Letter to the editor

USC Parking should not have to teach us manners.

I agree with Ms. Sneider’s letter, published March 22. USC parking seems like a horribly lucrative institution at times. However, USC Transportation can make as much money as it wants by enforcing the rule against parking in more than one space.

Parking in more than one space at any time is inconsiderate and self-absorbed. Whether USC students, staff or faculty have paid $8 for the day or over $350 for the semester, they are entitled to park in the first space available in their permitted lot, structure or zone. They should not need to park farther away, or even leave the area to which they are assigned, because someone has parked over the line and blocked two spots. USC’s extremely narrow parking spaces can be addressed elsewhere. Most of us work around these tight spaces, so why can’t you?

Blocking more than one parking space not only deprives a fellow Trojan of a space for which they have paid. It also suggests that the person who has parked sloppily feels that they are more important than the next driver.

You aren’t. If you’re running late to class or work, tough. Rudeness and self-importance on this scale could be fined a lot higher than $50 in the real world. You’d probably get fired.

Take one minute to park graciously and within the regulations of the permit you hold so that others may have the freedom to do the same.

This is a reasonable rule that polite Trojans should follow without being told. I support any penalty USC Transportation wishes to bestow on drivers who block more than one spot.

I would enjoy seeing their cars towed, but that might cause even more congestion.

Jacqueline Swaidan

Senior, history

Correction: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article contained an extraneous sentence in the last paragraph, “Nevertheless, our senators need to be reminded of the pressing nature of the economic problems here in Los Angeles,” that was not part of the letter. The Daily Trojan regrets the error. 

2 replies
  1. Jacqueline Swaidan
    Jacqueline Swaidan says:

    The last sentence, “Nevertheless . . .” is a typo and was not part of my letter. Thanks –JS

    • Anonymous
      Anonymous says:

      Good to hear. It was excellent until that sentence. Thanks a lot, editors. “Senators” really needed to be brought into this. So sensible….

Comments are closed.