials that. “[…we don’t actively look for and enforce violations… we respond to complaints.” (and sometimes NO Response constitutes A Response) In a cash strapped city one would think that Active Enforcement with tickets and fines would be a very good source of revenue if fairly collected. (Regardless of the improper labeling of the parking violation seen in the photo it is still a parking violation) If one is arrested and charged with Attempted Bank Robbery, and you actually got away with a load of loot, arguing in Court that the “Attempted” charge is the one you should be facing would not impress the JUDGE. (p.s. Judges are people, not perfect human beings and not above the law)
Robert Hubany, the only thing that you are doing is walking on the yellow line. Seeing that will be a public meeting then I’m encouraging voters to show up at this hearing watch justice at work with the leader Stevie A in charge, so let’s pack this meeting to again to see justice or is it just us (wink wink) right Stevie.
Good going Carmen. You sure know how to shut Stevie A up!
Hope things continue to go your way in this matter. Sorry, I cannot attend but,please make sure to keep all of us OIBers informed.
We all know how Stevie A like to eat. I hope he post a review of Stevie A Crow ala Carmen after he sees how well it goes down.
What a pompous little ass he is. I am sure the judge will show him a thing or two about justic no matter how big or small the infraction may be.
Stevie A. ought to stop into the new chicken shack on Fairfield Avenue at Pine Street.