From the Mt. Lebanon School District website:
"Student parking is available in the Mt. Lebanon United Lutheran Church Parking Lot and Dixon Field Parking Lot on a first-come, first served basis until paid permits are required on September 10."
Excuse me, but I'll park at Dixon whenever I please and suggest the students do the same and do not pay for a permit. The district has no authority to enforce and collect fees from students or anyone else that choose to park in a municipal lot. Who will be issuing tickets and how will they know if I'm in the Rec Center, the park, or the tennis courts and not a student parking my car? If the commissioners have somehow transferred control of the Dixon lot to the school district, when did this occur?
While I am on the subject of student parking and traffic patterns at the high school, the Campus Traffic Map indicates that we must make an illegal left turn into the North lot.
August 27, 2012 2:00 PM: Through a RTK, here is the Amended Church Parking Agreement signed by Timothy Steinhauer and Mt. Lebanon United Lutheran Church, where Timothy Steinhauer is a member.
21 comments:
What is really amazing is that no one, not administrators, not teachers, not janitors, not construction workers, not parents, not sales or delivery people are required to buy parking permits.
The only people that have to pay to park are the very people the district claims it is serving... the students.
If Jan wasn't so occupied with covering YSA shortages for field maintenance the district wouldn't have to charge kids for parking.
Friday night home football games should be exciting!
Maybe more action on the streets than on the field.
I feel sorry for anyone who has a child at that school/construction zone.
Somebody do an RTK for the shared parking agreement for the Dixon Field Parking Lot.
2:02
I've been saying that forever. If anyone should be paying to park at the school, it's the staff.
My feeling is that a fee for parking is charging for the privilege of a free education, which is something that would be against the law.
173 of those 200 kids are paying for Jan's raise. Another way to look at it is that 140 kids are covering the YSA contribution reduction which will go from $30,000 to $23,000.
Elaine
I wonder how they will know which car is driven by whom- teacher, administrator, construction worker or student.
What are they going to do hire someone to walk the South lot and check license numbers. Even then, since very few 17 or 18 year olds have a car titled in their name, how will they determine if a parent isn't visiting or volunteering in the school?
Silly, as stated earlier they'll overlook missing YSA payments and hand $43,000 over to Pursuing Ketchup and not blink an eye.
But you can bet your sweet _ _ _ they're not going to let a kid skip out on a $50 parking permit!
What makes this whole idea laughable is this is the same community that let $800,000 in parking fines go missing.
I've often wondered if a large block of those missing Municipal parking fines were incurred by administrators and teachers from Washington and Mellon.
The main issue is why does a kid that intends to park in the Dixon lot need to pay the school district $50 for a permit? Or the commissioners lot up the hill for that matter.
If I decided to take the little ones over to the park and use the upper pavilion, I as a resident can't park in the more convenient commissioners lot because the school claims it. Who are these SD people... gods?
2:02
We live in a walking district. Paying for parking is NOT charging for the privilege of a free education.
Here is what some other school districts charge:
North Hills $35.000
North Allegheny $95.00
Seneca Valley $25.00
Bethel Park $50.00
Shaler $45.00
I guess that someone should call the cops??!!!
None of these other districts charge staff.
I detect sarcasm in your comment. ( oh, I am so perceptive!) The school districts that you list provide buses. We are not a walking community. We are a driving community because we don't have school buses. If you go on N.A.'s websites, you will see http://www.northallegheny.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=23
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Elaine
Might be a dumb question but is the Dixon lot one of the placed included in the Rube Goldberg design called the "renovation"? I don't recall the SD subverting the home rule charter and assuming authority over municipal property. Maybe I missed it. And if Dixon is NOT part of the plan, then the school board really doesn't have a plan for overflow parking which then leads one to conclude their conditional approval is void. Can someone help me out? Like I said, maybe I missed that detail.
