End Wellington's parking restrictions

In the year and a half since Wellington passed an unrealistically strict parking ordinance, more than 3,650 people have been warned or ticketed for parking in swales, on the street or across sidewalks. The "radical shift," as a sheriff's criminal justice planner called it, is obvious when you consider that in 2003, before the new law, just 276 tickets were issued. It is time for the village council to revise the rules.

Large families are especially penalized. Short on garage and driveway space but not on drivers, some parents are suspected of rotating cars, racking up warnings before being forced to pay an actual $25 citation. The problem is acute in new subdivisions, such as Olympia, that have small lots and large homes. "I get calls from people," Councilman and Olympia resident Carmine Priore told The Post, "desperate calls, saying 'I'm going to have a party,' or 'I've got some family visiting.' The ordinance just doesn't work well."

A majority of the five council members have said that they're willing to revisit the rules, which took effect in October 2003. The village justified the rules because of a need for improved safety and drainage: When cars block sidewalks, kids are forced into the streets. Children can dart out from behind cars parked in the streets. Car tires can damage swales.

The village tries to defend the 24-hour ban on swale parking by saying that there is an exemption for temporary events such as parties and most people get warnings. But tickets still have gone out. And the all-day, all-night ban on a car straddling a sidewalk in front of a home is more impractical. When it will rain is less predictable than when children will play outside. If the parking ordinance truly was motivated by safety and not aesthetics, the village could suspend enforcement of the sidewalk-straddling and on-street parking late at night -- from nightfall to 7 a.m., for example, when children can be expected to be inside.

A nighttime exception would help countless current residents who bought homes in a family-friendly village that allows, if not encourages, tightly packed subdivisions with little yard or driveway space. The village may consider density restrictions for new developments, but should allow ample public vetting of any proposed rules.

Ideally, the council would eliminate these parking restrictions. The council at least should revise the ordinance to better accommodate those with more vehicles than vacant space.