A picture purporting to be that of D.C. Superior Court Judge William E. Stewart Jr. in yesterday's editions was actually that of William B. Stewart, a former executive director of the Model Inner City Community Organization (MICCO).
A D.C. Superior Court judge yesterday upheld an ordinance that bans all-day commuter parking in many residential areas of Washington and allowed the District of Columbia government to extend the ban to neighborhoods across the city.
In rejecting contentions that the ordinance was unconstitutional, Judge William E. Stewart Jr. indicated that he would dissolve a temporary injuction that had blocked extension of the parking ban into the Georgetown area and several other neighborhoods.
After Stewart acted, city officials quickly announced that the ban would be imposed Aug. 1 in Georgetown, Burieith, Glover Park and Foxhall village.
In quick followups to these, all-day commuter parking will be banned in the Sheridan-kalorama section beginning AUg.22, in Foggy Bottom on Sept.12 and on Capitol Hell on Oct. 3.
The ban has been in effect since 1976 in Friendship Heights in upper Northwest, the Gateway community in Northeast, the neghborhood around the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Pleasant Park section of Northeast.
Ultimately, city officials estimated, about 10,000 autos now driven into town and parked on working days will be covered by the ordinance. Although Judge Stewart did not rule specifically yesterday on the injunction, he indicated that he would disolve it once further court proceedings have been completed.
Spokesmen for the city indicated they would move quicky on the expansion - seen as a brake on pollution of city air by automobile exhausts - despite the possibility of an appeal by Georgetown merchants and students at Georgetown University.
The merchants and students won a temporary injuction last year from former Superior Court Judge Charles W. Halleck against imposition of the ban in the Georgetown area. It had been scheduled to begin last August.
Stewart's decision was the second recent favorable ruling for residents who want preferential rights to park on the streets on which they live. A Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on April 29 upheld similar ordinance in Cambridge, Mass.
Similar ordinances have been adopted in various cities, but have been successfully challenged in some areas, including Montgomery and Arlington counties. The Virginia State Supreme Court, struck down a prohibition on commuter parking in a neighborhood near Crystal City. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review this case.
"I don't see any kind of obstacle in sight" to expand the D.C. ban, city transportation director Douglas N. Schneider Jr. said yesterday."We'll gear up and go." Schneider sadi that he had talked to the mayor, and "the mayor's directive to me was to move now."
The City Council approved the program in 1974.
Under the plan, parking on residential streets is limited to two hours between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, except for residents who are supplied with windshield stickers for their cars. The program is to be used in areas that meet criteria of adequate public transportation, where there is evidence of heavy commuter parking and where residents indicate they want the program and are willing to pay a $5 fee for the windshield stickers to offset the cost of administering the program.
Schneider also said yesterday that areas in Friendship Heights and near Walter Reed where spillover parking from protected areas has been a problem will be brought under the plan in AUgust.
John Brophy, chief of the parking division of the city's Department of Transportation, said that the department is studying how to implement the program in areas near Metro subway stops. He added that public forums would be held on implementing the program in other areas, including Brookland in Northeast, new Southwest, Adams-Morgan, Dupont Circle, Takoma Park and other sections.
"There are areas in virtually every section of the city where residents have petitioned to have the program put into effect," said Brophy. More than 100 petitions have been filed.
During yesterday's hearing on the ordinance. Assistant D.C. Corporation Counsel Louis P. Robbins defended the ordinance as a rational tool for helping to limit air pollution caused by automobile use in the District.
Robbins said that automobile congestion harmed the quality of life and the environment in some neighborhoods, which he said was a proper problem for local government to address.
The only question is whether the ordinance "Invidiously doscriminated" against commuters, said Robbins. He cited previous court rulings that discrimination not based on suspect classifications such as race, sex and religion may be upheld in cases in which there is a rational basis for discrimination, as in zoning cases where property owners are treated differently.
The argument that such programs help control air pollution may be an important factor if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear the Virginia case. The Justice Department, at the urging of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the high court to review the Virginia decision.
EPA officials have called such ordinances an important part of implementing the U.S. Clean Air Act, which relies on local jurisdictions to develop plans for controling traffic and parking. Curbing air polution has been cited by other jurisdictions as a reason for adopting commuter-parking bans.
Attorneys opposed to the D.C. ordinance argued yesterday that the air pollution argument was an after-thought to justify a regulation that had long been sought for the convenience of neighborhood residents. Julian Tepper, attorney for the Georgetown merchants, said that the ordinance indicated that the parking permit program could be adopted in nighborhoods where pollution had nit been deemed a problem.
"When something citizens had been asking for became part of a recognized strategy for combatting a recognized problem, to ascribe bad motives to that will not wash," said Robbins.
Schneider said yesterday that his department estimated that when the program is fully in effect that when the program is fully in effect that it would affect about 7 per cent - approximately 10,000 of the 139,000 cars that come into the District during rush hour. Schneider called it "a significant piece" of a pattern of actions aimed at upgrading air quality.