Where Columbus drivers are likely to get parking tickets
NBC4 Investigates sorted through every parking ticket people in Columbus received last year and found where drivers are most likely to get hit with a ticket if they let the meter run out.
Along Gay Street, you're likely to hear a few sighs, groans, and maybe even some choice words because the stretch on East Gay Street between North Third and Lazelle streets is where more people got ticketed than anywhere else in Columbus: 2,722 parking tickets issued in 2024, just on this one block.
Indoor park with waterless slides opens first Ohio location in Columbus
'It's guttural. It's like I don't have $50 to give,' Columbus resident Kate Maynard said.
Last year, 164,602 parking tickets were stuck to cars in the city of Columbus.
'First time was I just got out of dinner and I was super happy and then all of a sudden, $100 ticket, so kind of upset, you could say,' Columbus resident Randall Walden said.
Columbus' Division of Parking Services is out patrolling all parking zones, but some areas are more work than others.
'Any area where we see a large amount of parking tickets, those are high-demand areas,' Columbus Mobility and Parking Division Administrator Justin Goodwin said. 'That's where lots of people want to be at various times of day, they're business districts or entertainment districts.'
Ohioans can soon buy over twice as much nonmedical marijuana
High Street is another one that's high on the list; zoom in and it's three blocks in particular: the 600, 700 and 900 blocks of High Street. That's the lower part of the Short North near East First Avenue. On these three blocks, there were more than 7,000 tickets issued last year.
'Just working in the Short North, I know that a lot of people get tickets even when they haven't been here for that long,' Maynard said.
Another hotspot is the 600 block of Park Street, down toward the end of Goodale Park, closer to the North Market.
'Columbus is pretty on top of it, even if you're over,' Walden said. 'I think my first parking ticket was maybe 10 minutes over, instantly got a parking ticket.'
Enforcement got even stricter last summer. From July through September, the city increased patrols along North High Street and the top five most ticketed spots were in that area.
Ohio Dems propose 'Love Makes a Family Week' to counter 'Natural Family Month'
'Wherever there's a high demand for parking, unfortunately, that's where we often see parking violations and parking enforcement as part of a toolkit that we have to ensure turnover of parking and availability of parking for the general public,' Goodwin said.
If you're going downtown, here's one piece of advice from the parking enforcers: putting on your hazards is a glaring red flag to them and will likely get you a ticket even if you're fast.
They say park in a spot and stay on top of the app; it will save you money in the long run.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
07-08-2025
- The Hill
An Ohio dealership repossessed her car, so she took their name and then sued
LIMA, Ohio (WCMH) — After a woman's vehicle was repossessed by an Ohio dealership, she decided to take a unique form of retribution. Tiah McCreary purchased a vehicle from Taylor Kia of Lima in February 2024. She signed the finance paperwork, which included an agreement to settle legal disputes through arbitration, according to court documents. EV automaker sues Ohio over direct sales ban, wants to sell like Tesla She applied for financing through Global Lending Services with the help of a finance manager and received a preliminary loan approval for the required amount. McCreary left the dealership in a 2022 Kia K5, but GLS later determined that her income information was not sufficient to complete the loan, according to the documents. Because she no longer had the financing, the dealership repossessed the car in March. The woman was exploring her legal options when she noticed that the name 'Taylor Kia of Lima' was no longer registered with the Ohio Secretary of State's Office because Taylor Cadillac did not submit a renewal application, according to documents. McCreary decided to register 'Taylor Kia of Lima' under her name. McCreary sent a cease and desist letter to the dealership, informing it that the name was registered to her. She then filed a complaint against Taylor Cadillac — which opened the Kia dealership in 2012 — and the lending company, accusing them of violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act. Months later, Taylor Cadillac and GLS filed a motion for arbitration and included an arbitration agreement signed by McCreary. In October 2024, a trial court granted Taylor Cadillac's motion for arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice, court documents show. McCreary appealed later that month and argued that her signature was placed on the arbitration agreement without her knowledge and that it was invalid because the 'Taylor Kia of Lima' name was not registered. She also argued that the arbitration agreement for purchasing a vehicle should not apply to the use of 'Taylor Kia of Lima,' which was now registered to McCreary. Judge John R. Willamowski ruled that McCreary should have known she was signing an arbitration agreement and noted that the arbitration agreement stated it was between the purchaser and 'Taylor Automotive Group, which includes Taylor Cadillac…,' therefore, the agreement was valid. However, the judge did rule that the dispute over the use of the name 'Taylor Kia of Lima' does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because it is not related to the purchase of the vehicle. '[T]his claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration,' Willamowski wrote. The judge remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Judge Juergen A. Waldick and Judge William R. Zimmerman concurred with Willamowski's opinion.
