| Author |
 Topic  |
|
arthur
Senior Member
212 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2007 : 7:29:00 PM
|
Many use handicap permits illegally
Registry probe finds violations widespread
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | August 13, 2007
A yearlong investigation by the state inspector general and the Registry of Motor Vehicles has turned up widespread abuse of the placards that allow people with disabilities to park all day in designated spots and free of charge at meters across the state.
Investigators focusing on three Boston commercial districts where parking is particularly scarce -- North Station, Newbury Street, and the Financial District -- found nearly a third of the roughly 1,000 placards they saw on vehicles were being used by people who were not disabled and had been issued to someone else.
Forty-nine placards were used repeatedly even though the registered holder of the permit had died -- in some cases several years ago. Nine placards had been renewed since the person's death.
At a time when an aging population has an ever-increasing need for the permits, the misuse of spots and placards for the disabled is "an unconscionable insult and a fraud," said Inspector General Gregory Sullivan.
Registry officials, who will announce the findings at a news conference today, said abuse of the placards is a rampant problem that is getting worse.
"It's universally appalling when someone commits a fraud and takes a space from someone who needs it or takes a space for their own immediate convenience, not thinking about the other folks who have need for it," said Anne L. Collins, the registrar of motor vehicles. "It's the lowest level of scoundrel in the assortment of motor vehicle offenders we see."
Registry officials will announce changes today aimed at cracking down on the abuse.
Among the violators issued citations were:
A Brockton woman who inherited her well-worn placard from her mother, who got it from her now-deceased mother.
The operators of a spa on the first block of Newbury Street who left their vehicle for hours at meters near the spa using a placard issued to a 78-year-old relative. They were spotted by investigators 10 times.
A career planning specialist at the Blaine School of Cosmetology, who swore she used someone else's placard just twice -- the two times troopers spotted her vehicle parked in a handicapped zone near the school's Downtown Crossing location.
In the weeks leading to the report's release, investigators from the inspector general's office and State Police Sergeant Sean Gately tracked the drivers, confronting them with cameras rolling.
Some confessed immediately. "It was my uncle's," admitted Joseph Sterling of Braintree, whom investigators observed parking his pickup in a handicapped spot in the Financial District 20 times.
Some, according to investigators, denied having the placards, which they stuffed into the glove compartment as soon as they got into their cars.
A few drivers tried to defend themselves.
Tristan Rock, 32, of Stoneham acknowledged the placard belonged to a "friend of the family" but insisted he deserved to use it, investigators said. "I had surgery on my knee," he said, rolling up his pant leg to show the trooper his scars. Others said little, turning over the card when the trooper asked for it.
Of 18 people stopped by investigators, one had a legitimate reason to display the placard: He was driving his disabled mother, the registered holder.
Most of the drivers said the placard they were using belonged to a relative or a friend, which is in violation of rules. Each violator was forced to surrender the permit and ordered to pay a $500 fine. Their licenses were suspended for 30 days.
Some have asked authorities to return the placards, according to Registry spokeswoman Ann Dufresne, who said decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Most of the violators could not be reached for comment.
Rock said he didn't realize that it was illegal to use someone else's placard and that he has since applied for his own. "As lame as that sounds, I was not aware of that," he said. "I'd frown upon it myself if I ever saw somebody do that. It seems hypocritical, but I do have legitimate medical reasons."
Officials said they launched the investigation after receiving complaints last summer that some drivers were abusing the placards.
The Registry issues the permits to individuals who submit proof they have difficulty walking or have certain debilitating illnesses.
According to Sullivan, researchers fanned out on weekdays last year from mid-June to mid-July, and again this year between June 25 and Aug. 9 to collect data. They recorded data about the placard, the type of car, the location, date, and time the vehicles were observed. They also took photos.
They then compiled a database of the 965 placards they saw, documenting each of the 3,819 times they were observed being used, and detailing information about the registered owner of the vehicle and the person who had applied for the placard.
They narrowed down the list to 300 placards that seemed the most suspicious and set out to catch the offenders in the act, Sullivan said.
A placard would land on the target list if, for example, it had been issued to an 85-year-old woman living in a nursing home, but was seen hanging from the rearview mirror of a Mercedes parked on Newbury Street most afternoons by investigators who canvassed the area.
A few violators were caught by troopers even though they were not on the inspector general's list, officers said.
According to Registry officials, the number of disability placards in Massachusetts has skyrocketed in recent years, from 135,238 in June 2001 to 272,046 in December 2006.
The Registry has implemented some changes, including a new system for filing complaints of suspected abuse. A form is available on the agency's website.
