A distressed citizen complains about the new ZipCar-only parking spaces on Bunker Hill Street in Charlestown:
Can you tell us who we call at City Hall to buy a spot in front of our house. And how much? We are taxpayers/property owners.
The complaint echoes those from North End residents about the new city car-share program.
The Herald talks to Mayor Walsh, who says the program will actually free up parking spaces by increasing the number of residents who give up cars altogether now that there's a nearby car-share car.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Three hours before you posted
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 8:13pm
Citation is above.
Cite, please
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:34pm
Your'e a big fan of citations, so please pony up.
Already did
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 8:08pm
Four hours ago. See above.
Search page for "Berkeley".
Berkeley is not Boston
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:06am
Berkeley is not Boston. The patterns of work / residence / shopping are not directly comparable. The demographics are not comparable. The commute patterns are not comparable.
I don't understand this
By eherot
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:54pm
I don't understand this argument. Are you really disputing the claim that there is a population of people in Boston that own cars and store them on the street but only use them occasionally? And that a significant number of these people would choose to give up their cars if there were some sort of "shared" car in the neighborhood that they could pay to use by the hour?
This just seems like common sense to me in ANY city, so really I'm inclined to ask for YOUR citation showing that it is not the case.
I'm not making a claim
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:49pm
I'm not making any claim.
Some people are making the claim that the presence of these car sharing services frees up some large number of parking spaces -- according to some, each additional rental car available saves 8-12 parking spaces. I'm asking them to back up that claim.
Since in the downtown neighborhoods the ratio of resident stickers to resident spaces is 5:1, that means that for each 5 cars taken off the road, you free up one parking space. Which means that to free up 8 spaces, 40 people would need to give up cars. I'm asking to see the data that says an incremental rental car takes 40 cars off the road.
not to mention
By ElizaLeila
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 7:45am
the numbers keep changing throughout the comments here: 15-20 went to 9-13 now 8-12.
Proof that no one knows and data can be what you want to read out of it.
National survey
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 5:24pm
Survey was done NATIONALLY by Berkeley, not IN Berkeley. The Boston area, which was an early adopter of car sharing, is included.
It really really helps to actually read the citations you ask for.
Maybe, maybe not...
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:33pm
Zipcar has operated in my neighborhood for a long time. I have been a happy Zipcar customer for 10 years. Zipcar has historically used commercially rented spaces for their cars. Now, around the corner from me, 4 metered spaces have just been converted to Enterprise Car Rental spaces. As a resident that doesn't have any effect on me, but I suspect it does have an effect on the businesses on that street. And, as I said elsewhere in my thread, maybe that's a good thing on the whole, maybe it's not. But nobody asked any residents or local businesses. Which is particularly galling given that we, the taxpayers, pay for a staff of neighborhood liaison people at City Hall whose job is to do exactly that.
Two Stories From Philadelphia — Where They Charge $150 Per Year
By Elmer
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 3:25pm
It's a somewhat different scenario in Philadelphia with parking spaces for electric vehicles, but there's a similar result — previously public right-of-way parking spaces, turned over to exclusive use by certain vehicles. It reminded me of two stories I'd read in "The Philadelphia Enquirer":
[img]http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20150506_inq_ev06-b.JPG[/img]
Electric vehicles can get special Phila. parking space
[sup] ... and also ...[/sup]
How the rich steal parking spots from you
Hopefully, Boston is getting more money than that from ZipCar — and, residents should be glad this isn't Baltimore, where things could be worse!
This is for individual owners
By anon
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 3:46pm
This is not for a system that frequently results in reduction of cars owned, and prevents people from needing to buy a car.
Large difference.
Car sharing spaces are an investment in parking space. Just ask the Universities why they hand their spaces over for free.
Please stop.
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:36pm
Please stop promoting Hertz's and Enterprise's narrative by referring to their short-term car rental business as "car sharing"
Private property owners
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:38pm
Many private developers have provided spaces for free to Zipcar as an amenity to make their buildings more attractive to tenants. Which is entirely their business decision.
