For the next 90 days, Evanston Great Bank President and Chairman JohnSheldon will see cars parked illegally in the bank’s lot – and he won’t beable to do a thing.

But Sheldon, who has employed Guardian Parking Services to patrol the lotand immobilize vehicles of violators, says Evanston City Council’s newordinance prohibiting the immobilization (or booting) of vehicles onprivate property is a good start – it just poses a real problem for thebank.

“I am mainly concerned for my customers,” Sheldon says. “People come andleave here with a lot of money, and it’s a risk when there are no spots forthem in the lot.”

The ordinance, passed by City Council June 12, has placed a 90-daymoratorium on private property booting so aldermen can discuss the benefitsand downsides of imposing regulations.

“There were enough complaints and personal concerns brought to us that wedecided we needed to examine the problem,” says Ald. Steve Engelman (7th).

Engelman says he is opposed to booting unless three main issues areaddressed: trespassers who don’t realize they are parking illegally, thehigh price for detaching the boot and a way to make sure that if violatorsdon’t have enough money on them they can still drive their cars.

“Booting also allows for a direct confrontation between the violator andthe parking lot patrollers that leads to bad tempers,” Engelman says. “Atleast with towing there is a sort of cooling-off period.”

But Guardian manager Mark Denigris disagrees.

“Towing leaves a person stranded. There are many towing fees the person hasto pay and there may be damages to the car,” Denigris says. “With booting,we don’t damage the vehicle, the car stays where it is, we observe peopleto see where they’re going before we boot the car and they can pay the feeright there.”

The advantages of booting outweigh the benefits of towing, says Ald. EdMoran (6th ).

“I’m still waiting to hear what the big downside (of booting) is,” Moransays. “Businesses who have hired attendants confirm that the number ofincidents of parking violations reduces.”

The parking lot at Evanston Great Bank is a good example of reduced parkingviolations after booting was implemented, Sheldon says.

“What council members hear about are the complaints of violators,” Sheldonsays. “They don’t hear from the thousands of customers who use the parkinglot for us and are happy that they now have spots.”

Sheldon says he has had no problems with Guardian in terms of the company’swillingness to correct any situations brought to his attention.

According to Denigris, Guardian tries to accept credit cards and checks allthe time, as well as checks on weekdays. With nine signs posted in theBurger King parking lot, Guardian surpasses the one-sign-per-lot requiredby law of towing companies, Denigris says.

As for the $105 fee for detaching the boot from the cars, Denigris says thereason for not reducing the $105 is that they didn’t want to undercut thetow companies. In the city of Chicago, where booting has also beenprohibited while the process of placing regulations is underway, thedetachment fee is $90, says Denigris.

Non-customer parking after business hours is also an issue. Councilmen saythose who are booted or asked to leave lots when businesses are closed havemade complaints.

But business owners say their concern for liability is the main reason forafter-hour patrolling.

Sheldon, whose bank is now involved in a law suit with someone who claimsto have been injured on his parking lot, says he hires Guardian to patrolthe lot because his business is liable for what happens on it twenty-fourhours a day.

Until council reaches an agreement as to whether it will allow booting withregulations in Evanston or make it disappear altogether, Sheldon says hemay have to revert to towing or another sort of patrol service to controlthe number of cars in his lot.