Note: This letter was also sent to the Bristol Town Administrator’s office and to the town solicitor’s office.

At its recent meeting, the Bristol Town Council had a first reading of a proposal to expand existing nonresident parking restrictions. I am a nonresident who parks overnight on the streets of Bristol and will be adversely affected by the proposed change.

The 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires equal protection under the law, and even the existing restrictions are unnecessarily discriminatory. This proposed expansion takes restrictions that are already overly broad and expands them arbitrarily.

More importantly, as written in the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), while such discrimination is not illegal, per se, it must be demonstrated to serve a proper governmental interest and that the defendant governing body has the burden of proving that the regulation serves such interest.

Is there a study to demonstrate that the current proposal to further restrict non-resident parking addresses a legitimate government interest? Can you please tell me what the interest is and what demonstrates that the proposed change is the way to meet that interest?

A focused and limited restriction with evidence that it supports a legitimate government interest might stand. A broad, year round and geographically expansive regulation would not withstand scrutiny. Note that other Rhode Island towns, like Newport, South Kingstown, and Narragansett, all have summer-only residential parking restrictions, in limited areas of town.

Surveys and studies of parking in Bristol might justify some restrictions. Appropriate research and planning will result in good regulations. Passing the current proposal is making bad regulations and probably illegal.

Zachary Weinberger
Portsmouth