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]

Oh, and... before you get /too/ enthused about direct democracy and the budget process, you might want to look into what happened to California over the last couple of years. You might also want to remember that Somerville's looking at a deficit because, in part, the state isn't sending us as much money because, in part, of Prop 2 1/2.

There is real value to a layer of insulation between voters and budgets, because people -- as richly demonstrated in California -- will vote their direct self-interest with a cheerful disregard for long-term sustainability.

[ron_newman]

Yes, there should be a 'layer of insulation' -- that's what the elected legislators (the Board of Aldermen) are for. I don't advocate submitting parking regulations to a ballot referendum. I do advocate having only elected officials, not appointed ones, making these decisions. Elected officials have accountability to the voters. Appointed ones don't.

[bryant]

Oh.

Well, you have your wish, then. Here's the original press release, dated 1/28/09, in which the city announced the formation of the advisory committee. Emphasis is on advisory, here.

“We could complete this process internally, but why shouldn’t we draw on the wisdom and expertise that’s available all around us? We’ve never been shy about turning to outside experts for advice about municipal best practices, and I welcome the fresh perspective this distinguished outside group will bring.”

That's Curtatone, who is of course an elected official. The Board of Aldermen was also involved:

"In the end, this new advisory group can’t make the tough decisions for us, but they can offer helpful guidance, and I am pleased that the Mayor is establishing this special committee," said Ward 2 Alderman Maryann Heuston, who chairs the Board’s Finance Committee.

Their recommendations were published on May 8th, and are available here. Note that said recommendations were not adopted wholesale. E.g., selling the Powderhouse School doesn't show up in the 5/4 budget presentation.

The press release discussing the recommendations is here. One short quote: "I am eager to get to work on analyzing their suggested actions and implementing them wherever appropriate and feasible."

Is it not OK for the elected officials to seek non-binding advice from experts when making decisions?

[ron_newman]

Yes, but at the end of the process the elected officials need to be the ones making the binding decision -- not passing them off to an unelected and unaccountable Traffic and Parking Commission. The Aldermen haven't voted on this plan, and it is set to go into effect without them voting on it.

[bryant]

Commissioners don't serve life terms, as it turns out. Also, it's not like the policy suggestion magically transmitted itself from the report to the commission. The Finance Committee, which is a subsection of the Board, meets regularly... damn. The May 21st minutes aren't up yet. That'd tell us about the discussion prior to the TPC meeting.

In any case. Here're the April 2009 Traffic Regulations (PDF). Key paragraph, way the heck down in Appendix C:

Upon the filing of petitions with the traffic board by not less than fifty registered
voters of the city, relative to any rule or regulation proposed to be adopted, altered or
repealed, and not yet in effect, the proposed action shall be suspended, and the traffic
board shall hold a public hearing thereon within two weeks of the date the petitions
were filed, and shall by majority vote approve or disapprove the proposed action
within two weeks following the public hearing. Upon the filing of petitions with the
traffic board by not less than fifty registered voters of the city, relative to any rule or
regulation which has been adopted, altered or repealed for a period of at least thirty
days, the traffic board shall hold a public hearing thereon within two weeks of the
date the petitions were filed and shall, following such hearing, determine by majority
vote whether to avoid the adoption, alteration or repeal of the rule or regulation.

Probably ought to use the procedures available to us to challenge this before we complain too hard about how binding it is. Note that, yes, the traffic board is also not elected -- it is, however, appointed by elected officials.

[ron_newman]

And I'll sign any petitions that come my way -- see also geekpixie's most recent post. But I still do not see why it's appropriate for a non-elected body to make these decisions or rule on their appeals.

[bryant]

Not much I can say, then. Boy, you're gonna be /really/ upset when you find out about the judicial branch.

[dent42.livejournal.com]

So, this appointed, non-elected board who made a unilateral decision shall have a hearing, and then, by simply majority, hold a vote to decide whether to go forward. What are the chances they are going to change their minds in response to citizen input; we need to voice our concerns to our aldermen, and get pressure on the board from them. Definitely sign the petition, but also write your representative to let them know your concerns!

[witzwurst.livejournal.com]

Except the 1/28 press release mentions nothing about parking, nor does the 5/11 release. That seems disingenuous to me.

Anyone know if the recommendation to do single stream recycling has gotten any traction?