The Globe reports on a plan to extend resident-only parking to weekends in part of the neighborhood in an attempt to deal with too many cars.
In other parts of the city, seven day resident-only parking restrictions are common. Most neighborhoods in central Boston have it, including the South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and North End. But Southie is Southie ...
Neighborhoods:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
As many people in the room
By spin o rama
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 9:19am
So I'm sure nobody in Southie would have an issue with BPD/BTD ticketing all the double parking that goes unchecked in this neighborhood. Somehow I doubt that.
Just start charging market rate for parking permits, end the handouts. Charge full rates to residents that have out of state plates and give minor discounts to those that are registered in Mass.
So you're saying
By Hate-r-ade
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:00am
the core of the problem is double parking? Perhaps even more directly people FROM Southie double parking? The concerns you quoted are real and relevant but have nothing to do with double parking... Your proposed solution would only create more revenue but do absolutely nothing to resolve the situation. Anything else to add or did you come here just to take a shot at Southie residents?
Charging market rate would
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:07am
Charging market rate would decrease the amount of people who would want to park their cars on the streets. If people actually had to pay the market rate, instead of being subsidized, plenty of people would trim down to 1 car or give up owning a car in the city altogether. The double parking comment seemed to be referencing the hypocrisy of some people in southie who want enforcement of certain rules but not others, like double parking, which they have fought in the past to keep, even after a little girl died as a result of an ambulance not being able to get to her because some lards double parked. Some people in southie want to be able to follow only the rules they want to and to have other rules enforced on others but not them. Thats not how democracy works.
We have a winner!
By spin o rama
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:30am
Thank you! Lets not forget the comments that came out against bike lanes on Broadway, they would cut into peoples god given right to double park and run into Dunks!
Really?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:14am
Here on my home planet, increasing the price of something tends to reduce the demand (with a tiny number of exceptions). For example, if the city were to increase the price of a parking sticker, fewer people would buy them, which would mean that there was less competition for the fixed number of spaces.
Listen chief
By spin o rama
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:22am
Nowhere did I say double parking was the core problem, try reading and comprehending what I typed. Rather it is part of a series problems regarding proper development planning, a lack of traffic enforcement and a culture of flaunting the traffic rules, which contributes to the larger issue of parking in general. Tell me that you've never been searching for a parking spot, only to find some clown double parked, blocking a resident or visitor spot.
way to gloss over what I proposed regarding parking permits. You know, that paragraph I typed out about the hand out that is our current permit parking setup. Anything to add regarding that or did you just come here to blow hot air?
Also, spare me that crap about bashing Southie residents. My girlfriend is a Southie resident AND has a job in Southie, so my interests are solving a parking issue that we deal with weekly and resolving the parking issue City-wide.
Maybe
By ChrisInEastie
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:04am
We can create a secondary market for these too?! I'm sure Ace and Stubhub would get in on the action.
A little off the mark
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:12am
What does double parking have to do with the issue? Sure it makes it harder to drive around probably is not safe, but that is another conversation entirely. Your solution of selling parking permits to out of state drivers seems like it would actually make the situation worse, not improve it. The only way this would help is if you charge an absorbent rate, and all that does is bring in extra money for the city and hurt residents of the neighborhood. Making money off the parking problem should not be the primary goal for the city, only an added benefit.
To clarify
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:36am
I am in favor of charging a market rate for parking permits, but not in favor of selling them to out of state drivers.
I don't think overdevelopment
By tk
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:21am
I don't think overdevelopment is really the problem. It's a problem for cars, but only because they're needed.
I don't think Boston has seen enough business development, so there's too many people living in Boston and then commuting to the suburbs.
Related to that - there's not many convenient options for public transit from the city to suburbs. There's a ton of companies along 128 through Waltham, Lexington, Burlington, Woburn. But how do you get to them from the city? You can maybe catch a bus, though they have a limited schedule and hopefully you don't have to leave early. Or you can hope your company pays for a private shuttle to Alewife or something.
