The Davis Square Community

the traffic and parking commission listened politely to 2 hours of testimony from concerned citizens, the majority of whom (certainly the most vocal) seemed to be supporting the petitions, then voted to decline the petitions because they felt the concerns expressed were being adequately addressed by the parking task force. alderman trane was the most enthusiastically permit-only proponent, dan maher was the most cogent opponent. a T@F representative, a vernon-st studios member, and a mudflats rep all talked about their specific concerns; at the close of public comments there seemed to be a consensus among the commission and the task force that a representative of "the arts community" should be invited to join the task force.

what happens next ? presumably a lot of lobbying of the task force members. in the absence of an organized political counter-weight, though (the mayor's unopposed in the upcoming election, i believe), momentum is with the establishment.

From:

ron_newman

Thanks. Who is Dan Maher?

From:

sshugars.livejournal.com

Dan Maher owns a stained glass store in Magoun Square, and was very concerned about the amount of parking in Magoun that would disappear. I would also add to the above that Alderman Pero also spoke strongly in favor of permit parking only.

From:

ron_newman

The mayor is unopposed, all of the ward aldermen are unopposed except for Rebekah Gewirtz (whom I want to keep), but there are five people running for the four aldermen-at-large seats. If you think we need a change, you may want to vote for Luis Morales, the only non-incumbent, this November. I have no idea what his position is on parking, but he is a local small-business owner as well as a local pastor.

Edited Date: 2009-08-14 03:27 pm (UTC)

From:

btm02144.livejournal.com

I don't understand what the issue is with the current permit-only process. I live on a street that is not permit-only, and if residents want that changed, there's a policy in place to do so. (51% of residents of that street need to agree to it). Now, we have no choice?

From:

Pero supported it, even though almost 90% of his ward is un-permitted, and he has done NOTHING to notify his constituency about this change?

Quelle surprise!

From:

this point was made by, i think, two speakers and received strong applause during one of them. some permit-only proponents seem to be expressing concern that there's a "fairness" issue with people failing to register cars in somerville and pay the associated local excise tax (out-of-state plates were mentioned a few times). in the absence of survey data, it's hard to quantify how much revenue, in lost excise tax, the city is being deprived of. my bias is strongly in favor of the pre-change petition system; i may not be making the best representation of the pro-change viewpoint.

From:

huh...in re-reading that post i'm impressed by my own lack of coherence. to clarify: i prefer the system where 51% of the street's residents can petition to go permit-only, and i supported the petition to repeal the changes made by the parking board.

From:

people failing to register cars in somerville and pay the associated local excise tax

The response to that is NOT to force everyone to get permits.

From:

sshugars.livejournal.com

There seems to be general confusion about (among other things) the primary purpose of the regulations.

If the goal is to protect residents against the impending Green Line, the current system for allowing residents to make their street permit-only seems like it would be an effective way for residents to decide for themselves if permitting is necessary.

However, after last night's meeting, I think the excise tax issue is more significant than I had previously thought. The brochure from the city includes a letter from the Mayor which gives as the reason for the change that, "...we can no longer afford to allow residents to park their cars here but register them somewhere else."

Another thing I found strange was the argument that came up a few times that "2/3 of Somerville has had permit parking for years and it's not a problem. Therefore having 100% permit parking will also not be a problem." Isn't that exactly why the last 1/3 of non-permit parking is so valuable?

From:

ron_newman

but how much money does the city get from excise taxes? When I had a car, I paid an annual bill for something like $29.50. That's peanuts.

Edit: this was in 1984-1999. Maybe the tax has gone up since then?

Edited Date: 2009-08-14 04:44 pm (UTC)

From:

curiositykt.livejournal.com

and the reason most people avoid it is not because of the excise tax but the car insurance rates.

From:

ron_newman

And since the city doesn't get a cut of insurance premiums, why should the city care where a car is insured?

From:

jamiesquared.livejournal.com

I paid $300 last year and I have a bill for $300 this year

From:

the drive to go permit-only is mainly financial: the city anticipates collecting an additional $1.75 million in tickets and fees. changes aren't being proposed to address parking problems.

From:

I’ve lived in the first area in the city to go permit only for almost my entire life and while it does help with some issues it doesn’t help at all with others. The reason this area went permit only was directly related to Tufts students filling every spot on the street with their car all day and night and not moving them for days on end. Even the students that lived on campus had cars parked on the streets. The permits solved that problem but didn’t solve the problem of out of state residents from not reregistering their cars here. Just drive down any side street abutting Tufts and you’ll see what I mean. Student houses are easy to spot, they’ll all have 6-10 vehicles parked in the driveways and most if not all will be registered out of state. Permit parking just drove them off the streets and into the houses but it did not make anyone register their car here.

From:

aquaflame16.livejournal.com

"Another thing I found strange was the argument that came up a few times that "2/3 of Somerville has had permit parking for years and it's not a problem. Therefore having 100% permit parking will also not be a problem." Isn't that exactly why the last 1/3 of non-permit parking is so valuable?"

yes, exactly!

The thing about the excise tax is this: I completely support forcing residents who own cars to register them here and pay the excise tax. Frankly I don't think anyone is complaining about this. I have a huge problem with the way they are going about this, though and I wish they could find some other way to do it than the permit-only-even-if-residents-don't-want-it rule.
The problem, as I see it is that they are assuming that everyone who parks
1. lives here
AND
2. owns a car

The places the regulation change makes problems are when either (or both) of the above are not true.
It makes parking problems for people who are not residents.
And it makes parking problems for residents who do not own cars (but sometimes borrow one, for example).

From:

Students aren't legally required to register their cars here.

Edited Date: 2009-08-14 05:23 pm (UTC)

From:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-3.htm

From:

“IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A NONRESIDENT STUDENT TO FAIL TO FILE A NONRESIDENT DRIVER STATEMENT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT LOCATED IN THE SAME CITY OR TOWN AS THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE ATTENDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3 OF CHAPTER 90 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS. FAILURE TO FILE SUCH STATEMENT IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $200.” Ask SPD how many Non resident driver staements they get each year.

From:

the police department of the city or town in which such school or college is located

Ask Medford PD.

Again, permit only cannot force students to register their cars in MA, it can only get them off the permit streets.

From:

Have they received register data for any Tufts (or other universities) students who have a Somerville address, pursuant to:

Any such school or college which fails to compile and maintain a register, to issue a decal as required by this paragraph or to forward register data to the assessor’s office of a municipality in which a nonresident student resides shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars for each such offense.

From:

ron_newman

Tufts is located partly in Somerville and partly in Medford. The administration building is on Holland Street in Somerville.

From:

Where is the legal address of the corporation?

From:

Walnut Hill Properties
(781) 391-5300
47 Winthrop St, Medford, MA 02155 Get directions
Cross Streets: Between Emery St and Capen St/Capen St E

;)

From:

In which case, Tufts students need to register nonresident driver notices with Medford PD, and Tufts needs to submit their registers to every municipality in which their students reside.

Of course, I'm sure there's some portion of education privacy law which conflicts with that requirement ...

From: