Disturbing comments from the City of Somerville on Boston.com

[atriplex007.livejournal.com]

Was anyone disturbed by City of Somerville spokeswoman, Jackie Rosetti's, comments about the city's parking policy on Boston.com?  I found this comment particularly disturbing: "...the ban discourages commuters from leaving their cars on city streets for several days while they turn to public transportation."

I understand the need for an enforceable parking policy that discourages residents from using city streets as their own parking lots/driveways--oh wait, don't residents already do that by throwing trash in the street to save spaces?  That any city, let alone "The Model City", discourages residents from using public transportation in any way is a crime.  In fact, it should be a crime for a city not to encourage the use of public transportation.

I think the 48-hr parking policy is unreasonable for residential streets.  Instead, I'd like to see something like a 7-day policy, whereby residents that use public transportation to commute, but still own a car, have the weekend to use, and therefore move, their car to avoid being ticketed or towed.  Am I way off base here?  I'm new to the community and have lived in a city without a car for years.  I share my current car with my partner, who also commutes via the T.  I know that it's a privilege, not a right, to park on a public, city street.  That said I don't think the current parking policy is benefiting our community.  There are healthier ways for the city to generate income.

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

I agree -- deliberately discouraging car owners from being frugal about car use is inappropriate.

Given that not all houses have (or have space for) driveways, there's not much else some residents can do if they own a car. (I grew up in Somerville, mostly without a car, but when we got a car we had nowhere but the street to park it.)

Also, if just about everything is going to be residential parking (not necessarily desirable, but it seems to be the trend), what are all those residential spaces intended for, if not people parking in front of their own houses?

[srakkt.livejournal.com]

This is not genuinely about generating income - it's about parking equity.

The argument the OP is making is predicated upon the idea that someone who both has access to a car and who is able to commute daily via public transportation should have *more* right to a parking space in their neighborhood than should someone whose job requires them to actively use their car - and thus give up a space near their home - daily.

The 48-hour rule puts car owners all on roughly the same footing - everyone has to try and find a space with similar frequency.

[reverend-jim.livejournal.com]

You are reading far too much into that comment. Whatever you think of the city's parking regulations (and I despise them), requiring people to clear off and move their cars within 48 hours of a storm is absolutely the correct policy. I'd actually be OK with a longer window for staying in one spot - three days, maybe even four - but in the context of this article (this winter's relentless snow storms) I'd like to see the city crack down even harder on people who essentially abandon their cars to snow drifts. A car that's not shoveled out after a storm takes up twice as much space as a car that's been cleared and moved. Roads become even narrower thanks to the extra width of a plowed-in, untouched car; likewise the front and rear of the uncleared car attracts piles of snow that further restrict badly needed parking spots.

It's no secret that metro Boston's public transportation is useful only for a certain segment of area residents. There are many, many people who need to drive, as the MBTA doesn't offer service to their location and/or during the hours they need to commute. People who don't need their cars to get to and from work, and thus feel perfectly entitled to take up twice as much curb/street space with their un-shoveled gratuitous weekend wheels are selfishly contributing to the decline in the quality of life of their fellow Somerville residents.

[emannths.livejournal.com]

Really? It looks more like it's the half-assed shoveling out of parking spaces that causes cars to park well into the street. A car parked before it snows will be right up against the curb.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see the city crack down even harder on people who essentially abandon their cars to snow drifts. A car that's not shoveled out after a storm takes up twice as much space as a car that's been cleared and moved.

See also, the policy the city has been enacting of hiring heavy equipment to clear the EVEN sides of streets. They can't clear the ODD sides of streets because under those giant lumps there are cars, somewhere. I'd really like them to send out notice two or three days in advance saying they're going to run a backhoe down the ODD side of Day and Dover Streets, and "Oh, just FYI, in backhoe vs. passenger car, backhoe wins., Love City of Somerville"

[koshmom.livejournal.com]

I suspect one of the bigger problems with the plowed-in, untouched car is that tow trucks cannot easily tow it. Not only can't they find an attachment point for the tow, but if you simply drag a car out and over the massive iced in area it's stuck in, the car is likely to be damaged. And you can't ticket it because not only can you not see the license plate nor the window to put it on, but the ticket would get lost/soaked beyond recognition before the owner gets it. If a tow truck succeeds in towing, the space will likely still be unusable until someone else shovelled it out.

I would doubt anyone (except owner of unplowed car) would object to a massive extra fee to get the dang thing towed out and super extra fees for daily storage. Bingo for Pat's Tow, and a bonus for the city too.

[squirrelitude]

> A car that's not shoveled out after a storm takes up twice as much space as a car that's been cleared and moved.

Are you sure? There's all that space on top of the snowed-in car that can be used for piling on excess snow from nearby spaces... :-D

[emannths.livejournal.com]

I agree that discouraging people from taking public transportation is not a good idea. So I was inclined to agree with you.