So eliminate the need to have a car and you can build more.
So what's "market rate"? And
By lbb
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:05pm
So what's "market rate"? And what do you expect will happen when some people can no longer afford to pay the "market rate" to park on a public street?
There ain't no such thing as free parkin'
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:20pm
The same thing that happens to everyone who is not rich enough to own a car: they walk, bike or take the bus.
Why do you think that the public street is a resource to be exploited only by people rich enough to own cars?
Could it be that you are a selfish asshole who doesn't think about anyone else? Could it be that you are a selfish asshole that believes you are entitled to free land to store your car, even though no other land in this city is free? Could it be that you are a selfish asshole that wants welfare for your car while screwing over all the other residents of the neighborhood, especially those people less fortunate than you?
You're not a selfish asshole, are you?
No, I'm not a selfish asshole
By lbb
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:30pm
No, I'm not a selfish asshole. It would certainly seem that you are some kind of an asshole, however. I shall have to think of an adjective that fits. Intellectually dishonest perhaps? I asked a simple open-ended question; you turned it to a deranged rant of a strawman argument about me being a "selfish asshole" wanting "free land" and "screwing over all other residents". Please take your meds before you commit the serious misjudgment of talking like that to someone face to face.
It's really quite simple.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:04pm
Market rate is the price at which an uncoerced buyer and an uncoerced seller would conduct an arms-length transaction. You can approximate it by saying it's the price at which there would neither be an inventory of unsold parking spaces nor a waiting list for parking spaces.
Umm... same thing that happens when some people can't afford to pay market rent for the campsites at the state park? Or when some logging companies can't afford to pay market rate to cut timber in the national forests? Or when some oil companies can't afford to pay market rate to drill on public land? Or when some people can't afford to pay market rate to use Logan Airport, a public facility?
Some of your examples are
By lbb
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:33pm
Some of your examples are better than others. How is anyone served by empty camping spaces in a state park, or for that matter empty parking spaces on a public street? "Oh yes, I get to have the street ALL TO MYSELF..."
the key is "market price"
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:32pm
If the price were right, there would not be empty unused camping spaces or empty parking spaces; that's kind of inherent in the definition of "market price". (yes, obviously, the market isn't going to be so perfect that the very last person who comes along looking for a space gets the very last space, but that's the spot you're aiming for.
Exactly
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:16pm
Even if you don't achieve the true economic market price, getting close would be a huge help. Anything closer to the market price than free will make people have to at least decide whether they really need 2 cars per family. Or in other circumstances, if they even need 1 car because they could find a better place to spend the money and they really only have their car because it costs them little to keep and use occasionally.
One way we are served by
By bibliotequetres...
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:13pm
One way we are served by "unsold" spaces would be that an hour limit could be placed on it, and it could be used as temporary parking for local businesses.
I assume all this discussion of sold/not sold parking spots depends on assuming that entire neighborhoods would not become/stay permit only. If we moved to pay permits-- and I'm not at all opposed to that-- we do need to have some free parking in the vicinity as well, for the minority of the further minority of Boston car owners who a) really must have a car, because of work, disability, whatever, and b) who could not afford the financial burden of paying for a permit.
Allow for car sharing spots, too
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:35pm
ZipCar has tons of data indicating that each car replaces around ten underused (meaning "sitting in parking spots all day and night") cars for each car. Car sharing spaces would have to be a part of any new scheme.
Also consider this: if no more spaces are sold than exist, the people can have their own numbered spot that is theirs alone. Or, there could be a two-tier system where people who pay more (or are elderly/disabled) get marked and numbered spots with at least one as near to their home as possible, and those paying a lesser fee can scramble.
Cambridge has a visitor permit system - anyone know how that works?
Car sharing spaces in the new scheme
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:46pm
They would be part of the new scheme in that car sharing companies could rent a space just like anyone else. There is no reason to price car-sharing spaces differently from other spaces because a car-sharing car uses up approximately the same amount of parking as a car that is never driven.
