Skip navigation.

Michael Lamont in good with Mayor Billings

An article in today's Daily Universe reports that Mayor Billings has ordered that Provo Police not enforce the new booting ordinance which takes effect today.

The Daily Universe

The ordinance became law Wednesday after a mandatory 30-day waiting period...

The mayor was not considering suspending the enforcement, but certain concerns were brought to his attention recently, Ireland said. She did not elaborate on how the mayor became aware of these concerns.

But according to documents given to The Daily Universe, Billings received an e-mail sent Monday evening from Provo City Council attorney Neil Lindberg regarding the ordinance amendments.

Lindberg wrote about how Michael Lamont, owner of University Parking Enforcement in Provo, sent a letter with his concerns, such as posting the property/agent phone numbers in addition to the parking enforcement company information.

So if I'm understanding this right, all Michael Lamont has to do to get the mayor to throw out a city law is send an email.

Does that bother anyone else?

But it gets better:

However, because the new ordinance will not be enforced until the issue is resolved, the Provo Police will handle booting disputes on a case-by-case basis until the mayor lifts the suspension, Ireland said.

“It is not on the books [the old ordinance],� Ireland said. “What is on the books is the new ordinance effective [Wednesday].�

Does this mean that, at this point in time, there is currently no law in place which allows for booting? The old law is no longer on the books, and the new law, which was passed by the city council over a month ago, is being ignored.

What does Ireland mean by saying that booting disputes will be handled on a case-by-case basis? At the moment there is absolutely no law allowing booting We're in a state of complete parking anarchy.

What does this mean? It means that if someone places a boot on your car, they are--according to the laws of Provo City--stealing your property.

It's not like anything has effectively changed. They've always been stealing your property. The only difference is that now it would actually be defined as theft under the law.

How ironic.

Let it be known: Until something changes, to my understanding you technically have the right to call the police and have your booter arrested for grand theft auto.

Well here's how I see it. If

Well here's how I see it. If a booter boots my car, and it's obvious that he shouldn't have, I'm just going to cut the boot off. Then, depending on the mood I'm in, I just might call up the booting company and let them know they can come pick up their robbery equipment that I left in the parking lot.

And yes, it does bother me that the city, as a council, gets together to make some changes, and then the mayor uses his power to tell the police not to enforce it.

I'm not sure what kind of a coward Provo's mayor is, as this is the first time I've heard of him doing anything at all. What kind of leader freezes the enforcement of a law over one stinking letter? This riles me up pretty good. I've never been booted but I've had a number of roommates who have, and I was there when it happened, and it should not have.

But congratulations Lamont and henchmen, you've won yet another battle. Enjoy the glory, I doubt it will last long.

/Sighing for the day I graduate and move out of this excuse of a governed place

whole story...

As usual the Daily Universe has done a really crappy job on its reporting. Lamont is not the only person to have said something. Various property owners have sent letters stating their concern as well. I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to have whiny people calling me at 2:30 in the morning complaining about a boot they probably deserved in the first place.

spencer None of the new ne

spencer

None of the new news presented changes the fact that the Provo city council met and with due process modified the law. And then, the freaking day it's supposed to go into effect, the mayor uses his authority to freeze the enforcement of it. It makes the efforts of all those people who met and haggled through the appropriate legal channels worthless. It makes me, personally, feel like, "well what purpose is there in doing things the right way, if it's not going to have any effect anyway?"

Property owners have some responsibilities. If they have plenty of parking, and a legitimate parking enforcement company, then they shouldn't be getting too many 2:30 AM calls. Further, the apartments are responsible for enforcing curfew (to some, unknown to me, degree).

But the main point is that the mayor is undermining all the efforts of the residents. It's twisting the law, plain and simple. Evidently he can't change the law, so instead he's directing law enforcement to not enforce it. And that, is an abuse of authority.

Does it bother me? Yes. Does

Does it bother me? Yes. Does it suprise me? Not a bit. Anyone who's lived in Provo knows all residents are not considered equal.

This is all part of the Checks and Balances of the System

There is a reason for having checks and balances in the government. Yes, Michael Lamont may have pulled a few strings here, but if there wasn't something that concerned the Mayor with the new ordinance, he obviously isn't going jeopardize his political career over it.

I am not a native Utahn and I think that local politics here are a little ridiculous but the fact of the matter is we have these sort of checks and balances in place to make sure that one branch is not abusing its power. I don't see anything ethically wrong here, time will work this matter out eventually. The Mayor is making sure this law is fair before it's fully enforced.

I can't make a whole lot of s

I can't make a whole lot of solid statements as to what is going on and how the mayor is using his power judging from one article written by a student for the Daily Universe. However, Wade, the mayor is PROTECTING his political career here, not puting it at risk.

The mayor does not represent or answer to the residents of a city, he represents and answers to the voters of the city. How many students vote in the mayoral election? 10 maybe. How many business owners and permenant residents vote?

He would be jeapordizing his political career if he sided with those who would never vote for him, ie. the student population. Politics.

The Solution

Most of you might know of this but here is a real good website about solving a boot problem.
Read the story here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3112670.stm

I dream that he might come rescue us, or even better if I could become him!

the BEST solution

Just walk everywhere.

re: checks and balances?

This is *not* checks and balances. Checks and balances would be if the mayor suspended the law. He didn't; I don't think he has the authority to. I could be wrong, but the fact remains he did not do anything regarding the law. He used his power to tell the police not to enforce it. It's not a part of the system of checks and balances. Somehow I doubt the mayor's authority over the police extends to using them against what the city council has decided.

Abuse of power is EXACTLY what the mayor is doing. If it's unfair, then he should suspend the law itself, not the enforcement thereof.

Check your balances

The mayor signed the the law two days after the council signed it. Aparently he didn't have any issues with it then. It's not until a few of his contributors start whining and moaning about stupid crap that he decides that he has issues with it.