Everyone
v.
Parking and Transportation
75 U.Va 17 (2023)
Peterson, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
This is not the first time I have written about parking enforcement for this Court.[1] In UVA Gym-Goers, I enjoined “all future enforcement of . . . metered parking” at IM-Rec facilities. That decision was handed down on January 26, 2022. Just recently, less than a month ago, this Court’s own Justice Kulkarni released another scathing opinion regarding parking, Students v. Parking Enforcement.[2] In his concurrence to Students v. Parking Enforcement, Justice Morse referred to the practice of charging students for the use of parking spaces as “one of the most pernicious and extractive practices condoned by the Law School.” So, why are we here today?
On February 14,[3] Dean Davies forwarded an email to the student body. That email, originally written by Greg Streit, the Assistant Dean for Building Services, stated in matter-of-fact terms that, despite “inconsistent” enforcement in the past regarding parking violations, this was no longer going to be the case. Further, Parking and Transportation (P&T) would be limiting the spots available in the D2 lot for ParkMobile parking to only fifteen. However, perhaps the biggest change is the decision to adjust the rate from an affordable $1.75 per day to an outlandish $2.50 per hour for parking. What was once a charge that I was absolutely willing to accept now has me reminiscing about the good old days of only paying $14 per day to park in San Diego.
Typically, when I write opinions for this Court, I try to feign some degree of judicial legitimacy or legal reasoning. Perhaps I do it by using fancy headers, like “Background,” “Analysis,” and “Conclusion.” Perhaps I do it by employing a real-life legal doctrine. However, this case defies that sort of reasoning. The depraved actions of the school in pursuing this path necessitate the removal of all appearances of propriety. Y’all wanted to play dirty, so the Court is going to play dirty.
Frankly, this decision is just shocking. It doesn’t make sense on so many levels. It leaves me reeling with many unanswered questions. So, the first question I would like to pose is: Do you, UVA, care about your students and, if so, why are you simply trying to extract every last ounce of monetary value you can from us? I already pay upwards of $65,000 per year—that’s almost enough for the diversity jurisdiction requirement—why must you not only try to rip $25 per day from me on top of that, but also make my life miserable with fines and fees for violations? To put it simply: Parking enforcement and provision seems like the kind of cost that could be buried in our cost of tuition. The University could charge me $4,000 per year for parking and, if they embedded that charge in my tuition fee, I wouldn’t bat an eye. I wouldn’t even think about it. It would be a cost of attendance, and I would be lucky enough to have a school which provides me parking.[4] The fact that I am being treated as a thing which the school can extract value from even after I have paid roughly $195,000 to be here is an absurdity, and it speaks to how the University values its students.
Further, even if this was somehow still seen as the morally and financially right decision by the University, the choice was flawed in another way: the timing. Valentine’s Day of the last semester for students that started at the Law School during the height of the pandemic is not the time to pull the rug out from under students. We are talking about a class of students who, relative to the average law student, have already had so much taken from them by the school. And not just experientially—this statement holds true monetarily as well. Because, while other classes got events like Dandelion, Admitted Students Weekend, Barrister’s, a Fall, Thanksgiving, and Spring break, and more during their 1L year, our year instead paid full tuition to attend half of our classes over Zoom.[5]
The point that I am getting at here is that this was simply a stupid time to make this change. Eat whatever costs you have to eat for the next three months before the Class of 2023 is gone. I’m sure that the endowment won’t be hit too hard by that decision. In fact, in the long run, it would likely be a boon to the school. Because all I can say is that I don’t think a single person I have talked to from the current class of 3Ls has any intention of donating a dime to the Law School after their experience these last three years. And it seems unsurprising why those students feel that way.
This Court orders the University to publicly recognize that this decision was, at best, a stupid one, and at worst, a stupid decision that revealed the University’s nefarious intent to treat its students as mere things from which to extract value. The University is also enjoined from charging for parking outside of costs hidden in tuition. Courts are rarely tasked with crafting policy, but luckily, ours is no normal court. So, the Court is happy to order the University to reverse its current parking decision, leave the status quo in place for the remainder of the semester, and then increase tuition—while simultaneously making parking free for all students—next fall. The school shall distribute parking passes to all students at the beginning of each year and still hire parking enforcement to ensure that no undesirable townies are using the parking spaces. This is a well-crafted and sufficiently insidious policy as to not immediately turn any heads. I’m shocked the school didn’t implement it sooner.
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
[1] UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA, 74 U.Va. 13 (2022).
[2] 75 U.Va. 13 (2023).
[3] Literally on Valentine’s Day.
[4] Even if, in reality, that school is severely overcharging me for the good.
[5] In fact, I believe we paid $2,000 for what was labeled “Activity Fee.” There were no activities. I still don’t know what I paid for. Apparently it wasn’t parking.