Slippery Slope
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:47pm
If you move to a pay-for-permit system, it becomes a very slippery slope when you start giving away permits for free. How many free permits do you give away? Who gets them and what are the qualifications? What happens if you give away too many free permits and then those who paid begin having a hard time parking again? Giving things away for free throws off the supply/demand balance and defeats the purpose of some paying for the resource to begin with.
One solution may be to make the streets in the business districts (E/W Broadway) metered parking during the day and open parking at night. Those who can't get/afford permits can fight it out for the open parking spaces at night. Obviously the handicapped spaces would still function much as they currently do.
There is no perfect system no matter what you do.
It's not that easy
By Nonymouse
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 2:10pm
As others have noted above, many companies that employ city dwellers are now located in the suburbs, well off public transportation lines. Other people have jobs in the city that frequently take them to the burbs to visit clients, etc. This is my busy season. Wednesday, I'm down in New Bedford all morning. Thursday I have meetings in Waltham, Saugus and then back in the Longwood Medical Area. Without a car, some of these trips would be a whole day out of my schedule and I can't afford to lose that time.
And the thing is, I'm one of the lucky ones. I make enough money to pay for a garage spot. Not everyone does. You're putting a high burden on people that can end up forcing them to move out of the city or limit them career-wise. What are those people supposed to do - do they have to move just because their jobs don't fit your idea of who gets to live in the city?
That's the cost of doing business
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 2:50pm
Why do you think that you deserve a free pass from making tough decisions about your personal finances because you own a car?
Everyone else has to make those calls. Should I live here? Can I afford to take the commuter rail? Should I walk or pay for a bus ride? Is this job worthwhile if I have to commute by car? Are the fuel expenses worthwhile? Etc.
In a sane world, the cost of parking is just another consideration among many.
But for some reason, you believe that parking should be freely provided no matter what? Do you realize the cost of that to society? You are basically screwing over everyone else just to provide parking welfare.
When parking is subsidized, it drives up the cost of living in the city for everyone. What are those people supposed to do? They cannot afford their housing anymore because some parking crusaders decided to force minimum parking quotas on the entire city. Whether or not you own a car, you are forced to pay for the parking of other people's cars. That's sick, an abuse of public policy for private gain.
Why does their plight not move you? Why is it valid for those people to be booted out of their homes, in your eyes, so that you can have more free parking? You're putting a high burden on them, forcing them to move out of the city where they had access to transit and walkable neighborhoods, by raising the prices on their homes.
All so you can avoid your own personal responsibility. You have a car, that's fine: you pay for it, not us.
Correct
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:26pm
Yes, if you can't afford to live somewhere without a subsidy (e.g., free parking for your car and regulations that ensure you have an available place to park it), then you should move somewhere that you can afford and has the amenities that you need. There is no constitutional right that says everyone has to be able to afford to live in a certain part of a city and park their car for free and without hassle. If charging a market rate for street parking is what will fix the problem, then this is what the city should do and not continue with the subsidy of free parking.
Market is market, period.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:44pm
It's not *my* idea of who gets to live in the city; I have no preferences about that one way or the other. It's the simple arithmetic of what a limited resource (parking spaces) is worth in the face of increased demand. And it's not me who's putting the burden on people, it's the law of supply and demand. There's nothing I (or the mayor, or anyone else, for that matter) can do to change what a parking space is worth, short of creating more parking spaces. A parking space is worth what it's worth, irrespective of what the city does or doesn't charge for it.
As a matter of policy, the city (which controls a lot of parking spaces) can give parking away for free (in effect, a lottery to give away the available N spaces to the first N people who show up), or they can charge something closer to what it's worth.
The current scheme (give it away for "free") imposes other costs on people, which are a little harder to measure but which are real nevertheless. Pricing anything below what it's worth encourages overconsumption, which in turn reduces the available supply, which causes people not to be able to find a space, to waste time driving around looking for one, to get into space-saver wars, etc.) Plus, the "lottery" is warped in that the person who gets off work at 3:30 has a great chance of getting a space, while the person who gets off work at 7:30 PM has almost zero chance of getting a space.