"It's incredibly unfortunate that people would misuse these essential placards, particularly in light of how limited the number of accessible parking spots [is] in the city and elsewhere," said Stan Eichner, a lawyer with the Disability Law Center.
Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2007 : 11:07:01 AM
|
region
Special election for state Senate a one-party race
By John Laidler, Globe Correspondent | August 16, 2007
With the field of candidates officially in place and a primary vote just a month away, the special election for the state Senate seat formerly held by Jarrett T. Barrios is quickly picking up steam.
Four Democrats will be competing in the Sept. 11 primary for the Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex District, which covers Chelsea and Everett, and parts of Revere and Saugus, as well as precincts in Cambridge, Somerville, and the Charlestown and Allston-Brighton sections of Boston.
With no Republican or unenrolled candidates in the race, the Democratic primary winner appears to have a clear path to winning the seat in the Oct. 9 special election.
The race comes on the heels of a June 26 special election won by East Boston Democrat Anthony Petruccelli to fill the legislative seat held by Robert E. Travaglini, who resigned his post as Senate president in March. Barrios, a three-term Cambridge Democrat, resigned his seat effective last month to become president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation.
Contending to succeed Barrios are Chelsea City Councilor Paul R. Nowicki and three Cambridge residents: Timothy R. Flaherty, City Councilor Anthony D. Galluccio, and Jeff Ross.
With summertime activities occupying voters, the race has yet to gain much visibility. But that is likely to change as candidates begin to intensify their outreach efforts, from knocking on doors to running phone banks, between now and Sept. 11.
Nowicki, 38, has served on the Chelsea council for eight terms, four of them as president. Galluccio, 40, has been a Cambridge city councilor for seven terms, one of them as mayor -- Cambridge mayors are elected from within the council. He lost a bid for state representative in 1996, and in 2002 was runner-up to Barrios in a three-way primary contest for the Senate seat. He campaigned again for the seat when Barrios was weighing a 2006 run for district attorney, but withdrew and endorsed the incumbent when Barrios decided to seek reelection.
Flaherty, 42, the son of a former House speaker, Charles F. Flaherty, ran unsuccessfully for Middlesex district attorney in 1998.
Ross, 38, who lost a bid for state representative in 1998, is a lawyer specializing in human rights and civil rights cases, and has long been active in community affairs.
"In races like this, it's all name recognition and organization," said Jeffery Berry, professor of political science at Tufts University. "It likely will be a very low-turnout race. So the candidate that has the most people working the phones on election day is likely to be the winner."
Berry said that Nowicki would seem to have an advantage as a Chelsea candidate facing three Cambridge contenders, who could divide the city's vote. But he said that advantage may be dissipated by what Berry expects to be a low turnout in Chelsea, based on past voting patterns.
In the 2002 primary, the last contested race in the district, Everett and Cambridge generated the largest number of votes cast, with 6,851 and 6,777, respectively. Boston was next with 4,723 votes, followed by Chelsea, 4,216; Revere, 1,433; Saugus, 1,408; and Somerville, 828."I think it's going to be a good race," said Everett Mayor John Hanlon, adding that he believes Galluccio is the candidate to beat.
"The others have got to play catch-up. He's been campaigning for six years. He's got quite a following," said Hanlon, who also said he is leaning toward supporting the Cambridge city councilor.
Already, verbal barbs are starting to fly among the rival candidates.
Flaherty, a lawyer in private practice who served as an assistant Middlesex district attorney, described the race as a match-up between himself, a "former prosecutor," and Galluccio, a "perennial politician."
Galluccio declined to respond directly, but observed that in replacing a "very hard-working and effective state senator," voters will be looking for "someone who has a demonstrated track record of not only serving but delivering for large amounts of constituents, and that person is me."
Nowicki, on leave from his job as a Massachusetts court officer, said the district needs "a strong, proven, and experienced leader -- and I'm the only one that brings all that to the table," noting, "I have more experience as a leader of my legislative body than all my opponents." He also noted that he has been the top vote-getter in five of the last eight elections in Chelsea.
His priorities would include seeking funds to bolster crime prevention efforts, Nowicki said. He would also be an advocate for preschool and extended-day programs, and for providing cities and towns with more state funding and revenue-raising options.
Ross, who speaks four languages, said he brings progressive credentials earned from "the work I have done in the community" and his "track record of consensus building."
He said his community work has included cofounding a Brockton task force that seeks broad-based approaches to public safety issues, and his legislative efforts have included helping draft and sponsor several bills, one of them to deter fraud by notaries.
As a senator, Ross said, he would advocate for affordable housing, crime prevention programs, and more aid and local revenue-raising tools for communities.
Galluccio is touting his record as a city councilor, which he said includes promoting "smart growth" planning, and as mayor -- a job that also involves chairing the School Committee -- in successfully negotiating a contract with Chelsea's teachers.
