I am writing to respond to the article in last week’s Poly that responded to my comments regarding the parking situation at RPI. I would like to correct some assumptions Mr. Rao made, and dispute some arguments he presented.

First, Mr. Rao referenced the incident on August 30, where I was not allowed into North Lot, even though I had a valid permit at the time. He made the assumption that I was going to continue to park in North Lot until “being caught in the act.” This was not the case and, while he correctly stated that August 30 is two days away from September, he missed the point that August 30 is not September. According to the parking regulations, which, as a former member of the Judicial Board, he should be familiar with, my permit did not expire until September. Thus, I had every right to park in that lot on that day. I had no intentions of parking in the lot the following week, as I did not wish to spend my money on the fines I would have received. So, I would ask Mr. Rao to not make such assumptions.

Second, Mr. Rao is correct in that outside parking attendants were hired to monitor the parking lots, so I apologize for that mistake in my article. However, that brings up another point. Why are we hiring outside help to monitor our parking lots? With all the extra spaces in the lots, we shouldn’t need people to stand outside and prevent the occasional violators from parking there. Wouldn’t RPI’s money be better spent somewhere else, such as helping to offset the cost of tuition?

Third, Mr. Rao makes reference to parking situations at other colleges. The argument that any situation isn’t bad because another one is worse is a weak one at best. On top of that, the examples he gives do not relate to RPI. The enrollments at Cornell and Boston University are almost three times that of RPI, so of course they won’t be able to have parking lots for all of their students close to campus. And Boston University’s cost might be because it is located in a city where parking anywhere is not only hard to find, but usually very expensive.

Finally, Mr. Rao makes reference to how various groups have worked to make the best of a bad situation. This is debatable, but even if I were to agree, it doesn’t dispute the main point I was trying to make in my article, that had the Institute planned in advance and built a parking lot to replace the one they destroyed before destroying it, all of the problems that have arisen this year wouldn’t exist. However, if he or anyone else would like to dispute this further, let me know, and I’ll be happy to set up a meeting. Just forgive me if I’m a few minutes late, I might have trouble finding someplace to park.

Scott Hill