And it might very well make sense for the city to do it, too. But there hasn't been any meaningful analysis or community involvement. That's really the objection here: that it wasn't thought through, and not necessarily that it's a bad idea.
I am surprised to learn that there are off st. spots in Philly
By issacg
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 2:34pm
that are going for that kind of money. I didn't know that the real estate market there was that frothy.
Were these spots put up for public auction?
By Maaark02474
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 3:17pm
Was there a fair and open bidding process on them, and the highest bidders chosen? Can private citizens also rent personal parking spots on the street now too?
Maaaahty has really opened himself up to some lawsuits here.
Since when is that actionable?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 8:40pm
The city gives out permits for funeral homes to commandeer public parking and obstruct travel lanes to double park vehicles all the time. Isn't that selling space?
That's only one example. Here's another: Try to go use a soccer field when a team or program is scheduled to use it - you will hear directly that athletic field space in a public park is rented out as well.
What about charging rent for space in public garages? That's done, too. I remember hearing that some schools are renting out parking spaces for nights and weekends. What about that?
And what about churches that
By Kinopio
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 10:57pm
And what about churches that take over public land for parking even though they pay $0 in property tax?
Can private citizens also
By Fitz
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 3:03pm
Yes. You can pay the city for a permit to exclusively use a public spot for a moving truck or for a contractor. Any resident can do that if you pay the fee. This is no different.
Zipcar already has dedicated spaces in public parking lots in the city.
You don't have to like the policy, but this really isn't anything new.
The permits are for limited use
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:51pm
Contractors can only use the spaces for vehicles that actually need to be at the site, e.g., for a dumpster, for truck-mounted equipment, etc.
Yes, I know that many people abuse this process just to give the contractor a convenient parking space, but, if this is called to the attention of the City, they will revoke the permit.
cars
By mrotown
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 3:42pm
The whole car entitlement thing is getting so tiresome. If you own a car and insist on always being able to park everywhere for free do us all a favor and go move to Rehobeth. If you want to own a car and live in the city then you need to accept that parking/storage is going to be a hassle and an expense.
Equal treatment is all we ask.
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:39pm
Nobody's asking to park for free.... the issue is whether Enterprise has been given the inside track to getting a better deal than I could get.
Aren't you getting a great deal already?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 8:42pm
As in, getting to store your vehicle in public space for free?
Maybe they should mark off spaces and charge for them. It might solve that "five permits per space" problem pretty quickly.
I'm not getting to store my vehicle for free
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 11:22pm
I don't get to store my vehicle for free. I rent a parking space. And, if I want to park it on the street, I get to throw the dice and drive around and take a 1 in 5 chance of getting a space, i.e., take the same chances with a shared public resource as anyone else.
I like the idea of charging for a permit.
By Boston_res
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 9:49am
I can also see this running up against some incredible resistance.
Try charging for parking
By Kinopio
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 11:01pm
Try charging for parking permits or suggesting that only assholes use space savers and you will see that a whole lot more than "nobody" is asking to park for free. People are getting free vehicle storage all year yet look at all the complaining in these comments!
Dot Ave
By BB from Dot
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 4:21pm
A couple of Enterprise rental spots appeared on Dot Ave near Ashmont Station with absolutely no notice to local residents.
Zip Car Drivers
By Tommy Gunn
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 5:20pm
I live across the street from an auto body shop who is basically kept in business by repairing zip cars . . They always have at least 5 to 10 zip cars being worked on at any time for accident damage . This leads me to wonder just how many accidents daily are cause by zip car drivers and if the people renting them are even qualified to or licensed to drive .
One data point
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:41pm
I am a Zipcar customer in addition to using my own car (Our family needs about 1.2 cars and we own one.) My last accident was 25 years ago.
2nd Data Point
By ElizaLeila
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 9:32pm
We gave up our car for about 4 years. I was a Zip Car member for that time. It was OK. You have to have a license in order to be a member.
