Snow/Parking Update

[tomchampion.livejournal.com]

We just sent this out via Connect CTY:

While the city has NOT declared a snow emergency, the DPW is continuing to salt and sand roads and to remove snow at major intersections and city squares. Despite parking scarcity, residents must NOT park within twenty feet of intersections, obstruct the street, block hydrants or handicapped spaces, or violate resident permit parking. Residents and businesses are also reminded that they are REQUIRED to remove snow and ice from their sidewalks and to put down sand to improve traction. If you do not have access to sand, you may receive a free supply by bringing an empty container of five gallons or less to the DPW yard at 1 Franey Road. To further assist residents, the city will continue to provide overnight parking from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. in designated city and school lots through and including Thursday night. Residents currently in legal curbside spaces have until Thursday morning at 8 a.m. to dig out and move their cars before the city resumes ticketing for parking over 48 hours. Thank you for assisting the city in clearing our roadways. If you need additional information, please visit the city’s website or call 311.

Just so LJ folks know, I have since learned that some 48-hour rule tickets may have been issued by the police . This isn't their fault -- they were authorized to do it -- but anyone who has received a 48-hour violation in the past 12 hours should call 311 right away. They should also PLEASE move their vehicles as soon as humanly possible -- we'll start enforcing on Thursday at 8 a.m., but earlier compliance would be very helpful.

PS Thanks to knowledgeable LJers schpahky and mamajoan for clarifying that the city will continue to street-sweep as and where we are able (we do tht all winter), but we won't be ticketing.
Tags: local government, parking, snow emergency


Current Location: office
Current Mood: frantic
Current Music: ringing phones

Comments

[tomchampion.livejournal.com]

Ron, I very respectfully disagree.

The theory is that encouraging turnover gives more "turns" to more people. A person who leaves his/her vehicle at the curb for a week at a time is essentially claiming a "personal" space. I would argue that curbside parking is a public resource that should be shared by lots of different drivers. The 48-hour rule puts everyone (at least in theory) on a more equal footing in terms of access to a scarce and valuable community resource.

I once got an angry email from a resident who said the city should reward her with a "permanent" space because, while she had a car, she commuted by T and therefore was a better environmental citizen than those who drive. So she felt she should have her cake (a car whenever she wanted one)and eat it too (a free parking space for as long as she needed it).

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much it costs to rent an off-street space by the month here in Somerville?

[narya.livejournal.com]

I see this craigslist post:
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/wan/511887960.html
which is offering $100 for a spot near Central & Broadway. I don't know if that's actually representative though - it was the only relevant post I found on craigslist with a quick search.

[tomchampion.livejournal.com]

Thanks, narya. That sounds about right. So the neighbors of those who want to park at the curb for a week or more at a time are ceding a community benefit that's worth at least $25 per week to the long-term parkers. Is that fair to other folks on the street with who also compete for curbside parking? How about to those with no cars of their own but who have visitors permits?

This is why we have the 48-hour rule. BTW: Except for the post-snowstorm enforcement sweeps, almost all of the tickets issued for this violation are the result of call-in complaints from the neighbors.

PS My wife really likes your avatar/icon image.

$100/month in Davis Square driveway

[m-b-w.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/952905.html

[aquaflame16.livejournal.com]

I understand the theory behind this, but in practice there are major problems:
1. What happens to people who use their car everyday and often come home to find the space they left is still available and park back in it: How do the T&P enforcement people know this and would they believe the driver if he/she made this argument? (anecdotal evidence says not)
Similarly, what if I am parked, drive to the grocery store and come home to find the only spot available is the one I left earlier. Why should I have any less "right" to park there than anyone else who might have come along during the time I was gone? And yet I would often hesitate to park there for fear of being interpreted as not having left the spot at all.

2. People who do not use their car daily, in order to comply with this rule, may simply go out at some point when there is a space available and move their car from one space to another. How does this benefit anyone else (assuming the spaces comparable in terms of location, etc.)?