Pricing parking closer to what it's actually worth, according to almost any theory of economics, would result in a much more efficient use of the resource.
Some of the effects are long term
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:47pm
Think through the effects of reducing the subsidy on parking. That would make jobs in drive-to-work locations less attractive than jobs in T-to-work locations. That would mean companies in drive-to-work locations would need to pay slightly more to attract employees. That would encourage employers to locate their facilities in places that are easier to get to, which is a win on so many fronts -- less exurban sprawl, less time wasted getting to and from work, less fuel burned, etc.
what do you expect will
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:20pm
There will be more parking available, which is what people seem to be asking for. And those people who can't afford to pay for parking will do what the rest of us do who can't afford the cost of owning a private vehicle: walk, take the T, take a cab, etc.
Waaaaa....I want what I want,
By tenfortyseven
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:50pm
Waaaaa....I want what I want, I want it NOW, I want it to be free...and I don't want anyone else to have it
Why wasn't this done in the
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 9:24am
Why wasn't this done in the first place?
It's in the article
By adamg
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 9:38am
Back when the city first instituted South Boston resident stickers, residents told the city they didn't want to restrict parking on weekends. But that was before yuppies.
lack of rapid rail access in Southie
By Hyde Parkish
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:07am
The bigger issue behind this minor issue seems to be a lack of rapid rail transit in Southie. As soon as you go down Broadway and onto west Broadway you have to take the BUS or drive. This is the issue that needs to be solved. As development creates dense neighborhoods with more than a single family residence public transportation upgrades need to be developed hand in hand!
Well if the Boylston Street
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:20am
Well if the Boylston Street tunnel incline at Pleasant Street is ever reopened the MBTA could restore trolley service to South Boston via Broadway. Call it the G-Line.
An F-Line to Dudley along the current Silver Li(n)e route would be nice too from the same portal.
Southie Time
By Stevil
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:08am
None of this BC or AD for them. They measure their eras in BY and AY.
Question - if they start enforcing things in Southie, will people have to park facing the correct way on the street. Drove around a bit there last weekend and every time I turned a corner I had the fleeting notion I was driving the wrong way down a one way street until I realized there was no order to which cars were parked which way on whatever side of the street suited their fancy.
One more quirk of the 'hood.
BTD ticketing for wrong way parkers
By Jess
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:44am
The BTD has recently started ticketing for wrong way parkers in JP, so maybe it is happening in Southie as well...
How does that improve parking
By SoBoYuppie
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:50am
How does that improve parking?
Indeed a quirk
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:18am
of the hood, and has nothing to do with the parking problem. Proper enforcement of traffic and parking laws is a different conversation.
The article is wrong.
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 6:04pm
I went to every meeting when resident parking was proposed. The business owners, led by most of the bar owners were opposed to a 7 day parking program, not the residents.
Today it's the same owners along with new business owners who are voicing opposition. Not only are they concerned about their patrons and employees, but more importantly they're worried about themselves.
The answer to the argument of "where are we going to park?" Is the same as all the other areas of the City with resident parking.
So what this means is that
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 10:52am
So what this means is that when i go to visit my grandparents I'll get a ticket? What are visitors supposed to do? Especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas? How exactly will that work? Am I expected to pay for parking at a T station and take the train in? I go to visit my grandparents not only because they are elderly but because they are afraid of losing their parking spot. And usually I go after work and I work til 5. I don't understand how this will help create spaces that just aren't there.
Private Lot
By BostonDog
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:14am
The idea would be that if you don't have a resident sticker you need to pay to park at a private lot and/or hoof/cab it. Not ideal but this is the way it works in just about every other large city. This policy in theory will leave more spaces open for residents by taking them away from visitors. (But there is so much demand as-is that it won't change anything.)
