Parking Ordinance Story

The following is a story I wrote for my Journalism: Intro to Reporting Class in the Fall of 2010.

Fans of shopping in downtown Lexington can look forward to a more efficient parking system, thanks to a new ordinance planned to take effect on Jan. 1.

Lexington, like a lot of small cities, depends on its downtown business district to be financially stable. Prompted by the residents in the community, a study group formed and gave the Police Department recommendations on how to better utilize downtown if they fixed their parking, according to Police Capt. A. M. “Bucky” Miller.

“The whole purpose of what we’ve done is to help the downtown stay vibrant,” Miller said. “If parking isn’t available, people will just go to Wal-Mart.”

The parking lots in downtown Lexington will have spots that are three-hour, 12-hour, and those that have reserved long-term parking. The parking garage, owned by the city for the use of the citizens, will remain free within a five-day limit.

The former “hunter permits” will be changed to “long-term parking” in order to clarify their purpose. Residents in Lexington will be able to get one of these permits for about $100 a year if they either live or work downtown. Lee Avenue, Jefferson Street from Washington to Henry, and then Henry Street will all have these reserved spots.

“This will help people that work downtown,” Miller said. “Now they won’t have to park in a two-hour spot and have to move their car during their work day.”

It will also open up more two-hour spots for those interested in grabbing a bite to eat or shopping around downtown Lexington. The reserved spots also work in a way that if no one’s using them, a regular car can park there for two hours.

“We don’t sell the spots to where the lot is full,” Miller said. “We only sell about 60 percent. So there are always some open to two hour parking.”

Also part of the new ordinance will be an enhanced fine system on the time limit for downtown spots. The entire system will be automated as to increase efficiency for police officers. A first offender will receive a $15 fine. The next offense will be $30. The third offense will be $60. And the fourth offense, and every offense after, will be $120 and a towed vehicle.

“Hopefully, I’ll never see that happen,” Miller said.

The current system is $15 for every ticket, regardless of the number, and no towing. Right now, it’s common for people to have seven or eight tickets.

“A lot of people feel it’s cheaper to get a ticket a day rather than move their car,” Miller said. “Hopefully, the new system will make people take parking violations more seriously.”

Still, some shop owners downtown have their doubts on the necessity of the new ordinance. Shane Gonsalves, owner of Sweet Treats on Washington Street, doesn’t think there’s an issue with the current parking system.

“I think people want to have the convenience on walking up to a store without having to do anything else,” he said. “A lot of people move to a city, but then want to change it to suit themselves.”

Gonsalves, originally from Guyana, has been working in Lexington for six years. He himself doesn’t have a problem with parking since the free parking garage is a block and a half away from his store. He believes the city is just creating problems to latch onto.

“I think it’s a lot of hogwash,” Gonsalves said.

Siobhan Lomax, founder of Pumpkinseeds on Main Street, agrees.

“I’m originally from Washington, DC, so coming from a city, I feel like walking two blocks isn’t a big deal,” she said. “People get lazy and want a parking spot right in front. But they would never think twice about walking the same distance at a shopping mall.”

Miller, however, stands by the ordinance. He believes that once people understand the ordinance and its intended efficiency, the community will embrace it.

“Different people have different ideas on why we’re doing this, and they’re wrong” he said. “More than anything it’s just going to take everyone working together.”

Commentary on Goshen's Bill Article

An article that appeared in Lexington's News Gazette on January 12th was not as interesting as I hoped it would be, nor was it as clear. The article entitled "Goshen Water Billing About to Change" had a lot of potential to bring exciting news to the city of Lexington. But the lede was boring and had me confused since I wasn't educated on this topic prior to the article. The first sentence read: "With work on the Goshen water project expected to be completed within 30 days, new billing procedures were up for discussion by Town Council last week." The chapter we just read in our textbook, "Reporting and Producing for Digital Media," by Claudette Artwick, instructed us that web stories, much like broadcast stories are more effective and enjoyable to the reader when the sentences are short and limited to one idea per sentence. This lede was too wordy and had too much going on; I had to read it a couple of times before truly grasping what it meant.

The following paragraph, which I hoped would explain better what was going on and why a new water project is being implemented, was too detailed for so early on in the story. The reporter also used a lot of technical language, which is fine in moderation but too much of it can get confusing, as it did in this case. I also wasn't sure if this story was really about the new Goshen Water Bill, or what Council talked about in their meeting last week. It's almost as though this story could have been made into two separate ones.

The third paragraph had way too many numbers and statistics involved, something we learned to avoid in my Journalism class last fall. So many facts is tiring for the reader and I found myself skimming over this paragraph and not really taking in what it had to say. Again, I wish the reporter would have read our textbook and had known that heavy number details are tedious and can bore a reader, especially when they're reader on the web!

Overall, I was disappointed by this article. I don't feel I learned much and still don't feel connected to the story. I feel like the reporter was too concerned with writing down all the facts he knew rather than showing the impact that this story would have on his audience. If I had been him, I would have focused more on the citizens of Goshen's reaction to this change and had quotes separating the lengthy details (no quotes were in the entire article). I also would have focused the story more in order to avoid confusion and boredom by the reader.

Goshen's Bill Article