3. The mentioned residents' less than stellar approach aside, the city should be doing what it can to encourage people to be better environmental citizens, or at least not actively discouraging less use of cars. This rule is actively hostile towards people who do not use their cars often. (Obviously not having a car at all would be the best from an environmental perspective, but assuming some people can't or won't be without a car, the less usage the better.)

4. The comparison to renting spaces is specious. Paying for a rented space guarantees you a space whenever you want it (whenever you happen to get home, regardless of street cleaning/snow emergencies, whatever), lets you park always in the same place, and lets you keep your car off the street (safer for the car). It is only secondarily about being able to leave your car parked as long as you like. All being able to leave your car in one place on the street means is just that: you can leave your car where it is until you need or want to use it. (Within reason, of course. I would have no problem with a 14-day, for example.) I really don't see how this is a valid comparison.

If we assume that a person is not going to drive more often than they would otherwise because of this rule (and I really doubt that would be its effect) that person's car would be parked in one space or another; what difference, from a "use of public resources" perspective, does is make which space that is?

[tomchampion.livejournal.com]

I actually think the value argument IS important. Specific responses to your points follow:

1. The non-anecdotal evidence suggests that, except for post snow emergency enforcement, the great majority of 48 hour tickets are issued because of phone-in complaints from neighbors. (I don't assert that this is 100 percent true, just generally true.) When T&P gets these calls, they still wait forty-eight hours before issuing the citation (so that they're not just taking the word of someone in the neighborhood who covets the space).

2. It may not benefit the neighborhood as a whole, but it keeps more spaces at play in more locations. (There's a great space right outside my door. It's wonderful to have visitors pull in there, put our visitor permit placard in the window and dash in. I can't keep someone else from parking there, but I sure do like it when they move on and that great space opens up again -- even if "moving on" means only that they shifted across the street.

3. The emerging response to this problem is the Zipcar. The city has worked closely with Zipcar in the past, and I know that the mayor is very open to the idea of expanding Zipcar locations. As the company says in their marketing, "wheels when you need them" is an approach that provides cars to those who wish to minimize their carbon footprint but need a transportation option that falls in between renting for the weekend and taking the T (or biking).

4. Curbside "dwell time" has real value, if not so much as a full-tme rented space. You (and Ron) may believe that 48 hours is too small a window, but I would argue that 14 days is way too long.

What do others think is the right length of time -- that is, fairest to all parties?

[aquaflame16.livejournal.com]

re: 1.: I'm glad to know this about the enforcement. Maybe it will make me a bit less paranoid about re-parking in the same spot, etc.

I could certainly accept (not that it's up to me, obviously, this is just my opinion) something in between 48-hours and 14 days as fair to most parties. I mentioned 14-days just as an example. Personally I think something like 7 days would be great. Even 4 or 5 days would be a whole lot better than 2.

[kennygster.livejournal.com]

I think 48 hours is right. Especially since you're essentially waiting 48 hours after a resident complaint before ticketing so that's giving the person at least 4 days (probably many more days).

[pearlythebunny.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with the 48-hour rule because I don't think it is heavily enforced unless someone is parked in such a way as to annoy the neighbors. My street (Willow Ave.) in not a resident-only street. Anyone can park there. I see people all the time who are parked for days and days in one spot. Unless they are parked in such a way that makes it difficult to drive down the street or get into a driveway, I don't think most people would report it.

I personally would not want a big ol' SUV parked on the street beside by driveway (even if it was parked legally) for 14 days because it would make it too hard to see when I back out of the driveway. After a couple of days, I think I'd want it gone, and I'd hope for a Mini-Cooper to take its place.

[docorion.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to go with '14 days is too long', but also agree that '48 hours is too little'. Somewhere between 5-7 days seems right to me; I use my car little, but usually need to use it every 5 days or so (groceries, laundry (no machine in my place; I go to a laundromat or my partner's house). I hear the argument about fair use, and I buy it, but 48 hours seems a bit short to me.

