The scolding nanny hits the Merritt

Just back from  trip and noticed this latest improvement to our state’s highway: Not content with allowing cripples to park closer to the coffee shop than able-bodied folk, Hartford has gone beyond compassion for the less fortunate (albeit coerced compassion, but never mind) and now punishes citizens who dare drive alone or in what Hartford deems a less-green (than what?) automobile

Who’d object to helping out the old and the feeble by giving them a more convenient parking space? On the other hand, who gave their consent as a free citizen to be scolded, nagged and punished by some bureaucrat in Hartford? Tar, feathers.





Filed under Uncategorized

22 responses to “The scolding nanny hits the Merritt

  1. Linda in Poughkeepsie

    I guess that as long as Walt drives with the blow up doll he will be all set. Are there camera’s, or a government employee monitoring the lot?

    • I got this email today which I’d thought was misdirected from Dollar Bill’s mailbox, but you’re saying it’s for Walt?
      (sender claims to be a “Thomas Wang”, which is clever)


      Nice day!

      We are supplier of inflatable dolls with excellent material and giving you the most real feelings.

      If you have requirement, contact us.

      Sample is ready for the test.

      Best regards

  2. You really do live in a lunatic asylum. ‘Tis a privilege to live in Virginia (for now…).

  3. Hi 5

    Soon your medical diagnosis will get you better parking. HIV or terminal cancer gets you closer to the pharmacy , GI disorders closer to the Whole Foods, spastic colon gets you closer to the public restroom, and so on.

  4. Anonymous

    I saw this at the Mobile Station over the weekend and ignored it and parked (solo) anyway. I think this falls into the same category as “Shopper with Infant” parking at Stop & Shop. Not legally enforceable.

    • Anonymous

      That’s exactly what I thought when I saw this. Yet another sign to ignore.

      • AJ

        Yeah, but you can bet it will be one that they won’t ignore. They’ll probably have a cop hiding in the bushes to jump out and deal with people like you. I’d try the dual personality defense. Start talking to yourself: they just might buy it.

  5. WOW
    They must have anticipated the Court Ruling in favor of Polygamy …just out today….inclusive of multi-gender too?, Species too?
    Too many lawyers !
    Ohh…I guess I will be charged with participating of The War on Polygamy….

  6. Cos Cobber

    I’ve seen the same signs and ignored them…like everyone else. Up next, express cash registers for those who buy a banana and eat it in front of the store clerk.

  7. MikeDofCT

    My V8 SUV is a multiple occupant vehicle whether or not I’m traveling alone. They probably meant to write “vehicles occupied by the 99%”

    • AJ

      You’ve got a point Mike: the way they’ve got the sign written you may be able to get off on a technicality. I don’t know about CT but in many places there’s a $50 fee to contest a ticket; in some places probably higher.

  8. I noticed this yesterday when I passed the new service area on the Merritt. Seemed a long walk from the new. improved parking area to the store. Luckily for me, my vehicle IS a multiple occupant vehicle, even when there are not multiple occupants in it.

  9. 1585coscob

    The sign indicates the vehicle needs to accommodate more than 1 occupant, any vehicle with more than 1 seat shall be ok ( large SUV’s specially). The sign do not indicates that the occupants need to be present at the moment of parking. They also need better lawyers to write these parking signs.

  10. jB

    Does the NSA listening on the OnStar thing count?

  11. Anonymous

    I know a guy in L.A. who bought a Prius just to qualify for the carpool lanes. No joke.

  12. Fox

    This falls into the territory of we’re all equal but some are more equal than others. Best solution is never to patronize a business in an area with signs like that. Those Merritt and I-95 places are ripoffs anyway.

  13. Publius

    As humorous and ridiculous as this is, it does point out the complete idiocy of those do-gooders who live off the teat of government and spend all their time thinking this stuff up. Clearly the issue of enforcement or the actual wording of the sign was never even contemplated, just the intent. This also puts out the idiocy of the electorate (yes, I am a CT resident) that puts these morons and by extension the civil servant bureaucracy into positions that create this utter insanity. The mice are under control but the elephants are running wild!!!