http://winterhill.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] winterhill.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2009-06-30 11:55 am

More on Parking

An article in the Somerville Journal quotes Alderman Pero as saying "city officials can't give in to constituent concerns."  Huh?  Isn't this otherwise known as listening to the people who voted you into office?  And will vote you out?  I understand they haven't come up with the right answer yet, but this statement is arrogant and lame.

Link to the full article:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/town_info/government/x1885874713/Somerville-aldermen-split-on-citywide-permit-parking

[identity profile] badseed1980.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Technically, it doesn't quote him directly as saying that. There aren't quotation marks. It's a paraphrase or summary by the journalist of what the person said: an indirect quote. Pero might well not have used those words himself.

[identity profile] badseed1980.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Not at this time. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the alderman might not have actually said what you said he said, in case that changed anything about YOUR reaction to the piece. It might not, for all I know.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:29 pm (UTC)(link)
By "citywide permit parking" do they mean permits that are good anywhere in the city? If so that would be VERY bad for neighborhoods near a T stop, which would effectively lose all their on street parking.

[identity profile] mzrowan.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:32 pm (UTC)(link)
No, they mean that all streets will require a permit to park (some streets currently don't). Presumably the permits will still be area-specific.

[identity profile] surrealestate.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Only the guest permits are area-specific. Resident parking stickers are good city-wide.

[identity profile] mzrowan.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Huh! Yeah, I guess I was thinking of guest permits. Not having a car, I've never had to get a resident permit. So, getting back to the OP's question, I guess this will exacerbate an existing problem, if it exists.

[identity profile] masswich.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it will exacerbate a parking shortage in any area. If you have a parking permit now you can park in any permit parking, or any non-permit parking. If you don't have a permit now you can only park in non-permit parking. So if you make the whole city permit parking it reduces the number of cars that can park in that area, actually alleviating a problem.

OTOH there are a number of problems with this proposal, such as the inability to allow people to park for more than 2 hours even if they pay to do so (for example to see a movie or a show) and the lack of flexibility in general. So while I think it might help me, with my permit, park for free, I still think it needs some work. If redone well I think it would actually make the City more money, not less.

[identity profile] thespian.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:06 pm (UTC)(link)
If you don't have a permit now you can only park in non-permit parking. So if you make the whole city permit parking it reduces the number of cars that can park in that area, actually alleviating a problem.

And causing more...if I'd like to throw a party, or heck, have more than 2 cars of non-residents come visit, I used to tell people they could park on Elm, which was a block away, and *always* has parking. Now, though....if they need to use the parking permit, they're going to park as close to my place as they can - faster to get the permit back and forth, and in spots normally used and wanted by tenants. Having fewer 'safe haven streets' where visiting non-residents can park even if the walk is further means more competition for the really desirable spots.

[identity profile] thespian.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:07 pm (UTC)(link)
i should note that the section of Elm I am near is permit free in the evenings and weekends; it's down south of Porter.

[identity profile] masswich.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree. I was only referring to the issue of people parking near T stations for the day. There should definitely be some "safe havens" for visitors who don't live in Somerville. Down in the South End they have some of these spaces, although they are usually all taken.

[identity profile] chenoameg.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I have been told by traffic and parking that guest permits are for your street and cross street only, not for the entire zone on the permit.

[identity profile] thespian.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
all the more reason this is a bad idea. Right now, my guests don't *have* to park on my doorstep. They can park on Elm south of Cedar, which always has space, and is an easy 1-block walk to my place (it always has space because almost every building along there has a parking lot or driveway, so the residents park off street for most of Elm from Cedar south to Somerville Ave.). If the permit limits them to my street and the cross street, then even if they wanted to park on spacious, always available Elm, they couldn't (my street runs parallel to Elm; a different street would be my cross street).

It's just poorly thought out; it might eliminate a little non-resident parking in really congested areas, but it's going to make the lives of a disproportionate number of residents in south Porter, Union, Winter Hill areas more difficult, while repairing an issue that *doesn't exist* in this part.

[identity profile] sonofabish.livejournal.com 2009-07-01 09:18 pm (UTC)(link)
All the more reason to vote every single person in office from the Mayor on down out of office the next election.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2009-07-02 02:19 am (UTC)(link)
That would be hard since almost nobody has an opponent, and the filing deadine has passed.

Rebekah Gewirtz (Ward 6) is opposed, but she's been good on this issue (as on most others) and I'd absolutely like to keep her around.
Edited 2009-07-02 02:20 (UTC)

[identity profile] sonofabish.livejournal.com 2009-07-02 02:22 am (UTC)(link)
Ok, we'll do that for Rebekah. You're correct there.

At the very least, if I still live here in Somerville this next election, I'm going to write in "none of the above" for the rest of them. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to call for votes of no confidence in our government, and this will have to suffice.

[identity profile] m00n.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:32 pm (UTC)(link)
The proposal under discussion has been for permit parking an all the streets in the city. Presumably each neighborhood would still have its own permits.

[identity profile] surrealestate.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
What you describe is already the case in both Cambridge and Somerville, and afaik, always has been.

What they mean is making every street in the city permit-only or metered.

[identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:34 pm (UTC)(link)
I must be remembering parking rules from somewhere else (or confusing them with visitor permits). Having a driveway I tend to forget details. Thanks to everyone for the info.
Edited 2009-06-30 16:35 (UTC)

[identity profile] wandelrust.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I think if you add the implicit "... or the city will go broke," it's not unreasonable.