He said he would work to reduce congestion on local roads, support public education, and seek to increase local aid in order to reduce local real estate taxes. He would also seek to attract environmentally friendly businesses to the district to replace heavy industries.
Flaherty said that, as a lawyer, "I'm a skilled and effective advocate who knows how to make an argument, and as a state senator, I would be an effective advocate for the district."
His top issues would include promoting "innovative industries," such as life sciences and renewable energy, advocating money for crime prevention, and helping ensure the success of the state's new healthcare law.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2007 : 11:13:16 AM
|
This is Wood Waste.
NEWBURYPORT
In turnabout, landfill's owner pins bill on city
By Kay Lazar, Globe Staff | August 16, 2007
Neighbors are incensed. State environmental officials declined to comment. And Mayor John Moak of Newburyport said he isn't sure what to make of it.
The owner of the Crow Lane Landfill, already facing substantial city and state legal penalties for several alleged violations in its efforts to cap and close the facility, has taken a new legal tack and is demanding that the city shoulder 95 percent of the costs for the project.
In an Aug. 6 letter on behalf of New Ventures Associates LLC, company attorney Richard Bennett wrote that complaints filed against his client by the state's Department of Environmental Protection last month in Suffolk Superior Court had changed "the legal landscape." Bennett's letter said that because the DEP invoked a state law, known as Chapter 21E, governing the release of hazardous waste, it opens the door for New Ventures to ask that any entity that "disposed of waste or arranged for its disposal" at the landfill be held liable for its cleanup.
"Among other things, New Ventures intends to ensure that liability for any response action costs incurred under Chapter 21E are allocated equitably among all financially viable parties that bear responsibility for the materials that have been deposited in the landfill over the decades," the letter states. "First and foremost on that list is the City of Newburyport."
The letter goes on to say the landfill served as the city's municipal waste dump for decades, beginning in 1958, "if not earlier."
New Ventures, which is based in Everett, took title of the Newburyport property in April 2000, and subsequently received state approval to cap and close the landfill facility.
New Ventures estimated in its letter that the company has spent "at least" $7.1 million on the project, and that because the city and its residents were the "principal contributors" of waste at the site, the city should be liable for 95 percent of current and future costs, and New Ventures should pay 5 percent.
James Caponigro, whose house is closest to the landfill on Crow Lane, is outraged.
"New Ventures should be ashamed," said Caponigro, 40. "The city should be ashamed if we end up paying, and the state should be most ashamed because they have more jurisdiction than the city does."
The landfill's neighbors, who frequently complain of noxious odors from the site, have been lobbying local and state leaders to force the company to install required equipment that would ease the problem.
Several who are members of an e-mail group that regularly chats about the landfill expressed anger and amazement over the latest twist.
In its most recent complaint filed against the company in Suffolk Superior Court, the DEP said New Ventures failed to comply with "numerous requirements and conditions" set by the court last October, resulting in the shutdown of landfill closure work on four occasions since January. DEP spokesman Joe Ferson declined comment on the new letter from New Ventures, citing the ongoing litigation.
The company's letter stated it would expect a reply from the city within 45 days, and, if the two sides could not reach an agreement, New Ventures would sue the city to recover its costs.
The mayor said he referred the letter to the city's attorney.
"It's a countersuit that attempts to bring us to our knees as we attempt to get New Ventures to be responsible in their closure of this landfill," Moak said.
New Ventures is under a court order to complete the capping and closing of the landfill by Aug. 30, a deadline all sides agree is unlikely to be met.
Kay Lazar can be reached at klazar@globe.com. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2007 : 09:10:46 AM
|
| It's about time that the state cracked down on handicap cards. I was at the mall when I notice two young, very healthy women getting into a SUV parked in the HP spot. Some people, it would seem, have no scruples when it comes to using a resource designated for people with disabilities. |
|
|
|
arthur
Senior Member
212 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 07:04:25 AM
|
I agree with you Court but, I have a handicap card I am 40 years old but, I have a heart condition so you can't sterio type young what happen was a few of years ago back in 1998 they issued handicap cards for people who suffer from asthma and they made the cards permanent without ever doing an asthma test again.
I think that is why there are so many handicap cards out. And you do have a people who use the card that are on people who are deceased, and you can tell when they don't hang it from their mirror. and place them in the corner of the dash, that is when our meter maids should do something the school street lot is loaded with them and so aren't the streets we live on. I.E. Not displayed the correct way.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 07:26:08 AM
|
| I have also seen people borrwing Grandma's car to go to the mall. That is very sad that people would take away a spot from someone that really needs it. A new system needs to be implemented. These people have to live with themselves. |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 07:39:31 AM
|
I have to jump in here. My mother in law has a placard. She does not drive and is in a wheelchair if she has to walk more than a few steps. There have been times where I take her shopping, drop her at the front door and go to park in a handicapped space. I also come out without her, pull up to the sidewalk and pick her up. I do however agree there are many people who abuse it. I would NEVER use it if she was not with me.
