Tom Champion tries to justify parking changes

[ron_newman]

The Somerville Journal asked Tom Champion some questions about the new parking regulations, which were enacted without advance notice or democratic process by an unelected body, and are set to go into effect on August 1st.

Read the answers here:
Start saving: Parking meter rates and hours to increase, permit parking to expand citywide

(thanks to: Somerville Journal Blog)

(See also: very long DSLJ discussion from earlier this week
and Somerviile Chamber of Commerce's description of the changes)

Comments

[bryant]

Easy. That's not actually the most likely outcome.

I mean... really? Do you /really/ think that the city was somehow incapable of considering that possibility? Do you think they somehow went through the last four or five months of this process without anyone throwing that out there?

This isn't unexplored territory. Cities like Somerville have made changes like this before.

Have you looked at the list of people on the FAC to find out what their credentials are? Let's see...

So the guy from the Chamber of Commerce owns an auto repair business. Let's repeat that: he's in the automative industry. In Somerville. Do you think he's concerned about the number of people who drive in the city?

There's a Tufts econ professor. Local business does not seem to be his speciality -- he does a lot of macroeconomic work.

Two guys from big finance. Shrug.

And, um, the president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, which exists to "ensure that the basics of city government—its tax policies, service delivery and schools—promote a strong business and residential climate." So his job is to help make sure cities don't do things which affect businesses poorly.

You have to assume some pretty impressive stupidity to assume the local auto repair guy and the business lobby got together and messed up and screwed over Somerville business. Or big-time conspiracy action.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Oh, well as long as they have financial experts working on it, I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong. People with those credentials are always right.

Seriously, though, comparing Somerville to Cambridge and Boston seems completely asinine, and all the PR flack is saying is "But it works for Cambridge and Boston!" Where's the data? And why, if we're just replicating the perfect idea two other, very different, cities did, are they increasing the meters to 10pm here in Davis? Boston and Cambridge didn't do that!

And nowhere have I seen the PR flack address the issue that many residents have with making -all- streets permit-only, which is the pain in the ass that it is to have guests over (unless they can all take the T). I believe -Cambridge- (that's our perfect model, right?) allows residents to call the city and say "I'm having guests, here's my address," and prevent 12 people from being hit with $50 parking fines. Ok, Somerville, where's that aspect of your problem-solving?

Raise meter prices; fine. Increase time to -8-pm; annoying, but probably fine - assuming it's not a 2-hour limit. Increase permit prices; fine. But some of the details of the way they are doing this looks really completely clumsy and ignorant of the impact on residents' and business' lives.

[bryant]

I live on a permit street. Oddly enough, I have never had any trouble having guests over.

If I expected to need extra parking, I'd apply for extra one-day permits online and shell out a buck per permit. If I lived in Cambridge and expected to need extra parking, I'd likewise apply online. I'd also have to call the police, and it'd be free rather than costing me a few bucks.

It's the same policy. Cambridge makes me do two things to get the permits; Somerville charges me a buck per permit. Oh noes. They both want advance notice.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I live on a permit street. Oddly enough, I have never had any trouble having guests over.

Good for you!

There are other people on this comm who have pointed out that this curbs spontaneity.

How easy was it for you to get guest passes for more than two friends when you decided, on saturday, to have friends over that night?

[bryant]

Impossible, but I've never had that particular problem. Possibly my friends are more willing to carpool than your friends; I don't know.

Point is, previous poster was holding up Cambridge as an example of an enlightened policy when in reality the two policies are nigh identical.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but if people really care about this issue and want to get policy changed, they're going to have to stop whining and stop making up crap about how much nicer Cambridge is and how impossible it will be to have parties under the new policy. I don't care if you're talking to aldermen or the board of traffic -- being entitled will get you nowhere.

[ron_newman]

Our main difference from Cambridge: almost every commercial district in that city is served by rail transit (Lechmere, Kendall, Central, Harvard, Porter), or is a reasonably short walk from it (Inman Square, upper Mass. Ave.). So it's perfectly reasonable to tell people to take the T instead of driving to those places.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

They both want advance notice.

See, I have a problem with that. Not that I have had massive, last-minute parties, but it's just so badly simple-minded. Yes, it probably covers -most- instances of people needing multiple additional permits, but it's complete crap for last-minute parties unless all of your friends can carpool (which assumes they all live closely enough to each to do so) or get to you using public transit.

They also get black marks for requiring you to create an online account, because if there's one thing T&P does not need to do, it's create even -more- barriers to getting their fantastic services.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I don't believe the folks involved would intentionally screw over local businesses (residents, on the other hand, I believe they -would- disregard). I'm sure they are convinced of the beauty and rightness of their plan.

But the city of Somerville has already proven a willingness to -not- do thorough, thoughtful, analysis of complex issues (see:the shiny new surveillance cameras). In that case, it was clear they either did not do the research, or they ignored the research that said "this will not work like you want it to." So no, I don't believe that careful analytical work went into this, and I suspect that any evidence they accidentally found that said "this might be a bad idea" was just ignored or brushed off.

Also, Alderman Trane is involved in this parking/permitting plan, which would be enough on its own to make me deeply skeptical of the value of the plan's conclusions.

[witzwurst.livejournal.com]

Have you read the report? The recommendation about increasing economic activity through turnover is a one-line throwaway. Nowhere is there any evidence that they looked in detail at the specific mix of businesses in areas where this was going to be implemented -- they just said "Turnover's generally good for business."

I think it's entirely reasonable to say "hey, this hasn't been studied in sufficient detail." Analyzing parking in Davis Square was not the purpose of the report; it shouldn't be surprising that it hasn't been adequately addressed.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

GodDAMmit sometimes I hate being right :(

ARGH!!!