But I couldn't believe that the city would want to create such an odd incentive, so I tried to come up with an alternative that might make sense. The only thing I could think of was that they're not trying to encourage people to drive to work--instead, they're trying to discourage people that take the T from owning a car/parking it on the street. Basically, it's a way to make owning a car a PITA, so that you only own a car if you really want/need it. Of course, they could probably accomplish the same thing by charging more for resident permits...

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

or they could just give up and admit that more people own cars than there are spots to park in Somerville, *and the parking situation is never going to get better, no matter what "incentives" they use*, and start building giant parking garages near the T stations.

the garages would probably bring in more revenue than the various levels of tickets that get foisted on the unfortunate street parkers, and it would eliminate at least some of the need for ticket givers. two birds...

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

I think it's more like what srakkt said earlier in the post thread--it's a way to create equity on the street for those who must use their cars daily. Unfortunately the MBTA is not a solution that fits everyone's needs. One doesn't own a street parking place, it's shared by everyone with a valid sticker, so you shouldn't get to keep it.

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

Let's remember that when these rules were enacted, half of Somerville wasn't permit parking. With the 48 hour rule, cars couldn't sit in non-permit parking for long times (perhaps from Cambridge or another city) and the city has greater flexibility in ensuring that owners move cars when street emergencies are declared.

When I moved here in 1994, the fine was $2, so it wasn't that much of a motivator.

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

Making people move cars after a snow storm makes sense-- and discouraging people from driving to, say, Davis square and using the streets as a commuter lot makes sense.

But the 48-hour rule is in effect at all times-- though rarely enforced. I'm not really sure what the point of it is.

Now, it's tempting to say we Should increase the cost of parking permits, discouraging marginal car users from owning cars....

But that doesn't cut down on driving-- just on parking. The people who cut down on car ownership don't drive much anyway....

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

The 48 hour rule is one thing I definitely don't miss about living in Somerville. I traveled a lot for my work and I'd have to arrange to either park my car somewhere else- a friend's driveway- or ask a friend to come clean/move my car if there was a storm when I was away. The policy makes zero sense. A car's still going to take up a parking spot, whether or not it's parked in the same spot or moved to a different one. It's just a shell game and the only purpose is to fatten the city's coffers. Especially now with the resident permits, the 48 hour rule and the reference to "commuters" is a sick joke that plays people for idiots. If you're a Somerville resident with a parking permit and your car is parked in a legal spot, that should be end of story.

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

But at the same time, it is a good tool for neighborhoods to use to get rid of essentially abandoned vehicles. The 48 hour rule is so rarely enforced (at least on my street) that it isn't a concern for those of us who actually live here. However, more than once in the time we've lived here we have had to cal 311 because a car had been left untouched for weeks. In the end it was 3 months before it finally disappeared (not sure if towed or sold) but it was obvious that the cars were just being stored, for free.

That meant that those of us who actually use our cars are down one space, so that a non-neighbor could store their car for free. If there weren't a 48 hour rule, there would be no incentive for that to change. At least now we can ask the city to ticket them until it isn't worth it for them to keep it around, or it gets towed as abandoned.

Just had to share one positive aspect of the law!

[junesrose.livejournal.com]

If you're a Somerville resident with a parking permit and your car is parked in a legal spot, that should be end of story.

I hope this is the case now.

I won't wax poetic about an old tenant of my mom's, (maybe 4 yrs ago), who originally came up from S.Carolina, and had SC plates, but was parked LEGALLY in front of the house, with a LEGAL resident permit clearly placed on the windshield, but still got a whopping $125 ticket for non-resident parking.

Yeah, I won't bother going on about that one.

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

The fine for 48 hour violation used to be $2, so it wasn't originally seen as a fundraiser, probably just a way to keep out of town residents from abandoning their cars all winter on our streets.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i one asked denise provost about this, and she said it wasn't directed at the t-esque, but neighborhoods like hers, where out-of-towners would get a permit and then park on the street for their whole vacation. i asked if they couldn't discriminate between guest passes and local permits, but i never got a proper answer for that :/

[junesrose.livejournal.com]

And how exactly are "out-of-towners" getting parking permits?

As a "new" homeowner, I can't even get my tenant's parking permit without some sort of proof (a utility bill or other document) with his name/address on it. And seriously, I didn't want to stoop to stealing his mail just to get a parking permit (he doesn't own a car, so parking is no biggie to him).

I'd LOVE to know the answer to this one, cause if this person is giving out permits to non-residents, then we're all more screwed than we think we are.

[frank mcsorley (from livejournal.com)]

The problem is that streets like Hancock St (near Porter SQ) turn into public parking for the T. Come to Hancock St any morning and see how many people who live no where near Hancock, leave there car there. This problem has become worse since Somerville went to city-wide parking permits. Leaves no parking for the people who actually live on the street.

[somertricky.livejournal.com]

Talk about an unintended consequence. The Mrs. and I lived over on Jay Street a number of years ago, well before citywide parking permits; you couldn't find a spot on the street before 6:30 but otherwise parking was generally reasonable. It's probably devolved to the same situation as Frank's.

