Victimized Twice!?

[bicker]

In this case this city government is so cumbersome that there isn't even anyone to appeal to?

I believe it. Hartford? I'm surprised that they were as efficient as was described in the opinion piece in the paper. I remember back when we lived in Bridgeport, there was always a competition between Bridgeport and Hartford for the most number of crimes, due to how few police officers each city was able to afford to put onto the streets. And Hartford isn't a poor city -- it's just that the voters put people into office that charge such low city taxes that the city cannot do what many of us suburbanites have come to expect from our municipal governments.

The answer is curtailing an abuse of power that has been wrongly delegated.

I disagree. The arrangement helps the city reduce its costs, because the costs of the necessary city services are passed-along to the folks who are towed. The money never even hits the city treasury, so it cannot be looted from some political program or another.

 

[MzDiz]

Oh wahh... my car was stolen and left abandoned and stripped. I should be so entitled to special treatment -- apart from everyone else who just drops off their junkers in the street and abandons them -- because I am a victim.

Most city towing companies operate the same way. They see an obviously abandoned car; they tow it. I don't believe the police should be wasting their time trying to track down the owners of abandoned cars, especially ones with no wheels, to find owners. There are more important things they should be doing.

This just contributes to the ongoing "victimization" of America. Well, cry me a river, folks.

It was *stolen*, not abandoned, and it was her car. Probably the only transportation she had to get to and from work. Once they checked the VIN and saw that it was a stolen car, they should have contacted HER. It was her property. It doesn't matter if it was a junker or not, it was HER junker. What don't you people get about this?

 

[DawnCt1]

I believe it. Hartford? I'm surprised that they were as efficient as was described in the opinion piece in the paper. I remember back when we lived in Bridgeport, there was always a competition between Bridgeport and Hartford for the most number of crimes, due to how few police officers each city was able to afford to put onto the streets. And Hartford isn't a poor city -- it's just that the voters put people into office that charge such low city taxes that the city cannot do what many of us suburbanites have come to expect from our municipal governments.

I disagree. The arrangement helps the city reduce its costs, because the costs of the necessary city services are passed-along to the folks who are towed. The money never even hits the city treasury, so it cannot be looted from some political program or another.

There is nothing wrong with the primary arrangement. The problem is the continued impoundment at the wishes of the private company with no intervening authority.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

All this hoopla over a 13 year old car?!?! Good grief, if this were me, I'd be sending the thieves a thank you card!

 

[MzDiz]

I disagree. The arrangement helps the city reduce its costs, because the costs of the necessary city services are passed-along to the folks who are towed. The money never even hits the city treasury, so it cannot be looted from some political program or another.

But she had AAA to cover the costs of things like this. She wasn't given the opportunity to access the plan that she'd already paid for in advance for situations like this. Why get AAA if you can't use it? She was prepared for something like this, but someone stepped on her to get some stupid towing company more money.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

It was *stolen*, not abandoned, and it was her car. Probably the only transportation she had to get to and from work. Once they checked the VIN and saw that it was a stolen car, they should have contacted HER. It was her property. It doesn't matter if it was a junker or not, it was HER junker. What don't you people get about this?

It is a car left on the street with no wheels. In my neighborhood, that constitutes a "junker" and I call the city to have it towed away. I couldn't care less if it was stolen or abandoned... it's an eye sore and a waste of space.

If it was so important to her, why didn't she protect it better?

 

[bicker]

Right, Yes. She really should have quit her job to listen to the police scanner all day and night to listen for her car being found. I can totally see how this is negligence on her part.

I'm sorry you feel the need to respond in that manner.

Regardless, negligence was just an example I mentioned. As I mentioned, a car owner is always responsible for their vehicle, even without negligence. I don't believe the car owner was negligent, in this case, yet still, as always, responsible for whatever costs are incurred vis a vis their vehicle.

 

[fan_of_small_world]

All this hoopla over a 13 year old car?!?! Good grief, if this were me, I'd be sending the thieves a thank you card!

If that 13-year-old car was your primary means of transportation and you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you'd be upset too.

 

[MzDiz]

All this hoopla over a 13 year old car?!?! Good grief, if this were me, I'd be sending the thieves a thank you card!

Oh, I do say! Whatever will we do with these hooligans? Imagine the nerve of the poor, thinking they should have cars.

Pardon me, do you have any Gray Poupon?

 

[fan_of_small_world]

If it was so important to her, why didn't she protect it better?

How do you know she didn't? I can't believe the blame-the-victim mentality of this post.

 

[bicker]

She probably did lock her doors but do you really expect that someone who is driving an 13 year old car should have to "install alarm systems and Lo Jack"?

