City Councilor Michelle Wu (at large) says a rapidly growing Boston can no longer simply dole out unlimited free resident parking permits to residents and wants the city to start charging $25 per annual sticker - with exemptions for senior citizens, low-income residents and home-health and BPS staff who make regular home visits.
Wu's proposal, which the City Council will consider tomorrow, would also create, for the first time, a visitor pass, good for 72 hours - at a cost of $10 per visit.
"The current system is ineffective at managing curbside space in a manner that is fair and accessible to all who need to park on-street overnight," she writes in her proposal.
Boston has long doled out the permits for free - and has limited visitors to small numbers of spaces that are often taken by residents.
In her proposed ordinance - which they council will likely send to a committee for a hearing and study - Wu says that's no longer feasible when the Boston's population has increased by 100,000 since 1980 and number of permits in the city has increased 25% over the past ten years in a city that now has at least 300 households with five or more cars registered to them.
Her proposal also includes a way for the city to designate new areas for permitted parking, without waiting for residents to file petitions for them.
In her request for a hearing, she says the current system particularly benefits well off residents:
The current system to establish resident parking zones requires residents to self-organize and collect signatures from at least 51% of adult residents who live on the affected streets. Through this system, neighborhoods with resources and time have an advantage, which only perpetuates systemic inequities. ... More than half of households without vehicles have annual incomes less than
$25,000. Only 7% of zero-vehicle households make over $100,000
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Too Cheap
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 12:56pm
Make this more expensive. BUT - then use it to offset residential property taxes. I think you should charge for this - but it shouldn't be an incremental revenue stream to the city. The budget is out of control as it is and they've already added tens of millions in new taxes in recent years.
Yeah I could see $35 being reasonable
By Gary C
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:07pm
The money should be plowed into anything that supports better mass-transportation.
As someone who parks in the
By Mike S (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:46pm
As someone who parks in the city but doesn't need a permit, remember that all cars in Boston already have to pay excise tax ($50-500/year). Adding another fee for drivers in the city is overkill. I totally agree that fewer cars is better, but no one will sell their car to avoid a $35 fee. Additionally, drivers in the city already pay expensive tolls just to get around (tunnels, Mass Pike & Tobin bridge).
If the goal is fewer cars in the city and to build-up mass transit, the first step should be tolls at the NH border and possibly tolls to enter Boston between 6-9am M-F. Don't further punish those who live in the city and have a car. We already pay more to (occasionally) drive than anywhere else in MA.
Cool cool cool cool no doubt
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:25pm
But you don't pay enough to cover the true cost of driving and it has to be made up by other taxpayers. So no, its not overkill, its trying to correct a hand out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/...
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/re...
Correct a handout? Please. Do
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:08pm
Correct a handout? Please. Do those who cycle pay an assessment for bike trails and lanes?
yes we do pay our taxes. The
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:20pm
yes we do pay our taxes. The point is that registration fees and gas taxes do not pay for roads. All people have to pay taxes for roads, despite the fact that everyone does not drive.
So true. Lots of us don’t
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:20pm
So true. Lots of us don’t have kids and taxes pay for public ed, that’s how it goes. People who don’t own cars still benefit from taxes that go towards roads.
how?
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 04/26/2019 - 7:05pm
The pollution doesn't benefit non drivers. Roads and bridges would last longer without cars.
Nice deflection but just wide of the net
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:40pm
We pay taxes and the discussion is about how the taxes motorists pay don't currently cover the true cost of maintaining and expanding our roads in Massachusetts, to the tune of $6.4 billion. Oh also the National Highway Trust is insolvent too.
If you want to pull up the data showing that our taxes don't pay enough for the bike paths we use, be my guest.
That isn’t what THE
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:28pm
That isn’t what THE discussion is about. That’s what your discussion is about. “It’s a move she says will update the city’s outdated parking permit system and possibly clear up curb space.†That’s her objective, to keep people from circling the block. This move doesn’t help keep cars out of the city and off the road. Before anything happens, the city should start enforcing the current permit system and see if that makes a difference. Charge people from other cities and towns to come here. Remember the speed limit was decreased to 25 mph? There has been no enforcement, except in Southie for a few days. Now city hall would like to lower the speed limit even more. Still won’t work unless there is enforcement.
There’s roughly $1200 worth
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 8:03pm
There’s roughly $1200 worth of tolls that get charged onto my EZPass annually. You’re saying that’s not enough?
It's not nearly enough. You
By Kinopio
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:26pm
It's not nearly enough. You get a big hand out from non drivers like me. You create potholes, require police, construction, create traffic, spew lethal toxins in the air, take up valuable space, endanger lives of pedestrians, worsen climate change. Need I go on?