Sally |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 08:21:21 AM
|
| Now I have to jump in here....... If you're dropping her off and picking her up, why are you parking in a handicap space Sally? You don't need it and if she's not going to or from the parked car, she's not benefitting from the space, you are. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 08:36:49 AM
|
Sorry Sally BUT justme is correct. I too have a family member, a sister in a chair and let me tell you if she saw you or anyone else in one of her spots and you were not visibly/physically disabled she WOULD approach you. Her van needs the room that these spaces allow for her to get in and out.
Arthur... I don't mean to sound rude but, isn't the best thing for a heart condition exercise? Is a placket necessary? Especially being such a young man. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 09:20:43 AM
|
Actually - Sally's right on this one. If someone is transporting a disabled person, they have every right to use an HP spot. If someone is trying to get a disabled person out of their car, wheel chair, oxygen tank - etc....are you really going to tell them to go park somewhere else? The law does provide for them courtesy of the portable HP cards. It's the healthy people borowwing grandma's car to go to the mall that annoy me.
And Lynda - not all heart conditions are benefited by "exercise." There are a myriad of conditions that are exacerbated by exercise...so to that end - let's leave Arthur alone. I wouldn't presume to take the place of his doctor. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 09:51:23 AM
|
Yes Court they do have a "Right" if transporting a disabled person however, it isn't a necessity for them to take a HP spot away from a disabled person who is there on their own without any others assistance. That is all I am saying. It depends the availability of these spots. If you go some places it appears they are waiting for a ironside convention, than others they are very scarce and shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.
As far as arthur goes again, I was not dissing him it just appears that some, not all, use there disabilities to get whatever they can. I am NOT saying that arthur is one of these people and I apologize if it appeared that way. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 11:00:21 AM
|
| Linda - I wouldn't want to judge a caregiver who could be struggling to get a multiply handicapped person in and out of a car, set up a wheelchair, get an oxygen tank strapped and stable, and claim it wasn't "necessary" because the caregiver was able-bodied. I've witnessed a tiny (but able-bodied) woman trying to get her much larger, but disabled war veteran, crippled with emphysema husband in and our of the car. I wouldn't presume to tell her that she should park somewhere else - I don't care how many spaces are available...and typically, there are an abundance thanks to the ADA. Nevertheless, the law doesn't see it that way - and neither should we. Our mutual annoyance should be with the healthy drivers using HP spots inappropriately. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 11:26:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Court4Fred
Linda - I wouldn't want to judge a caregiver who could be struggling to get a multiply handicapped person in and out of a car, set up a wheelchair, get an oxygen tank strapped and stable, and claim it wasn't "necessary" because the caregiver was able-bodied. I've witnessed a tiny (but able-bodied) woman trying to get her much larger, but disabled war veteran, crippled with emphysema husband in and our of the car. I wouldn't presume to tell her that she should park somewhere else - I don't care how many spaces are available...and typically, there are an abundance thanks to the ADA. Nevertheless, the law doesn't see it that way - and neither should we. Our mutual annoyance should be with the healthy drivers using HP spots inappropriately.
Court what the heck are you talking about. Let it go. justme simply said that a able bodied woman, such as Sally, who drops off the person at the door of the store than parks and meets back up with her, should simply use a regular spot and not that of a HP parking spot. That is all nothing more nothing less. Don't mean to be mean here Court but... who pissed in your Cheerios this morning? |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 12:55:55 PM
|
| What a clever retort, Linda. Sophisticated, witty and oh, so endearing. I'm not being mean - the only point that was trying to make is that the law doesn't distinguish between caregivers or degrees of disability for a reason - because these people bear the brunt of caring on so many different levels. Sally is doing nothing wrong legally by using the HP spot. Reread Sally's post - she is assisting a disabled person during essential daily living. And personally, if your sister gets "all up in someone's face" (just keeping it real for you, Linda) without knowing the facts - well, she probably deserves everything she'll get. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 1:11:16 PM
|
| Court I clearly state in my posts that Sally has done NOTHING wrong! Reread my posts! And Court just as a little info it is Lynda with a "y". |
|
|
|
Head
Senior Member
111 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 2:07:59 PM
|
| Court4fred man she does say that it isn't wrong/illegal just unwarranted in that particular situation. Take a chill pill man and relax a little bit. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Illegal Handicap Cards