I will also say that I did and do whatever I can to avoid and or give Zip Cars and their drivers more space than I would non-Zip Car drivers. That is simply due to the fact that these are drivers that (and I hypothesize here) drive less than those who own or lease their car. And yes, I am stereotyping and choosing to let 1 or 5 or 10 bad apples sour the remainder of the barrel. I had a Zip Car left turn in front of me with too little space for them to do so and I was lucky/skilled/practiced enough in emergency braking to ride my moto through and remain upright.
3rd data point
By bibliotequetres...
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 2:42pm
Zip Car member since the year they started, never had an accident.
OK, 2.5
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:43pm
Never had an accident while I was a ZipCar member either.
My owned car has been hit by others 3 times through no fault of my own.
I guess I should go back to being a ZipCar but I despise not having car available when I need it. And yes, I know how to plan ahead to sign up for one, but it doesn't account for needing to get across the city in a last minute and timely fashion (i.e. not the T).
Here's an idea
By Edith
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 5:21pm
If you need to have your car parked right by your house, live somewhere with a garage or driveway. Stop expecting public space to be for your own exclusive personal use.
There huge numbers of people
By anon
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:43pm
There huge numbers of people who need cars to get to jobs outside of the city or places not serviced by public transportation. A large amount of housing in Boston is not near public transportation.
You response is simply to sell public property to private profit driven companies.
That space belongs to the
By Dannae
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 7:54pm
That space belongs to the taxpayers of Boston,
That space belongs to the taxpayers of Boston
By Michael
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 9:01pm
...whose elected representatives have decided to make a little cash off the space
But..
By Bob Leponge
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 11:26pm
... without consulting the taxpayers in any of the ways that are normally used to solicit public input prior to conversion of public resources to private use.
Once again, it's entirely possible that this is a great idea, one that is overdue, and one that would have been enthusiastically supported by all.
It's also entirely possible that, had there been proper process, and had more voices been heard from, an even better solution would have emerged.
That's the core complaint here: not the spaces themselves, but the cowboy shit.
Riiiiiight...
By Kaz
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:25pm
An even better solution? How's that ADA compliance going for you in Beacon Hill? The one that was opened up to public opinion and consulted upon instead of just going ahead and doing it? How are the blind and neighbors in wheelchairs doing in getting around these days? Uh huh...of course, you're on the wrong side of that one too.
We elect the city council/mayor so that we don't *have* to always be consulted on operation of the city. We can also throw them out or replace them should we not like how they run the city and we can also undo the things they did. It's not "cowboy shit". It's their job.
All the public opinion in the world didn't open a burrito joint in Beacon Hill. Where were you to complain about that "cowboy shit"? Oh right, it benefited you then to ignore everyone's opinion in keeping the restaurant in the neighborhood because *you* didn't think it "fit". So, now we're supposed to shame the city for making a "cowboy shit" decision...because they don't want to negotiate with you on ADA compliant curb cuts or because they've made it possible to put some ZipCars in Beacon Hill where there's basically no private parking for them to buy and an unmet need for common carrier services like the kind ZipCar provide.
Yeah, "public discussion" when the NIMBYs will side with you...but full cowboy when public opinion isn't in your favor. Classic Beacon Hill.
People in wheelchairs are
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 3:23pm
People in wheelchairs are getting around Beacon Hill the same way they have for the past few decades, since curb ramps exist at every corner.
The recent controversy was over the plan to add bumpy tactile pads to the ramps, since a smooth transition makes it hard for blind people to know when they're entering the street.
That is untrue. There are
By cden4
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:54pm
That is untrue. There are many streets in Beacon Hill that still lack curb ramps at all. Yes, some have older ones that aren't up to modern standards, but there are still many streets that have none.
On the wrong side?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:56pm
That's not what the judge says
(another not requiring paid subscription: link)
Utter bullshit
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 5:13pm
That's utter bullshit. I personally know a lot of the people involved, all of whom loved the restaurant, were frequent patrons and enthusiastic supporters of Julie and Betty. There was a lot of phoning around to landlords and property owners and calling in of favors trying to find her a space.
