Defense Letter Website: An associate and I created this website in response to the enormous amount of Google traffic that came to this site in search for parking ticket defenses and letters. Please enjoy.

http://www.defenseletters.com/

–

June 30th, 2008.

Dearest Parking Violation Judge–

I do hope you find this electronic letter arrives in good fashion. The Post Office has, on occasion, misplaced official correspondence to the US Government, so I chose electronic delivery over more traditional methods to ensure this message’s receipt.

This morning, I parked my father’s car on 35th street, on the south side of the street, directly east of Park Avenue. I deposited the requisite coinage ($2.00) for in Machine #6358 in area 144 at precisely 08:54 AM and then placed the parking receipt on the Driver’s Side Dashboard, as instructed.

The car remained there for 58 minutes while I loaded some artwork and varies sundries into the truck and back seat. Nearing the end of my time, I saw one of your officers approaching my father’s car with a determined look with an electronic parking ticket machine in hand. So, I said hello to the officer. His name, according to my ticket and his badge, is Officer E. Valdivia, and he had a very neatly-trimmed black mustache.

I inquired why he was writing a ticket as I still had a few minutes remaining of paid parking time. He points to the sign and says I am violating the parking rules, confidently noting that the car was “not a commercial vehicle.”

I asked for clarification as to the sign’s language which, for posterity, reads:

NO STANDING
EXCEPT
[C]OMMERCIAL VEHICLES*
METERED PARKING
3 HR LIMIT
7AM-7PM
EXCEPT SUNDAY

*note: I can only assume this word begins with a ‘C’. The sign, as attached to the post, covers the beginning of the word.

This confused me, so I asked for clarification. You see, I used to live on that block and I had asked another parking officer not one month ago if I was allowed to park at that exact location during the day. She, a lovely officer whose name escapes me at the moment, reassured me it was no problem, as the sign is be interpreted as, “No standing expect commercial vehicles OR metered parking.” Meaning, it is a legal parking spot for commercial vehicles or anyone with who paid the meter, commercial or otherwise.

Unfortunately, as Officer Valdivia understood it, the signage should be interpreted with a different reading: parking is valid for commercial vehicles WITH metered parking.

The signage is clearly ambiguous, evidenced by two officers — both responsible for enforcing said signage — who have differing interpretations. If your enforcing officers have no consensus on this signage, how is a reasonable person expected to follow the posted rules? (Particularly a reasonable person who, when unsure, asked an enforcing officer for clarification.)

Speaking directly to my case, I feel I have acted reasonably. I am still unsure what the official ruling is or actual intent of the signage is; but, I feel the point is moot: the signage is ambiguous. As such, I plead not guilty, as it is not clear, even from your enforcing officers, what the rules are.

Additionally, under the “Complainant’s Comments” section of my Notice, it reads, “veh pkg on unattended”. Even the comments section regarding the violation are unclear. Even when expanding the abbreviations (assuming “veh” means “vehicle”, and “pkg” means “parking”), the comment is both grammatically and factually incorrect. If the vehicle were unattended, how would I remember the conversation we had, much less his neatly-trimmed black mustache?

Under the “Signature of Complainant” section, it notes that “If the operator was present I indicated the operator’s name … and personally served this Notice upon him/her.” My name is nowhere to be found on this Notice of Parking Violation, and I was clearly standing there as the ticket was being issued.

I do not mean to get Officer Valdivia in any trouble — he was a very polite and respectful officer — but, just like me, he needs to follow the rules… whatever those rules happen to be. As the rules, in this case, are posted ambiguous, and that the enforcing officer noted my vehicle unattended when it clearly was attended, compels me to plead Not Guilty.

Best regards, and have a happy summer!

Michael E. Gruen

Don’t ever ask, “what do you do?” without an exit strategy.

Done right, an elevator pitch effectively communicates occupation and value. Done wrong, it inflicts great amounts of boring and anxiety. Generally, people suck at elevator pitches. Here’s how to avoid getting stuck between floors.

