Space Case: Denver City Council Could Soon Lift Residential Parking Roadblock

Despite the old adage about government moving at a snail’s pace, sometimes rule changes can cruise in the fast lane — which is what's happening with Denver's city parking code right now.

During an April 11 Land Use, Transportation & Infrastructure committee hearing on updates to the parking rules, committee members realized that it’s now technically illegal for someone to park in front of their own home for more than three consecutive days, even if they leave during the day for work and return hours later.

On April 24, Denver City Councilman Jolon Clark proposed a solution, putting forth an amendment to a bill that saw every single councilmember vote yes.

The provision clarifies that cars shorter than 22 feet in length do not need to move a certain distance to be considered re-parked in areas without parking limits or meters. This includes a car used to go to work or on another short trip and then winds up parked in the exact same place.

Currently, vehicles of all sizes are required to be moved at least 100 feet every 72 hours, but proposed changes brought up at the April 11 LUTI committee hearing would raise that number to 700 feet. That's why the amendment became critical.

“Number one, we caught an unintended consequence of the original writing of this bill,” Clark said at the April 24 council meeting. “But then, at the last minute, tackling a whole other problem that's been in the law, and in the code, for a very long time and making it even better for those vehicle types.”

The parking bill and amendment was scheduled for a vote during the May 1 City Council meeting, but the ACLU of Colorado sent a last-minute letter that day asking the council to postpone the vote to allow for additional public comment.

"We understand the proposed ordinance hopes to address a variety of issues relating to right-of-way access in the city," the ACLU letter says. "But we are concerned that the legislation has not benefited from sufficient public, community stake-holding and that discussions around its passage and implementation have not adequately considered the harm it may cause residents who are already living in precarity in Denver."

The letter specifies that the measure as written would invite discriminatory surveillance and that the lack of notice built into the measure could be constitutionally suspect. It also expresses concerns that the measure could exacerbate unsheltered homelessness and poverty tows.

Clark and Councilwoman Kendra Black have been searching for ways to help residents and local businesses struggling with big-name company vehicles and junkers being left on city streets illegally for long periods of time. The result is the proposed ordinance that was amended on April 24 and is now scheduled for a May 8 vote.

Along with fixing the current parking issue addressed by Clark's amendment, the proposal will impose a requirement that large vehicles everywhere and small vehicles in places where there are posted parking limits or meters be moved 700 feet to officially be considered re-parked. It will also update the city’s rules on junkers and towing.

"Junkers" are described under city code as "motor vehicles that are apparently inoperable and extensively damaged." Under this bill, that definition would expand to encompass non-motorized vehicles such as abandoned trailers and vehicles that are in an unsafe condition.

The changes would also allow such vehicles to be ticketed without collecting driver’s license information if someone is inside. Currently, a ticket issued in that situation is valid only if the person hands over their license — which allows people to avoid citations by refusing to do so.

The changes will also allow a vehicle to be towed when it is on private property without the owner’s consent; when a vehicle is left on the public right-of-way in violation of two-hour or 24-hour limits; when junkers are on the right-of-way for longer than 24 hours; and when a vehicle was previously booted and an unauthorized person illegally removed the boot.

Although the full council agreed on Clark's amendment, the rest of the changes are still a concern for several members, particularly when it comes to people who could be living in a vehicle that is considered a junker.

“What I didn't see in the ordinance was anything requiring a contact, or outreach, requiring a notification or an intervention opportunity,” Councilwoman Robin Kniech said at the April 24 meeting.

Kniech pointed out that in other cases where someone could lose their residence — as someone living in a junker would if it were towed after 24 hours, as the bill proposes — it is the city’s usual procedure to make sure someone has been notified and has time to respond.

Councilman Paul Kashmann agreed, suggesting there could be a way to connect people with other city services in the process of enforcement. During public comment on April 24, several people who described themselves as advocates for people experiencing homelessness asked council to vote the bill down because of similar concerns.

Cindy Patton, senior director of operations for the Denver Department of Transportation & Infrastructure, and Marley Bordovsky, section director for the prosecution and code enforcement in the Denver City Attorney's Office, both advised that requiring contact with the owners could make enforcement impossible.

“From a logistics standpoint, it would be very difficult to achieve the effectiveness of the other language in the ordinance,” Patton said. “What we were aiming for is trying to provide more tools to the folks that are out trying to enforce the right-of-way.”

Black said she’s seen outreach workers involved when people appear to be living in their cars and enforcement comes by, noting that people would likely have to get multiple tickets before anything drastic happened.

But Councilmember Candi CdeBaca countered that her district hasn't seen parking situations handled as harmoniously. “I can understand that in the more suburban areas, it might be easier to deal with,” she said. “It might be easier to get outreach or enforcement of different kinds. It's not the same in our urban core, where the volume of these issues and the variety of these issues are more diverse.”

Clark said he was open to looking into another amendment, but added that he thinks these concerns might be best dealt with outside of the code itself to give more flexibility. He cited snow shoveling as an example: The Denver ordinance says snow must be shoveled immediately, but the city has a second set of rules clarifying that "immediately" means something different for residences compared to businesses.

Only CdeBaca voted against moving the proposal on to a second reading, with the possibility of more changes to come.

“I understand these vehicles are not safe and they may need to be moved," Kniech said. "But to say that we are making no attempt at communication at all, with the systems we have in place, to me is not the only answer that we as a city can pursue."