Contrary to your claim, there was absolutely an orderly public process and not all 'cowboy' anything: a series of zoning and licensing meetings at which the public had a chance to speak.
The question before the regulators was not, "should this restaurant be allowed to open?" it was "should a property owner be allowed to convert part of his building, located on a residential street in the interior of the neighborhood, from residential to restaurant use, forever? (Julie was going to be his first tenant.)
The opinion of the neighbors as expressed by the neighborhood organizations was that, if we were to argue for an exception to the long-standing principle of opposing the conversion of residential to commercial space, just because the applicant was someone we all liked, we would be (justifiably) accused of playing favorites and, therefore, lose a lot of credibility when we tried to stick to consistent principles in the future.
When his bid to gain a zoning variance failed, Julie decided to pitch it as "a bunch of Beacon Hill snobs trying to push her out." This left a lot of the people who had been Julie's supporters feeling, as you might imagine, rather personally betrayed.
The important point you
By cden4
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 9:27am
The important point you forgot to add is that that space USED to be commercial at one point in time, but was converted to residential. If you look at the design of it, it actually makes much more sense as a commercial space. So, it's not like residents were being asked to allow an apartment to be turned into a business. They were being asked to allow a space initially built for commercial use to be turned back into a commercial space. That seemed like a very reasonable request to me, but since Beacon Hill residents are clutching their pearls anytime anything might change from what it currently is right now (as if everything is perfect right now), that didn't happen.
Somewhat irrelevant
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 12:35pm
Yes, and before that, it was a farm field, and before that, a wooded hillside, and before that, it was buried under a mile of ice. Heck, at one point it was nothing but hot lava.
The space has been residential for decades; the former business use is ancient history and of bearing on the question.
Now you're comparing apples
By cden4
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 1:09pm
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. That particular space in that particular building was designed as and was a commercial space. So it seems appropriate that it could become one again.
But it wasn't a commercial space at the time of the application
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 4:40pm
The space was once a residential space, then it was converted into commercial space perhaps 100 years ago, prior to the district having been zoned residential. As such, the barber shop was grandfathered in as a nonconforming use in a residential neighborhood. When the barber shop closed (I'm guessing around 25 years ago) the owner had the right to continue renting the space commercially, but he chose not to exercise that right, and therefore let the space revert to residential. At that point, the fact that he space had once had a barbershop in it became irrelevant: the district is zoned residential.
The owner then applied for a variance -- as any of us have the right to do -- to allow a commercial tenant into his zoned residential building. A variance is a special exemption to the rules; the variance process is designed to give some relief to people who are suffering a hardship as a result of the zoning and not to give some random property owner a windfall. The city heard from the owner, the neighbors, and interested members of the public and determined that the existing zoning was not creating a hardship for the owner, and denied the variance.
The main neighborhood organization has a track record of consistently opposing the conversion of residential space to commercial use in the residential-zoned parts of the neighborhood. They operate on the basis of well defined and clearly articulated principles, which is in party why they have credibility. Once you start abandoning principles and deciding case-by-case whether you like the applicant or not, then you lose all credibility.
"The main neighborhood
By cden4
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 5:17pm
"The main neighborhood organization has a track record of consistently opposing the conversion of residential space to commercial use in the residential-zoned parts of the neighborhood."
This is what I have a problem with, then. Given the fact that this space used to be commercial, I would make an exception for this space and spaces like it. Maybe I wouldn't allow all types of businesses in these kinds of spaces, but certainly I'd consider ones that don't have a ton of negative impacts on the residents who live around it.
Eye on the big picture
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 5:30pm
If you walk around the North Slope, you'll see that a very large percentage of houses at one time had commercial space in the basement or first floor - space that is now used as apartments.
One of the primary objectives here is to maintain a balanced, mixed-use downtown, with a predominantly residential core away from the main commercial streets. That is reflected in the zoning regulations and the actions of the city government, as well as in the voting and public input from the neighbors.
Commercial tenants are almost always going to be able to outcompete all but the richest potential residential tenants.. what lobbying outfit isn't going to jump at the chance to convert a townhouse near the State House into nice office space, for example.