I understand that and I would
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:18am
I understand that and I would pay to park if there was a lot for me to pay to park in. Are there any in Southie? Any at all?
According to Parkopedia there
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:45am
According to Parkopedia there are 36 garages in South Boston http://en.parkopedia.com/parking/02127/ I see none that are within a reasonable walking distance of Dorchester St., East Broadway or West Broadway.
Same as in other neighborhoods.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:17am
Same as they do in Charlestown, the North End, Chinatown, Beacon Hill, Bay Village, Back Bay, Fenway, South End, etc.
and that is.... give the
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:20am
and that is.... give the parking gods the finger and park anyway?
Charlestown has unrestricted
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:39pm
Charlestown has unrestricted parking on weekends.
The core neighborhoods are near all of the subway lines. Fenway and the South End do start to get annoying for nonresidents.
If only the Commuter Rail had a decent schedule on weekends...
This is quite wacky
By tired of this bs
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:37am
Why do they have a car, exactly? Except as a space-saver for something that they do not own?
Afraid of losing their
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 11:59am
Afraid of losing their parking spot? You mean they own or rent a parking spot and someone is illegally parking in it? They should call the police then. If you mean they are squatting in a public space and expect their EBT space to always be there for them, then they are misinformed about public street parking.
They are in their 80s.
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:14pm
They are in their 80s. Walking is hard for them and they have a car to keep their independence. After 6pm on any given day there are no spots available and they would have to park blocks away and walk back and as i say they are in their 80s
That's the point
By BostonDog
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:38pm
EVERYONE has their own "special" reason why they need to have a car and nearby parking. Either it's lack of mobility, helping someone who lacks mobility, a job, kids, etc.
But there is more reasons for needing a nearby spot then there are spots and nothing is going to change that short of a bunch of people giving up having their cars nearby.
When i lived in boston i
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:06pm
When i lived in boston i didnt have a car or a license i saw no reason for it. But i think many people would pay for a spot if that was even an option. What i was trying to point out was that there is no other option for visitors. I would gladly pay for parking or if i could
Sounds like it would make
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:45pm
Sounds like it would make sense for them to rent a private spot.
Every neighborhood has private spots for long-term rent. Most older neighborhoods don't have pay lots. So I think street parking should be available for short-and medium-term use, regardless of residence.
Wrong locale?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 12:47pm
In which case, perhaps it would be wise to move to a place that has parking?
I'm not saying that to be snarky or harsh -- I care for my own elder relatives, too, and I know it's very hard to make changes; particularly hard to move to a new place to live. But it seems that it would be a huge improvement in their quality of life to live in a place where they could reliably park their car right in front of their door?
Also, if they are legally handicapped, they can get a parking placard and, in many cases, the city will designate a handicapped space right in front of their house.
Because of the bus stops
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:01pm
Because of the bus stops around their house they can get a handicap spot but it would be too far away to be useful. There has been many a conversation about moving but they own their house and have been in it for 50+ years and have raised their children and grandchildren there. It has a lot of history for them.
All understood.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:09pm
Everybody with a heart and a brain sympathizes with your parents.
The question is, to what degree do we want to ask everyone else to subsidize their ability to stay in the house they have owned forever. Providing them with a space to store their car, rent free, is a subsidy.
My personal answer is that it's good to ask the rest of us to subsidize them to some degree, but not a lot.
Call it a case of the Mondays
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 1:29pm
Call it a case of the Mondays but I am confused by what you mean. My grandparents work full time own one car and the both work in Southie. One drives the other to work and then that one goes to work and parks the car at their office (which has parking) they both go home around the same time and then they run their errands and they plan on being home between 6pm and 7pm so that they can have a spot for the night. They don't park in the same spot, they take the first and closest available (same as everyone else). They also do not use space savers (except in the winter when everyone else uses them as allowed), which I see many others on the street doing regardless of the weather. They just plan their schedule around the parking. I know a lot of people that live in southie and this is the same story i hear from all of them whether they are 80s like my grandparents or in their 30s like myself. My personal belief is that someone who has no need for a car should not have a car.