(By the way, they call it an “elevator pitch” because the “pitch” should be about as long as an elevator ride. Living in New York City, I can assure you both elevator rides and elevator pitches feel much longer than they actually are. My friends will note that I just signed a one-year lease on a walk-up.)
 

1. Don’t ask the question.
   Find an alternative. My favorite: “What’s your story?” If they look like the droning type, append, “in 10 words or less… and make it interesting.” It gives your new acquaintance the opportunity to avoid their poorly-rehearsed pitch.
    
2. Don’t try to network.
   Sure, you went to a networking event to, well, network; but really, your career counselor gave you bad advice. Approach people, even at networking events, as you would a stranger in a bar or at a book signing. Tell a story or a joke, ask what they thought of some recent news, or just make some funny faces. Your stranger will become a friendly, see value in you socially, and tell you what they do without all the sales bullshit (because they too think it sounds like bullshit). Then, if they know how to help you, they’ll do it without prompting. And hell, you might even like them as a person.
    
3. Don’t take the bait.
   It’s better to be interesting and vague than boring and specific.

   Your response to, “What do you do?” should be succinct: 10 - 15 words, tops. Your goal is to get your questioner to show genuine interest in what you do and not just wait their turn. If what you say isn’t interesting to them, just stop talking about what you do and talk about something else. If they are interested, they’ll let you know and get more out of you than you ever could from a canned response. Additionally, your conversation partner will likely follow the same format.

   (By the way, I run a music company that teaches private, in-home lessons.)

4. Interrupt and segue.
   Without prompting, warning, or permission, your newest contact has launched into an elevator pitch. Let her finish her first sentence, and then stop her. Quickly and politely. Ask how her company’s different than competitors. Or, how she likes her job. Or, ask anything that should be contained in an elevator pitch. Then, exchange business cards and move on. If her goal is to sell you on a service or product without asking anything about you, she’ll take solace that you’ve taken her information with a promise to check it out and follow up.

A skilled communicator articulates the information you want to hear without you having to ask, converting elevator pitches into relevant conversations. Unskilled communicators hand you a verbal pamphlet.

Learn to say, “No, thank you.”

Starbucks can save the world, if it has the balls.

I was reintroduced to Chris Jordan though his TED talk, Picturing Excess, in which he uses images to demonstrate to the enormity of American’s subconscious behaviors in aggregate. The results are staggering and the implications are catastrophic. Worse yet, Americans are apathetic to their own, marginal impact. So, what’s the fix?

Start with paper cups.

Americans use 16 billion (with a ‘B’) paper cups every year. You’ve likely used one or two today to transport your Caramel Macchiato and thought nothing about the aggregate impact. Neither does anyone else, nor do most people care– therein lies the problem:

1. Bringing your own cup is inconvenient, albeit cost effective.
2. One paper cup has virtually no impact. 

Solution: Starbucks should stop serving beverages in disposable cups, driving change through ubiquity.

Starbucks should take a cue from the milkmen of yore and dispense beverages with a meaningful (say, $10) container deposit. Any container can be returned to any Starbucks, and Starbucks will sterilize any returned container for reuse. And it’s not that inconvenient: Starbucks is everywhere. (And, if they’re fully committed to their containers, they can include RFID to track customer coffee drinking habits and share that information with them… but I digress.)

Immediate Effects

1. Overnight 15% reduction in paper cup usage.
   [Starbucks printed 2.3 Billion (again, with a 'B') paper cups in 2006.]
2. Increased awareness that local efforts have global impact. 

Secondary Effects

1. Increased acknowledgement that local efforts have global impact. 
2. Increased local action.
3. More companies will follow their lead.
4. The homeless (and other financially challenged individuals) will ensure these containers are returned or recycled.

For many Americans, coffee is the alpha and omega. In ridding Starbucks of disposable containers, it’s a constant reminder that our local actions do affect global change. 

Unfortunately, I suspect SBUX stockholders might sue. Admittedly, this is a risky plan; though, I would hope that corporations with the power to affect change would, instead of merely “protecting shareholder value”.

Maybe Dunkin’ Donuts, a privately-owned company, will have the chutzpah.

I hope someone does.

–

More: B-Corporations, Sustainability is Sexy.