Engadget
04-08-2025
- Engadget
Rivian sues Ohio DMV over partial ban on direct car sales
Rivian has filed a lawsuit against Ohio's Department of Motor Vehicles because of the state's partial ban on direct car sales, The Verge reports. The company says that the ban "reduces competition, decreases consumer choice and drives up consumer costs and inconvenience." Rivian believes Ohio's law is particularly unfair because it contains a carveout for the company's competitor Tesla. Ohio currently requires the state DMV to not provide a dealership license to "a manufacturer, or a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliated entity of a manufacturer, applying for a license to sell or lease new or used motor vehicles at retail." The law keeps car sales in the hands of independently owned car dealerships — except for Tesla. An exception was created for Tesla in 2014, The Columbus Dispatch writes, after the EV maker reached an agreement with the Ohio Dealership Association. Now cars in the state are sold through traditional car dealerships, and three dealerships owned and operated by Tesla. "Rivian believes that consumers should be able to choose the vehicles they purchase," Rivian's Chief Administrative Officer Mike Callahan shared in a statement. "Consumer choice is a bedrock principle of America's economy. Ohio's archaic prohibition against the direct-sales of vehicles is unconstitutional, irrational and harms Ohioans by reducing competition and choice and driving up costs and inconvenience." The company's lawsuit does a good job of laying out the illogical situation Ohio has created with its ban. Rivian is allowed to perform repairs on cars in the state and deliver cars purchased out-of-state to Ohioans. "Nonsensically, the thing that Rivian cannot do is actually complete the sale of Rivian vehicles in Ohio," the company writes. "This imposes an extraordinary burden on Ohio consumers and Rivian for no legitimate reason." As The Verge notes, bans on direct car sales have historically exist to prevent large, established car companies from having a monopoly on the sale of their own cars. Going direct to consumer is one of the ways EV makers have differentiated themselves from older brands, something companies like Tesla and Rivian can't do in states with bans. Rivian could try and strike a deal like Tesla, but filing a federal lawsuit suggests the company could be aiming to win a bigger, more lasting change. Rivian has achieved similar wins in the past. The state of Illinois sued to stop Rivian and Lucid Motors from selling directly to consumers in 2022, but ultimately lost.
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Yahoo
Poll: 14% of Americans would consider supporting Elon Musk's America Party
In contrast, 55% say they would not consider supporting Musk's party. On July 4, Tesla CEO Elon Musk asked his followers on X — the social media platform he owns — whether he should 'create' something called the America Party to give them 'independence' from the country's 'two-party (some would say uniparty) system.' More than 1.2 million users responded to Musk's snap poll: 65% said yes; 35% said no. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day. Since then, however, Musk hasn't taken any visible steps to deliver on his promise. A new Yahoo/YouGov survey — which captures a representative sample of the U.S. population, in contrast to informal social media polls — suggests possible challenges ahead: Just 14% of Americans say they would be open to 'supporting a third party created by Musk.' In contrast, 55% say they would not consider supporting Musk's party. Why Musk wants a new party The survey of 1,729 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 24 to July 28, comes a little more than a month after Musk and President Trump had a public falling-out over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Trump claimed that Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' (the $7,500 federal tax credit that has made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers). Musk insisted he was concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit ... and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote on X. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate in early July with a $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party idea. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' Musk wrote on X. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' People don't love the 2-party system Americans aren't opposed to having alternatives at the ballot box — in theory. The new Yahoo/YouGov poll finds that more of them approve (39%) than disapprove (28%) of the concept of creating a 'third major U.S. political party to compete with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party'; 33% say they are not sure. Naturally, the idea of creating a third party is more popular with Americans who already identify as independents (56%) than with those who identify as Democrats (34%) or Republicans (32%). But the two parties themselves aren't especially well liked either. Majorities see both unfavorably (55% for the GOP, 56% for the Dems) rather than favorably (38% for the GOP, 36% for the Dems). And when respondents are asked how well each major party represents their views, more than half say 'not very well' or 'not at all' for both the Democrats (51%) and the Republicans (52%). Yet the overlap between these two categories — individuals who say they don't like either party — is relatively small, which may pose difficulties for Musk. About a quarter (22%) have an unfavorable view of both the Republicans and the Democrats, and fewer (18%) say neither side represents their views 'very well' or 'at all.' Musk keeps getting less popular In the Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted immediately after Trump won reelection last November, Musk earned a net positive rating (49% favorable, 39% unfavorable). That made him the most popular of the eight incoming Trump Cabinet members and senior advisers respondents were asked to appraise. Yet by April 2025 — following several months as the leader of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — Musk's ratings had flipped to 39% favorable, 55% unfavorable. Today, he is further underwater (32% favorable, 59% unfavorable). Musk is currently seen in a negative light by a clear majority of Democrats (9% favorable, 88% unfavorable) and nearly two-thirds of independents (30% favorable, 64% unfavorable). He still gets a net positive rating from a majority of Republicans (59% favorable, 30% unfavorable), but their enthusiasm has cooled; while 52% of Republicans saw Musk 'very favorably' last November, only 17% now feel that way about him. Since March, the number of Americans who think Musk is 'mostly trying to help the country' has fallen from 36% to 23%, whereas the number who think he is 'mostly trying to help himself' has risen from 52% to 56%. The share of Republicans who think Musk is mostly trying to help the country, meanwhile, has declined by 30 points — from 73% to 43%. The proposed policy focus of Musk's America Party — stopping the federal government from 'bankrupting our country with waste & graft,' as he put it — isn't people's top priority either. Asked what they would want a 'third major political party' to 'focus mostly on,' 26% of Americans said 'cutting government spending.' Significantly more (46%) said 'other issues.' __________________ The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,729 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 24 to July 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.1%.
