Time for Boston to start charging for parking permits, councilor says

The money should be plowed into anything that supports better mass-transportation.

And then start much higher for the second and each subsequent permit -- i.e. more like $250, $500, etc. Maybe ONE additional exemption for low-income or senior households with multiple adults.

The proposal for a mechanism to introduce new residential-permit-only parking areas adds a perverse incentive for the City to make substantially all areas permit-only as a revenue-raising measure if the City also charges for each parking permit -- it's basically a back-door increase of $25 (or more) in the excise tax.

Lets say I live in a two family on a permit parking street. I have a car, my neighbor doesn't. Your plan is that I should get free parking because I have a car and my neighbor should have the same net pay to the city? That's not very equitable. After all, your neighbor isn't 'requiring' that the city plow and salt the street in the winter.

A small fee for permit parking is reasonable.

For places like Beacon Hill, where there's a huge amount of demand and plenty of money (Off-street spaces rent for $700 a month; there are about 4 permits issued for every on-street space)... why not start auctioning the permits?

If there are about 4,000 issued a year, auction off 333 per month in a Dutch auction (start at a high price, lower it until you find a price that clears the market, everyone pays the market-clearing price-- like IPO pricing, or ticket auctions). The next year, reduce the total number issued to, say, 300 per month. And so on, until there are roughly equal numbers of spaces and cars permitted to park in them. Phasing it in over a few years would allow people to adjust their car ownership to meet their preferences.

And then use the money to fund schools & transit and street cleaning and affordable housing.

In fact, renters pay *higher* property taxes, because their landlord can't claim a homeowner exemption. It's not like renters are somehow living tax-free: owner-occupied properties pay less tax than renters.

no, in this case owners and renter's should be treated equally.

no, in this case owners and renter's should be treated equally.

nah dude

Downtown is already an ATM for the rest of the city. why not jack up their rates too.

Again - this needs to be much more expensive - at least $100k for residents annually and at least $25 per day for a visitor pass along with other restrictions (or you can bet thousands of people are going to start arbitraging that opportunity).

Car 1: 5^2 = 25
Car 2: 5^3 = 125
Car 3: 5^4 = 625
Car 4: 5^5 = 3125
Car 5: 5^6 = 15625

I would assume that a number of these households are five unrelated people living together, though (i.e. roommates), so that seems a bit steep. Maybe make it an escalating fee for people who have cars under the same ownership at the same household, i.e. the car collectors.

Or:

Car 1: 25*2^0 = 25
Car 2: 25*2^1 = 50
Car 3: 25*2^2 = 100
Car 4: 25*2^3 = 200
Car 5: 25*2^4 = 400

This scale probably makes more sense. In a household with five vehicles registered, the average cost of a permit would be $155. That's still less than most vehicles pay for registration, inspection and excise tax each year.

What do you mean it's not outrageous in Dorchester? For a single household to have 5 cars taking up public streets seems extreme anywhere.