I did a little research into this question this morning. Charging students to park seems to be a national phenomenon; however, all of the issues I read concerned high school students being charged to park in their school's own lots - I saw no stories about students being charged to park in otherwise free lots not owned by their school districts. (Maybe there are some circumstances similar to Mt. Lebanon's and I didn't find them as yet - if Blog reads know of any please post about it - just make sure it's the same scenario.)
If the District were charging a parking fee for kids to park in the school's lots then so be it; but the District's fee seems to be applied as a parking privilege non contemplor. Suppose I own a house next to the high school and decide to let a couple of kids park their cars in my driveway. Would the District still charge the kids a parking fee? (If so then the fee is for the priviledge of driving to and from school and not for parking! - which sounds like ACLU stuff to me.) The same theory applies to a free lot owned by the Municipality and provided for the convenience of its residents. MLHS students are residents; and those 18 or older are VOTING residents.
9:31 AM, I have to admit that I looked up Rube Goldberg. I found this as a solution to our flooding issue near Dixon. http://www.psfk.com/2012/08/rube-goldberg-machine-rain-house.html
All kidding aside, I think you are right.
Elaine
I didn't say it was against the law, I said it SHOULD be against the law.
Charging students to park their cars to go to school is silly. Especially when the teachers and staff don't pay. It is quite customary for staff to pay to park...have you ever worked in downtown Pittsburgh? You pay to park. Same with other cities. Heck, same with Mt. Lebanon. People who work and park in our garages pay a fee.
But to charge students is just plain wrong. Feel free to have them register their cars to make sure all the cars in the lot are legitimate, but don't charge them to park.
Mr. Gideon, I don't have a huge problem with the district charging a fee to park at the church lot. They needed to find spaces and settled on 'renting' them from a private concern.
The problem I have is the treatment of students as second class citizens. Why are they forced to the church lots while the staff and the administrators get to park next to the school.
The answer is... Because the teachers have a union. Proof can be found only a few years back when the teachers filed a geivance when trailers took their spots at Washington/Mellon. The district wanted them to park at the HS where they could walk or be shuttled to the schools. The union didn't stand for it and I believe the district provided space in thenthe municipal parking garage.
I'm betting a number ignite unpaid parking tickets are from that period also.
As usual the blogger at 11:54 that compares our student parking fees to other districts cherry picks information. Let's though go all the way... and make more comparisons- say compare millage rates.
North Hills 21.26
North Allegheny 20.9230
Bethel 25.49
Shaler 25.63
Seneca rates is figured differently, but the SD tax on a $200,000 home is $2,894.
Now MTL comes in at 27.13!
These comparative districts also manage to provide bus transport costing the district hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we don't.
So maybe they justify a student parking fee because they had to build additional parking, maybe they provide some security or monitoring of the lot.
But regardless there are two separate issues here.
#1. the district has no authority to issue permits or restrict parking and collect fees from students or anyone else to park in a municipal lot (lots - if you include the muni commissioners lot).
#2. With the wasted dollars on things like superintendent buyouts, searches, natatorium plans, PK study, YSA make goods-- hitting up students for a lousy $50 is an insult. They do it because the kids are an easy mark. The teachers union has power, they'll fight not to pay $15 more on their health insurance let alone $50 a year for parking.
They've taught the kids well, be good little citizens and pay up whatever you're told.
If parking is an issue, there's lots of space on the fields down on Cedar. You probably could fit quite a few cars down there and not have to charge a fee (or if they do, just do what the YSA does and don't pay it).
Come on! It's for the kids! Why must you hate the children so much?!?!?!
Talk about overuse of the fields. Dave F will have a 'field day' with that one.
2:02: If Jan Didn't get a 6.9% raise the parking fees could be lower.
The Principal of Washington School {named Bob} applied to the Parking Authority for a reduced parking rate for staff.
Are there special rates for any business with employees on Washington Road? Where do you apply? Sure like to get mine a break!
Post a Comment