Opinion
No. 11–P–1755.
2013-03-12
Leopold O.V. ENWONWU v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE & others.
By the Court (GREEN, GRAHAM & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff filed a complaint, pro se, in the Superior Court after his application for a resident parking permit was denied by the city of Somerville (city) on the basis that the vehicle for which he sought the permit was not registered or principally garaged at a Somerville address as required by city's traffic and parking regulations. The vehicle, which was owned by the plaintiff's son, was registered in Fulton County, Georgia, where the son resided.
In his complaint the plaintiff alleged, generally, that the denial of his application was arbitrary and capricious, and a “denial of rights protected under the provisions of Article CVI of the Constitution of Massachusetts and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” A motion judge dismissed the complaint on cross motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff timely appealed. For substantially the reasons set forth in the defendants' brief at pages 6–9, we affirm. The uncontested facts are that the city is a heavily congested urban area with a substantial population density and a scarcity of parking spaces, and therefore the city developed a resident parking permit program. Pursuant to the traffic and parking regulations adopted by the city, in order to obtain a resident parking permit, the applicant must produce a current Massachusetts registration issued by the Registry of Motor Vehicles showing that the vehicle is registered in the applicant's name and that the applicant has a current city residential address.
The Supreme Judicial Court has previously concluded that “the use and operation of vehicles on public ways, including parking, is a legitimate subject of [government] concern,” Commonwealth v. Petralia, 372 Mass. 452, 456 (1977), and that “the reduction of traffic congestion and air pollution and the encouragement of the use of public transportation are legitimate [governmental] purposes.” Ibid. Here, the discrimination made by the city regulation is based rationally on the city's plan, designed to, inter alia, reduce traffic congestion, thwart attempts by nonresidents to park and store their vehicles on city streets, and to encourage use of public transportation.
Judgment affirmed.