What I do now is move the car every couple of days and grumble. I wouldn't grumble about 5 days because I usually need to move it that often anyway.

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

3. The emerging response to this problem is the Zipcar. The city has worked closely with Zipcar in the past, and I know that the mayor is very open to the idea of expanding Zipcar locations. As the company says in their marketing, "wheels when you need them" is an approach that provides cars to those who wish to minimize their carbon footprint but need a transportation option that falls in between renting for the weekend and taking the T (or biking).

we have been using zipcar since our car was basically totaled over Labor Day weekend by the kids moving out next door hitting it with their rental truck. It has been incredibly convenient and after looking at the budget, very cost efficient (cheaper than owning the car was). I would love for the city to get more cars. There are tons around the Davis area, though, and we have only once had to go more than a few blocks to get a car.

[wallacestreet.livejournal.com]

We've had the discussion about the 48-hour rule here before (maybe someone can dig it up), and I've spoken with Rebekah about it. The ideal solution from my point of view is zoned parking where you're allowed to park near your house for significantly more than 48-hours, but a 48 (or 24 or 36)-hour rule is strictly enforced for cars from elsewhere in the city. Rebekah tells me that this is a political non-starter.

Barring that, I think the best response would be to formalize the resident complaint rule as follows:

1. Annoying Parker (AP) parks right in front of Annoyed Neighbor's (AN) house
2. AN calls 311 to complain
3. T&P leaves a warning notice on AP's car
4. 48 hours (or whatever) passes
5. If AP's car hasn't moved, T&P writes a ticket
6. 24 hours (or whatever) passes
7. Return to 5 for additional tickets

Enforcement without the need for a complaint or a warning notice could be retained following snow, to allow the streets to be cleared.

With this system, residents don't have to worry about returning to the same spot, and there's explicit notice for anyone who hasn't just dumped their car on the street, but AN still has some recourse. It's a little bit like the system for abandoned bicycles with notice before ticketing or removal.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

I know this discussion is old, but I wanted to point out that when my GF and I decided to buy a condo, this law popped into my head as a reason to avoid Somerville (and we bought a place just across the border in Cambridge). It certainly wasn't the only one, but it added some weight. It is such an incredibly irresponsible law from an environmental standpoint and I am fairly certain it annoys and harms more citizens than it "helps."

The street sweeping schedule should be enough to keep track of abandoned cars. Residents of Somerville are either direct tax payers or paying rent on a tax-paying property. 15 feet of curb space is not asking for much.

[koloratur.livejournal.com]

That's all well and good, but what about people who are ticketed because they HAPPEN to be in the same space at the end of 48 hours? I once received a ticket for a time period where I not only went to the grocery store/out for errands 5 or 6 times (and had receipts to prove it), but was in Millis, MA with my car for a 7 hour stretch. There are exactly 2 spaces where I can park by my house on a Sunday night without going to another block/around the corner. And if one is open, it's ridiculous that I should have to worry that a parking attendant *might* have seen me there days ago. The ticket was eventually waived, but only after I called my alderman and he personally spoke to Parking.

[ron_newman]

Whereas I would say that someone who leave his/her car on the street for a week, while taking public transit or a bicycle or walking to work, is being environmentally responsible. The city should encourage this, not penalize it.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

I fully agree.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

The theory is that encouraging turnover gives more "turns" to more people.

That's not the officially published explanation, though:

"The 'Over 48 Hour' regulation is designed to prevent non-resident vehicles from being stored on city streets and to identify and remove abandoned or stolen vehicles."

The 48 hour rule impact on non-resident vehicles would be minimal on resident-only parking streets, were the resident-only parking issue enforced.

If I go away for three days, my car isn't abandoned.

A car sitting on a street for more than 48 hours isn't, necessarily, abandoned or stolen.