If there was an option of purchasing a space in a private lot nearby for them I would absolutely do so but there are very few options and there are no private lots in the primarily residential areas.
Next time they visit their doctor ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:32pm
They should ask for a disability placard or even a plate.
Then they can get a disability space right in front of their home and have easier parking when they go out.
They have the placard but the
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:44pm
They have the placard but the problem is the bus stop. It's right outside their house and due to the length of the bus stop and the layout of the street the only place to put handicap parking isn't feasible for them. They still end up having to walk quite a way which would be fine for days like today but when it's icy out it can be treacherous.
The story is not hanging together.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:49pm
Either there's a legal parking space within what is for them a comfortable walking distance of the house or there isn't. If there is, then that space, the one they park in now, could be designated a handicap space and they'd then have much freer use of their car - they could go out at various times of day or night and not worry so much about finding a space when they get back. If there's no legal parking space within a feasible walk of their front door, then what is it we're talking about, again?
In otherwords
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 5:01pm
Perfect is the enemy of better here.
They are parking somewhere now, right? Why can't that be their space?
Alternatively, have you looked into having the bus stop moved to accomodate a spot for them? It might be worth asking if it can be done.
Honestly they looked into
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 6:17pm
Honestly they looked into last year and it was a combination of the mbta refusing to move the stop and that there has to be a certain distance between the handicap spot and the bus stop, theres a hydrant in the area and a couple crosswalks. I wasnt apart of the original talks with the mbta city etc... my grandparents and my dad were the ones trying to get the spot for them. I do know that in the end while they could have done it they chose not to for a number of reasons including the headache of figuring it out.
By reading these posts
By Patricia
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:39pm
By reading these posts Bostonrose48, I take it you see how things have changed since your grandparents were raising families in the city and you grew up in the area.
I usually stay away from bike and parking threads, but this one shows the true lack of compassion. I see the elderly people who lived in this city, raised multiple generations, now being told to get out because of a stupid parking space.
I take it the people telling you it's best for your grandparents to move for some reason thinks this will not be them someday. I can testify - it will get here before you know it!
I find the lack of compassion towards elderly life long residents in this area troublesome.
Out with the old, in with the new!
And as a side note, I couldn't care less if people agree or disagree, just my opinion.
Thank you. There's nothing
By Bostonrose48
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:43pm
Thank you. There's nothing more that I can say other than thank you.
Nice strawman argument you got there
By anon
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:04pm
I think most people have expressed compassion for the elderly grandparents, despite your claims to the contrary. That's why people have suggested ideas like the handicap parking placard.
The trouble is that there's a bunch of perfectly healthy townies and yuppies clamoring for free parking for themselves. That's where the problem comes from. Not from the relatively few people who justifiably need assistance, but from the hordes of freeloaders just looking for parking welfare.
I have plenty of sympathy for the elderly couple who need some help with mobility. I have zero sympathy for the selfish townie who just wants to freeload on the city's generosity.
Get it straight, and you'll get a lot further in this discussion.
That's a completely false read on the situation.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:05pm
That's completely false.
I have enormous compassion for elderly, lifelong residents who, for various reasons, are no longer able to live comfortably where they have been living all their lives. And I think we, as a society, should do things to make it easier for people to stay in their homes. The question is, how much?
When I grow old, if my knees go bad, I won't be able to manage the stairs in my house any more. Should the neighbors, or the taxpayers, buy me an elevator?
Years ago, the elderly lady up the street whose husband had died and whose children had all moved away, could afford to live in a big, drafty old 5,000 square foot house, all by herself, because heating oil cost eleven cents per gallon. The situation has changed, now heating oil is $3.50 per gallon, and it's economically infeasible for anyone of modest means to occupy 5,000 sq feet solo. Should you and I pay the cost of her heating bill?