So, if you let that one formerly-commercial now-residential space be turned back into commercial space, there'll be no basis to oppose the reconversion of probably 100 or more other little spaces all over the north slope, resulting in a significant shift of the interior of the hill from residential to commercial.
More falsehoods.
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 5:06pm
There is a public garage right across the street from the Cambridge Street spaces that were just converted to Enterprise's. And another one right up the street. Zipcar has cars at both locations; I know because I've been a Zipcar customer for a long time.
Taxpayers own squat. The
By Refugee
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 9:46pm
Taxpayers own squat. The City of Boston owns the space, and nothing "owns" the city.
I think what most people want
By mitch
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 10:14pm
I think what most people want to know is if they to can purchase an on street parking spot for their business, or personal use? Or are they just available for car rental companies to purchase/lease?
Businesses can, can't they?
By Michael
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 10:47pm
Aren't taxi stands and valet drop-offs potential open-to-anyone spaces?
Im not sure, that is why im
By Mitch
Sun, 10/25/2015 - 11:27pm
Im not sure, that is why im asking. I know valet companies take over metered spaces at a particular time of the day, usually @ 5 pm when a restaurant opens.
To clarify i was more interested in if this was available to a smaller buisness like a dry cleaner or something that people are quickly in/out of? Maybe to eliminate some of the double parking f-show that occurs in certain parts of the city. It sounds like it could be a good idea, but would take years to actually see the results. Unless of course people are already selling their cars.
The public owns the space
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 5:32pm
The public owns the space and has delegated to the City of Boston the authority to manage the space on the public's behalf; the City government only exists because the public has created it and continues to endorse it and grant it powers. That's a pretty fundamental attribute of the whole Western participatory democracy thing.
wow
By cybah
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 6:10am
wow.. what a bunch a cry babies on this thread.
Waaaah the city is taking spaces for me to park MY car
Waaaah the city didn't tell me about it
Waaah waaah waaaah.
Let's change the scenario.. would we still be complaining about these spaces taken up if it was a Hubway station instead? I don't remember people complaining like this when the Hubway stations went in. Yet Hubway stations can occupy 2-3 parking spots per installation.
It's the same deal folks.. the city promoting alternative means of transportation other than personal car ownership.
One key difference
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:27pm
Well yes, some people did complain, but more importantly, there's a huge difference between the Hubway rollout and this. There are Hubway spaces in my neighborhood. Prior to the spaces being selected, I recall some public input, engagement of the neighborhood residents' and businesses' groups, discussion as to where the spaces should go, who would be impacted, etc.
Once again, it's entirely possible that these spaces for the car rental companies are a good thing. The issue is the "let's shoot from the hip without encouraging thought" lack of sane process.
You shouldn't start your
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 2:45pm
You shouldn't start your posts off like that.
Hubway was a little different because it was offering a different mode of transportation. These are offering the same mode of transportation at an increased cost. People who need a car only occasionally are less likely to have a car in the first place.
Snow emergency
By downtown-anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 9:10am
Where do these cars go during a snow emergency? Do the users still have access to them during a snow emergency? No that you should be driving during a snow emergency.
My experience with ZipCar in the winter
By Kaz
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:28pm
I haven't seen what they do in public lots myself, but they are some of the first cars dug out of private lots and without burying their neighbors or shoving the snow in problematic locations. ZipCar parking maintenance staff tend to be a very conscientious group, so I would bet that these will be really well kept spaces and parking near them would probably even be beneficial to other drivers.
My guess....
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 12:28pm
... it was summer when the program was set up and nobody thought of that.
89 comments and counting
By Boston_res
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 1:37pm
Just put the damn things at meters, remove the meters and leave the resident spots alone.
The problem with these two
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 3:08pm
The problem with these two specific spots, is there's about 100 new units of housing going in at the armory a few blocks away with very little consideration for what is already a parking nightmare on Bunker Hill Street. In this specific case, I would have put the Zipcar spots in the school parking lot a block away. Or even in front of the armory where new people will be moving in and making decisions on usefulness of a car. I hardly see 12 residents around here giving up their car because Zipcar has two new random spots.