I wouldn't expect it, but folks should definitely be aware that they're responsible for their car even if it is stolen. It's definitely a risk, and car owners should be well aware of it.

Maybe that is not in her budge?

This is the crux of the issue. It's expensive owning a car. This kind of risk is one reason why. While it is a shame that not everyone can be afford to be adequately protected from these kinds of risks, I don't believe it is society's or government's responsibility to insulate those who cannot from these risks, nor from the resulting costs.

How about the thief being primarily and substantially responsible?

It is well-established that the car owner in this case can sue the thief to recover whatever she lost -- 100%. However, the obligation, on the civil level, is still on her to file the lawsuit (thereby requiring her to be able to prove the thief committed the theft).

This is another example of BIG GOVERNMENT run amok and running over the very people who they are in place to serve.

The problem here is little government -- the government having to use austerity measures to address quality of life issues (like abandoned or hazardous vehicles), rather than having lots and lots of money to tow and store vehicles as a free service to the car owner.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

If that 13-year-old car was your primary means of transportation and you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you'd be upset too.

Obviously, you misread my last post. I said I would be THANKING the car thieves.

And there are always secondary means of transportation. We may not like them; they may be inconvenient... but they do exist.

The victim can always get a replacement car, either new or used.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

How do you know she didn't? I can't believe the blame-the-victim mentality of this post.

As I can't believe the blame-the-city mentality of this thread.

 

[MzDiz]

I'm sorry you feel the need to respond in that manner.

Regardless, negligence was just an example I mentioned. As I mentioned, a car owner is always responsible for their vehicle, even without negligence. I don't believe the car owner was negligent, in this case, yet still, as always, responsible for whatever costs are incurred vis a vis their vehicle.

And I'm sorry you seem to have missed the point here. AAA? Prepaid towing insurance? She couldn't call them because the police didn't call her?

 

[bicker]

It was *stolen*, not abandoned

To be fair, it was stolen, and then abandoned. Abandonment doesn't necessarily need to be a conscious action by the car owner. Removing the wheels and leaving a vehicle on public land or streets constitutes abandonment, and empowers the city towing company to do their job.

 

[bicker]

There is nothing wrong with the primary arrangement. The problem is the continued impoundment at the wishes of the private company with no intervening authority.

I agree that it would be nice if there could be an agency in the government to serve as liaison between the towing company and the car owners. If I lived in Hartford, I'd support directing budget dollars towards that. However, the challenge of running a city means you need to now decide where to take the money away from, or how to get people to support a tax increase.

 

[bicker]

If that 13-year-old car was your primary means of transportation and you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you'd be upset too.

Absolutely, and I feel no one should begrudge the woman her unhappiness at being the victim of this unfortunate circumstance. Let's keep in mind the "bad guy" here, though, is the thief.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

And I'm sorry you seem to have missed the point here. AAA? Prepaid towing insurance? She couldn't call them because the police didn't call her?

Why is it the police dept. responsiblity to call her in the first place? Are they now required to check out every abandoned car, try to determine who the owner is, spend time contacting them to give them first crack at removing the car?

 

[MzDiz]

To be fair, it was stolen, and then abandoned. Abandonment doesn't necessarily need to be a conscious action by the car owner. Removing the wheels and leaving a vehicle on public land or streets constitutes abandonment, and empowers the city towing company to do their job.

Ok, so running on that way of thinking, if my child is kidnapped and I report that my child was kidnapped, when the child is found with a black eye the police should assume that 1) I did the abusing, 2) not call me, 3) take her to a hospital, then charge me with an ambulance ride and ER bill without asking if I had insurance, and finally 4) put her in protective custody.
Then I can come her and be called a whiner because I should have installed lo-jack on her.

 

[bicker]

And I'm sorry you seem to have missed the point here. AAA? Prepaid towing insurance? She couldn't call them because the police didn't call her?

That's evidently not standard procedure. It's easy to second-guess procedures when we don't know the reasoning behind them, in the context of an anecdotal circumstance where the procedures led to a conclusion that wasn't optimal, but the procedures are the way they are for a reason

Perhaps they're the way they are to minimize cost and to minimize the amount of time the abandoned vehicle is on the street. These are objectives that any of us may or may not agree with, but we have elections and have publicly appointed officials to ensure that the decisions about what objectives are used as basis for procedures are ones that serve the best interests of everyone, rather than address a single circumstance, which is probably an anomaly among the circumstances for which the procedure applies.

Or perhaps the procedures are the way they are just because no one thought of this circumstance yet. In a city like Hartford, where the amount of resources available to the police department has always been so low, that would not be surprising.