Taxes and fees are never popular, but the city needs to raise money from somewhere. If elected officials only did what constituents told them too, governments would never be able to do anything.

[identity profile] rethcir.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Frankly, I'd rather pay double excise tax than have this policy go through.

[identity profile] thetathx1138.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:50 pm (UTC)(link)
On what? Gas? That's the only excise tax that's remotely fair. I shouldn't be obligated to pay for your car even more than I already do.

[identity profile] srakkt.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 07:03 pm (UTC)(link)
You don't pay excise tax on anybody else's car. The city sends a bill to every owner who has a vehicle registered in the city.

[identity profile] thetathx1138.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 07:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I thought we were referring to the alcohol/tobacco taxes that are on deck. Carry on.

[identity profile] srakkt.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd be ALL FOR you payin' for my booze. ;)

[identity profile] rethcir.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 06:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Excise tax is the "Fuck You Pay Me" bill, a direct tax the city of somerville sends me every year for about $80 (a newer car can have it easily into the hundreds).

[identity profile] thetathx1138.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 07:14 pm (UTC)(link)
OK, I thought we were referring to sin taxes here.

[identity profile] boblothrope.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 10:28 pm (UTC)(link)
While Somerville does get the car excise tax, it's the same rate in every city and town in the state. So it's not like it's an extra cost of living in Somerville.

[identity profile] thetathx1138.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, pretty much. I think people are forgetting that plenty of people on the Medford/Arlington/Cambridge border are more than happy to take non-permit parking spaces. As I noted elsewhere, the city and alderman probably get a dozen calls a week about how so-and-so can't park on their street and it's such a travesty and how there oughta be a law!

Well? Now there is!

[identity profile] wallacestreet.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Currently, any street which doesn't have permit parking and wants it can petition the city (http://www.somervillema.gov/CoS_Content/documents/forms/PermitParkingApp.pdf) to make it so. Half of the households on the street need to sign up. Good luck going the other way...

[identity profile] thetathx1138.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 07:14 pm (UTC)(link)
This assumes people's ability to complain is equal to their desire to take action of their own accord.

[identity profile] dent42.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Then the whiners can put up or shut up, and I'd fully support any alderperson who told them that. Although I imagine they'd use nicer terms than that. :)

[identity profile] dent42.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Except there was already a policy in place to fix this problem. If you live on a street that's not permit, and you feel like its being used as a commuter lot, you gather your neighbor's signatures, and convert the street over. I've seen it happen on Willow when I was living near there. If parking is really that bad in the neighborhood, this will be really simple to gather. My guess is if ANY phone calls are made to complain, its from some dude who has lived in the neighborhood for year, and thinks the spot in front of their house belongs to them. They'll find other reasons to call when this goes away.

I spoke with Trane, and he admitted it was a money grab. not only will they get to ticket more, they also are going to pull in the permit fees for cars that didn't necessarily have to register before and will now.

I'd be fully in support of this if they'd go back to the days of phone registering parties/gatherings, or introducing some other self-service option that doesn't require a trip to an office that is barely open, much less open at convenient hours for people with, you know, jobs. (you used to be able to call T&P, tell them you were having a party, the time and number of guests, and that was that). If anyone got a ticket, you could go and get them rescinded without even a hearing. Presumably the person walking that neighborhood beat was told about the party, because we never had guests get hit when we did that. At my current house, Broadway is a few minute's walk away, and ALWAYS has parking available.

While we're at it, can we PLEASE kill the stupid 48 hour rule? Hi, I drive my car once every week or two, and commute to work by T. Don't make me go out, start it, roll it a few feet, and park it again because I have some neighbor who is an ass. The 24 hour rule (its not actually 48, but 24) exists so the city can force cars to move by posting signs in the event they need to do some emergency roadwork.

[identity profile] wombatbanana.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)

> [Provide 24-hr self-service party passes and ditch the 48-hr rule.]

This. I agree with the mayor's argument (http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2009/06/parking-its-all-about-access.html) that making parking free causes a scarce resource to be poorly utilized, but business (and/or their patrons) and residents need to be able to pay a fair price for their use of city streets.

[identity profile] sonofabish.livejournal.com 2009-07-01 09:23 pm (UTC)(link)
That's what democracies are supposed to do. Everyone from the Mayor on down is a public servant and there to serve the will of the people, not dictate their will to us and to hell with us if we don't like it. Clearly, this has been forgotten on a few levels and when that happens, action must be taken in the form of voting them out of office and putting people in who understand how a democratic system works.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/ 2009-06-30 05:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Confusingly, the article states that the vote was 6 to 5 against, but then lists 5 aldermen voting against and 6 voting for. Anyone know what actually happened on that note?

[identity profile] lbmango.livejournal.com 2009-06-30 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Since the vote went though, I'm pretty sure that the 1st isa misprint...

[identity profile] tt02144.livejournal.com 2009-07-02 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)
This is definitely a money-grab, there's no doubt about it. And besides the fees for permits and guest passes, and the restrictions on where you can use guest passes, there are also restrictions on when. The same vehicle can only use your guest pass once in every so many days (don't recall the specific number of days). So if you have a friend, son, cousin, whatever, who visits regularly, guess what? They can't! And parking near T stops is not necessarily alleviated, because anyone with a permit can still park on a street near Davis, for example, all day (and do!).
I personally find it offensive, that on top of the taxes we pay, we must park for the privilege of actually using the streets we are paying for. I don't think the city/state/federal government ever seriously cuts costs, and that's the problem.