Absolutely parking abuse is a big issue - I just can’t tell if the OP is only complaining about the abuse or if he is also complaining about legitimate use of placards.
This is not about parking abuse: This is about governmental corruption: at the highest level, and the lowest.
It’s about a group of people working out a system amongst themselves to subvert the law.
It’s about enforcement agents being in on it and circumventing the law.
What is the law? The Law saids only ppl with legal placards can park (subject to restrictions.)
We have firefighters parking absolutely ILLEGALLY anywhere in the neighborhood with absolute impunity: it works because the enforcement agents are in on it.
The community doesn’t want it, and it’s not legal but it happens anyway.
Maybe, I’m just spitballing here, these scofflaws see how little respect there is for the law, say, amongst a group of the population that will never talk to law enforcement no matter what, and decided hell with it. Again, just an idea for discussion. 
So you’re suggesting that the distrust for law enforcement preceded law enforcement choosing to break the community trust, and not the other way around?
Interesting.
More suggesting that given his previous threads, the idea of the OP having a great respect for the law or LEOs is hilarious.
Nonsense. Cops and firefighters park wherever they want. It has nothing to do with anyone else. At the precint, at the firehouse, they park anywhere. Including the sidewalk.
By the way, who exacty is this “group of the population” you’re talking about? Much easier to understand you if you just come out and say what you mean.
The OP has started multiple threads about how you should never talk to cops, period. I assume there are at least a few people who think that way, ergo a group. I was trying for snark and apparently failed utterly, so never mind.
I was understanding this, until you overstated the problem… by a LOT (“Corruption at the highest level” might be applicable to killing suspects or taking millions in payoffs, but not paying for parking?).
It does make me think you’ve got a weird anti-cop or maybe more general anti-authority prejudice.
.
Hmmm… I’m not sure your blood pressure can take this, so sit down first… but, you know, when you see a cop with a donut?
They may have been given that donut for free.
While you and I, hard-working citizens that we are, have to go without shoes just so we can buy our own deep-fried pastries.
Sidebar:
It’s an extension of a term from the common law governing property.
Back when English landholders made complicated bequests of property to their family, you could have a situation where the owner of the land makes a will that gives someone an interest in the land, but makes the interest contingent on something happening.
If events happen so that the contingent interest is converted to a real interest, but one that is still in the future, that’s called a “vested interest.”
Suppose Testator says in the will:
“I leave Blackacre to my eldest son, Alfred, and his wife Adele, for their lifetimes, and then to their issue.”
“But if my son Alfred dies without issue, then my second son Bert will inherit Blackacre after both Alfred and Adele die.”
As soon as Testator dies, Bert has a contingent interest. It’s possible he might inherit Blackacre, but by no means certain.
But if Alfred dies a year after Testator, without issue, then Bert now has a vested interest: Adele continues to have a life interest in Blackacre, but since Alfred died without issue, when Adele dies, Bert will inherit Blackacre.
That kind of certain but deferred interest was called vested. It’s now applied more generally, outside of land law, to describe a right that was originally contingent, but is now certain.
Pensions are a good example. A lot of defined benefit pensions have a vesting period: “You must contribute to the company pension plan for at least five years to be eligible to receive a pension at age 65. If not, your contributions will be returned to you with interest”.
When you’re in your fourth year with the company, you’ve still only got a contingent interest; you might get a pension, or you might not. But as soon as you’ve paid a full five years of contributions, you have a vested interest. You have a legal right to a pension at age 65. You might be 45 at the time you make your last qualifying payment of the five year period, so you don’t have a right to the pension now, but you do have a legal right to the pension when you turn 65.
During the period between making the last payment of the five year period, and turning 65, you have a vested interest in the pension, even if you’re not drawing it yet.
From there, the term “vested interest” has been expanded metaphorically to mean someone who asserts they have a right to something, often with a connotation of a special privilege, as in the discussion in this thread.
I always wondered why you were vested in a retirement plan. Thanks!
For what it’s worth, I got the snark and thought it was appropriate.
You’re welcome.
I got curious about the etymology so went to etymology.com and got these two explanations:
Nor surprisingly, it’s based on putting someone in clothing, metaphorically.
Very cool!
The OP was more than a bit out there, if you get my drift. It was one of the least thought out CTs I’ve seen here.
For what it’s worth, while the OP is rambling and disorganized and very badly written, it does bring up a very real problem in New York City.