In many neighborhoods, the
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 3:26pm
In many neighborhoods, the ratio of meters to resident spaces is already tipped way too far in favor of residents.
But you don't know this
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 4:24pm
But you don't know this neighborhood. There are no meters on that street at all. There's some 2-hour visitor spots. The reason why there's no meters is there's no businesses anyone would drive a car to. There's a coffee shop, dry cleaners, nail salon, (oh and lots of funeral homes) It's why putting in spots for Zipcars seems disruptive. It doesn't fit with the residential neighborhood. It's bad enough there's a bus stop every other block (why soclose?) taking up parking spots.
When I lived a block away, I used to drive around this neighborhood once a week at 8 pm to move my car for street cleaning. I'd end up parking 15 minutes away. There's a very bad parking crunch in this area, and there's almost no off-street parking available in Charlestown since the area is so old.
The Zipcar stats sound nice in a vacuum, but in this specific case, there were better places to locate the Zipcar spots, namely the school lot.
Impact on businesses?
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 5:16pm
That's what's been done in some places. It's a loss to the retail businesses whose customers can no longer use that metered space.
Small problem
By Boston_res
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 5:43pm
Business who truly do want to serve their customers, can find ways for their customers to park. Savenor's in Beacon Hill and Whole Foods in South End both offer parking for their customers. There you have an example of a small business and a large one doing it. I've also seen several restaurants who offer free parking during the duration of your dining at local lots. I find it very hard to buy the "impact" on business argument. When businesses can make a direct correlation between lack of parking spots and their profits, then I may agree. In the case of the Zipcars their business will be impacted anyway since Zipcar users will most likely be residents.
I'm really not understanding the argument here
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 6:25pm
At the end of the day, a big part of the job of government is to manage common resources.
In the case of on-street parking, there are at least four constituencies I can think of: local residents who want to park cars on the street, whose interests are served by abundant resident-only parking; local businesses who want space for their customers to park, whose interests are served by abundant meter spaces with a short time limit; car commuters whose interests are served by abundant meter parking with long time limits, and people who don't own cars, whose interests are served by the city charging as much as possible for parking spaces.
Any sane process for managing on-street parking, including allocation of visitor / resident / meter spaces, time limits on meters, spaces allocated to taxi stands, valet services, car rental services, parking hours, price on meters, etc. needs to obtain input from all constituencies, all of whom know they aren't going to get everything they want, but all of whom will accept an outcome in which they have been heard and the process was fair. That process results in durable, stable solutions. Anything else just pisses people off.
"needs to obtain input from all constituencies"
By Boston_res
Tue, 10/27/2015 - 9:53am
Whoops. Looks like that wasn't done here.
Let's clarify, please
By bibliotequetres...
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 2:06pm
Someone is complaining that he cannot park his PRIVATELY OWNED CAR on PUBLIC PROPERTY because a different PRIVATELY OWNED CAR is on PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Every curbside parking space in the city is the designated use of public property (a part of the street) for an exclusive group (only people parking cars; not used by pedestrian et al)
The feelings, they hurt.
It's not exactly public
By anon
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 2:50pm
It's not exactly public property when a private company acquires them and rents them out only to people willing to use their service. Whereas public parking spaces are for all publicly owned cars with the money going to the city, these services are only for people willing to rent a car from them with the money going to the company.
Your post, it fails.
Corporations are people, my friend
By Kaz
Mon, 10/26/2015 - 3:26pm
That company pays taxes (probably more than you do) to keep the city running. I imagine whatever they make off of the two spots in question aren't going to cover their tax burden for the year.
Also, if renting out the use of a car makes their use somehow different than the average joe's (even though it's average joes from that very neighborhood that are renting out those cars for their personal needs), then UberX people shouldn't be allowed to park in that neighborhood...or cabbies...or livery...etc. And if we start telling every person with a driver that they can't have the help parking in Beacon Hill...
Pages
Add comment