Follow us on Twitter @dailytrojan USC Transportation is striving to make more parking spaces available at a reasonable price for students, faculty and guests.People who do purchase a permit are faced with a cost as low as $58.50 to as high as $414 per semester, all which are relative to the parking structure and whether the driver is in a motorcycle or a car.Each semester is roughly four and a half months, meaning the monthly rate falls between $13 to $92. If a driver uses his or her car at least five times per month, the driver’s monthly permit is probably less expensive than paying to park on a daily basis.USC Transportation Associate Director of Operations David Donovan explained the logistics.“We have eight parking structures and numerous open-air surface lots across both campuses, as well as garage parking and surface lots associated with USC Housing facilities. There are around 15,000 spaces available,” Donovan said.Donovan also addressed how USC keeps permit rates as low as they can, while still contributing to the University-approved budget.“We operate on a zero-based budget system; we can only spend what we generate in revenue in a given fiscal year,” Donovan said.For those students who live off campus in an apartment, most of those complexes provide deals for car parking.Last year, the apartment complex Lorenzo had promotions for free parking if students signed a lease with them at certain times of the year.Rachel Erickson, a senior majoring in global health, lives in Chez Ronnee, which had two parking spots included in the rent. Erickson said if she and her roommates needed more than two spaces, she would be reluctant to look into street parking.“I know many people who’ve been towed or had the car vandalized on the street,” Erickson said.Others avoid street parking because it can be hard to find. Commuter Kaeli Flaczinski, a senior majoring in astronautical engineering, pays $414 per semester for a parking permit.“It is insane to find a parking spot on the street,” Flaczinski said. “I do not necessarily mean [the permit] is worth it.”Donovan mentioned how accommodating USC has been for students commuting to campus.“Commuter students who bring their vehicles to campus have the same privileges residential students do,” Donovan said. “Students who use alternate forms of transit are supported by our various alternate commuting options, including carpool and vanpool programs, subsidies for discounted Metro permits and partnerships with programs like Zimride and Zipcar.”The hassle of finding parking off campus is one reason students are buying parking permits for on-campus parking.“If I had all the time in the world to search for street parking, I would, but honestly it’s just easier to have a set place to park that I’ve already paid for,” Erickson said.
Comments Published on October 24, 2015 at 6:07 pm Facebook Twitter Google+
Dear Editor,The post-judgement rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) were surprising for their brevity. After six months of legal proceedings, all the CCJ felt was required by way of consequential orders was to read aloud Article 106 of the Guyana Constitution and remind that it is clear and then further point out the provisions that apply. “These provisions need no gloss on the part of the Court to render them intelligible and workable. Their meaning is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them,” Saunders said.By its use of the word ‘clear’, I believe the CCJ has erred grievously. There are two schools of thought about the APNU/AFC Government – dense or obtuse. Both of these characterisations face difficulty with the ruling. For the ‘dense’, the CCJ is ascribing an innate intelligence quotient (IQ) to persons occupying Government office; without a modicum of evidence to support such an assessment. Given the level of asininity displayed in public utterances and the submissions made to the Court, one cannot expect anything to be ‘clear’ to such persons. The school of the ‘deliberately obtuse’ suffers even more, for after six months of pretended misunderstanding, the CCJ has simply said ‘read the article, apply the provisions and act with integrity’. This leaves very little room for ‘face-saving’ manoeuvres— a shame-faced acceptance that APNU/AFC has been engaged in delay tactics and will now comply is the best outcome, pariah status and personal sanctions the worst.The CCJ reiterated the No-Confidence Motion was appealed and the three-month time limit will commence from when the CCJ eventually upheld it on June 18, that under the Constitution, after a No-Confidence Motion is passed by the National Assembly, the President and Cabinet must immediately resign but the Government is allowed to stay in place in a caretaker role until the fresh election is completed within three months. Compliance with Article 106 of the Constitution. Clear enough?Editor, Unlike the Judges of the CCJ, I harbour no illusions about APNU/AFC IQ’s and have furthered girded my loins for the struggle ahead. APNU/AFC are stupid or playing stupid, either way— a luta continua!Yours truly,Gomati Kalicharran