Years ago, there was an adequate supply of on-street parking relative to the demand, which meant that, like heating oil, on-street parking was pretty close to free. That means that a person of modest means who needs easy access to a car could easily afford to live in a house that doesn't have its own dedicated parking. Now, as with heating oil, the value of parking has skyrocketed. As with the heating oil, that which was feasible years ago is no longer feasible now; a parking space in the downtown neighborhoods is worth at least a quarter of a million dollars. Should you and I pay the cost to provide a dedicated parking space to the person who can't afford one?
Displacement sucks. Not being able to stay in the house you've owned for 50 years -- whether it's because your knees went bad, or because the economics of energy have changed, or because the economics of parking have changed -- that sucks, too.
Being frank about the economic reality does not mean one is lacking in compassion. On the contrary, being frank about economic realities is the first step toward deciding how one is going to implement compassionate policies.
On the other hand, pretending that public parking spaces have no value and that it costs nobody anything for the city to give them away for free, is just plain head-in-the-sand irrationality.
Whatever helps you sleep at
By Patricia
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:23pm
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Translation?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:37pm
Care to address the substance? What, specifically, are you saying that the city should or should not do?
Enough with telling people
By Patricia
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 4:46pm
Enough with telling people they should move because it will be better for everyone but themselves is as start. For some reason elderly are fair game.
You go on and on about being "frank" about economic realities. There's more to life, especially when your at the far end of it. Do you know what it's like to be 80 and to be relocated to an unfamiliar surroundings? I'm not there yet, but I've seen first hand what it does. It speeds up the process, so to speak.
The next poster: "Yeah. So come into the city and inconvenience its residents by taking a parking space." Now that's some compassion! That's just what makes Boston so great\
It would be nice if the city could find a more accessible handicap spot for this couple and to be honest I don't know what the solution is but enough with telling people their lives aren't valued enough disguised as "economic reality".
Howzat agin?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 5:00pm
I t would be really nice for the city to give this elderly couple a free space. It would be nice to give them a full-time driver, or $500 per month worth of taxi vouchers. All of those would be nice things. Maybe some of them are reasonable, affordable, and the right thing to do. But it's impossible to have a sane conversation about what to provide, if we refuse to discuss what it costs. Anyone who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
And when I merely point out that parking spaces are not free to give away, you accuse me of somehow lacking compassion?
Yes, I know damn well what it's like to be elderly, handicapped, or both, so I'll thank you to take your sanctimonious rant and shove it.
And who the hell told anyone that their lives aren't valued? Are you, personally, willing to underwrite the cost of putting an elevator in my house when my knees go bad? Or are you telling me my life isn't valued?
Oh pulllleeeeze.....
By Patricia
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 5:09pm
Oh pulllleeeeze.....
still not buying it, but who cares? Like I said, I find the lack of compassion troubling and it is my opinion. Rant all you want... Read some of the other posts, I don't see much empathy..
It's truly amazing that in your post you made some good suggestions and solutions, and here we live in a state that throwing money seems to be the first knee jerk response to an issue. Instead it's out with the old, in with the new!
Relocating when your in your 80's just doesn't suck, it can cause serious mental issues which I am sure you're aware of. Just consider that when you're telling your aging relative time to go.
The elderly deserve better.
That is all ..
It's not lack of compassion
By merlinmurph
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 5:15pm
It's reality.
It's making hard choices.
There is a proposal to change how parking spots are managed. So, what are the effects of that change? Benefits? Downsides? There are always downsides, and politicians hate that because then they have to make a hard choice. Somebody is going to get screwed and the politician takes the brunt of it.
But to ignore these issues isn't a choice, either.
The elderly deserve better.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 08/11/2014 - 5:21pm
No kidding.
And we all deserve to live in a world free of poverty, disease, war, and ignorance.
Now that we're in agreement about that, and also in agreement that getting displaced when you're old and frail sucks. please answer specifically whether you think you ought to be on the hook to buy an elevator for my house when my knees go.
Pages
Add comment