Maybe it has to come down to the city issuing neighborhood permits (as much as I regret losing free parking near Inman, tons more will regret losing free parking near Davis, Porter, or future Green Line stops). Where and how do you draw boundary lines? Can you get reasonable exemptions without jumping through a thousand hoops - e.g. when I worked on Properzi Way I would park on the street instead of an overly crowded parking lot behind the establishment.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

Then streets within a small radius of a T station should be posted as 48 hour parking.

There's no reason to apply this rule to the whole city.

And nobody else has pointed out that Cambridge and Boston don't have this rule. (Cambridge has a 24-hour rule, but it doesn't apply to residents -- only to nonresidents with a visitor permit, or parking in one of the few remaining unrestricted streets.)

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

see how many people who live no where near Hancock, leave there car there

How can you tell?

[shava23.livejournal.com]

In the summer, our street is comfortable to park on -- you can park a car within one house up or down or across the street from where you want, usually. If you figure the density is 2/3 of the parking spaces taken up in the summer, that's not too bad.

Then, in the winter, that means that when one side needs to be plowed, there are a third again as many cars as can fit on the side that you can park on.

So, *except* when it snows, we have no parking scarcity here. When it snows, there is jockeying for spots.

I don't own a car, but I understand the problem. It's not to discourage people from using the (T), it's to get people to spend a few minutes every couple of days to show they're paying attention.

How is this any worse on a car owner, T rider or not, than the drill where they do either side street sweeping every few days?

Wasted Space

[qualitygig.livejournal.com]

Ok, so I have to disclose that I'm a little angry at the people allowing their cars to seed a sidewalk snow dune. They're taking up space and forcing the people who -- because they have to move their cars -- into less ideal conditions, sometimes at a penalty. Because of one of these people, I was ticketed for parking too close to an intersection, a problem that was created by the fact a person's car that had not been shoveled out was taking up too much space, apparently 'pushing' mine too close to the intersection according to the parking officer walking by. C'est la vie !

My point, though, is that the people who are doing all the shoveling and moving cars around . . . and using them . . . are doing all the work while the people who do nothing, well, wait for the sun to shine. If you follow sports, if feels like a 'fair weather fan', there to cheer when the going is good but somewhere else when times are tough. They get the benefits of free parking, not shoveling, et cetera but don't have to do anything for it. It doesn't feel right. I, essentially, get ticketed because I shoveled out my car, used it, and then parked in a spot I've parked in before but -- because of all the danged snow -- fell under more scrutiny by the parking officer who walked by ? And all because somebody couldn't be bothered to shovel out their car ?

Yes, I've obsessed about it a bit. But, look, we live in a densely-populated area and land isn't free. Those cars sitting under huge piles of snow are sitting on top of valuable space. I don't know what the storage fee is for a car, but I'm sure willing to bet one or several people together would be more than willing to pay it to get that spot in working order.

So here's a few thoughts, some more serious and some more funny . . .

1) ALL cars must be cleaned within 48 hours of a storm. The guideline is that -- upon inspection -- it must seem reasonable that the car COULD leave the spot without further work (not that it has to).

2) For all the cars left under a snowbank more than a week after a storm, we take one at random and auction it off for the school system (or free coffees for everyone in the affected area). The point ? A little 'use it or loose it' motivation.

3) We'll have a Somerville Shovel Detail. If not cleared in 48 hours, the City of Somerville will clear it for you . . . and because they can then see your sticker and license, Somerville will send you a nice little bill for the effort.

4) Build a website or forum or whatever for people to ask for help. Whether it trades actual money or a I'll-shovel-your-car-if-you-shovel-mine system of favors isn't the point. Create something where all the danged cars shoveled out !

5) To the City of Somerville: I don't know if something like this exists -- I am specifically thinking of something that's like a spray can that sprays chalk . . . but mark off areas of no parking, put a line down the side of the street that effectively says 'you must park closer to the curb that this', . . . do something that provides a little additional guidance on the do's and don'ts.


Oh, and I've never heard of any such thing as 'strict enforcement of a 48 hour rule', though I have to admit I'm fairly new to Somerville. But it does seem an odd thing to say -- If the rule was actually a priority, I know they are more than capable of writing a ticket at the drop of the hat just about everywhere. If I can get several tickets in the span of blinking (seriously, 3-4 tickets in a total window of less than 10 minutes), then they surely have the ability to ticket people parked 48+ hours. It's just a silly thing to have said -- It's simply not enforced.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

How do they enforce the 48 hour rule? Do they write down license plate numbers, or look for cars that are totally buried? Or do they just eyeball a car and decide to write a ticket?

I ask because a meter maid decided my friend's car hadn't been moved since a storm because one bumper was against a snow pile. In fact it *had* been dug out, and had only been parked in that spot for about 3 hours.