A BIG handout? Who are you
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:30pm
A BIG handout? Who are you giving this money to?
I'm giving this money to the
By Kinopio
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:35pm
I'm giving this money to the federal government, state and city of Boston through various taxes. They then spend some of that on spoiled drivers who receive welfare like free parking.
“Welfare like free parkingâ€
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 11:12pm
“Welfare like free parking†do you know what welfare is? Do you call T riders welfare like, people on section 8, students? I know you are rude, but really?
It’s not car owners fault that the city has NEVER implemented a system for parking. The city councilors should come up with an effective plan, this will do nothing to help parking in Boston or keep cars off the road.
Supplementing the MBTA is an
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 04/24/2019 - 1:05pm
Supplementing the MBTA is an investment and getting people out of personal cars in reducing emissions.
More than half the people section 8 and other welfare benefits are children. Again this is an investment in the future which will propel our economy.
Spending tax money on Roadsis also on investment in our economy . However the benefit has been short term looking ahead and space better. Right now we have proven that in our expanding roads and highways doesn’t reduce traffic so we have to look at other directions.
What makes you think I have a
By Lmo
Wed, 04/24/2019 - 1:13pm
What makes you think I have a problem with subsidies? I’m commenting on Kinopio’s extremely poor word choice.
Where did Wu say the intent of this program is to reduce traffic?
Part of the reason that you
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:23pm
Part of the reason that you already own a car while living in the city even though you admittedly drive only occasionally is because it has been free for you - and many others like you - to park it.
Not true, I own a parking
By Mike S (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 7:50pm
Not true, I own a parking space (and pay taxes on it too). Not that you asked, but my company is outside the city where there is no MBTA option available.
Explain to me how someone living in a suburb who drives 35 miles of highway each way to/from Boston from NH (without tolls) & doesn't have to pay tax for their parking space or excise tax for their vehicle, isn't part of the problem but people who live in Boston (also paying property taxes or high rental fees to cover the taxes) and have cars are the problem. Keep in mind most of us in the city have 5-15 mile commutes (less highway use) and also pay Mass Pike tolls every day.
$35 is still way too cheap.
By Kinopio
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:32pm
$35 is still way too cheap. That's the cost to park one day in downtown at a private garage. If drivers want to take up a big chunk of valuable real estate then they should pay up big time. No more hand outs. No more welfare for greedy drivers. Start it at $200 for the outer neighborhoods. Charge $1000 for Back Bay, Beacon Hill etc. That is still way below market value so drivers should be thankful at those rates.
Aren’t real estate taxes
By Wolfote (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:54pm
Aren’t real estate taxes already as low as you’ll find anywhere once you apply the residential exemption? The exemption cut a deal with people fleeing to the suburbs decades ago. Now folks pay like crazy to live here yet we give a pass on accepting the revenue from taxes they’d pay to live almost anywhere else. Thus, chronically under funded schools.
Underfunded schools?
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:35pm
Where (looks around)?
The mil rate is low for mathematical reasons. The city also implements certain policies to keep taxes on single family homes mostly in the western part of the city artificially low (those people tend to vote). The exemption actually does very little for most Boston residents (as your valuation approaches about $1 million, the impact of the exemption goes to zero (i.e. - without it, the rate would be lower and you'd be better off). Note, the people that "pay like crazy" to live here would probably pay about the same or less to live in the burbs.
As for underfunded schools, are you aware that Boston ranks roughly in the top 10 in the state in expenditures per student and teacher salaries? Or that we've added hundreds of employees to the schools while the student population has shrunk by thousands?
I almost included your response
By Wolfote (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:50pm
I almost includdd your response in my post. Enjoy your cloud.
You have different data?
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 3:06pm
Go right ahead - it doesn't exist.
I think the first one should be free
By ScottB
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:07pm
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.
And registration
By Parkwayne
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:10pm
If you have to have your car registered here to get a permit, then that'll also increase city revenues, right? And it should of course.
If the first one is free...
By Matt (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:21pm
If the first one is free, the zeroth one should be a refund off my rent. Why do the carless have to subsidize the storage of car in our city? Cars add very little of value but have many downsides.
Explain
By Parkwayne
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:08pm
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.
While I agree
By bgl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 3:45pm
I agree with the overall sentiment - that the parking permit fee shouldn't be deductible, I would point out that just because your neighbor doesn't have a car it doesn't mean they don't require the city plow or salting the streets. They still potentially need all of this for police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency services (utility repair, etc). They also need it for mail and package delivery, and shipping deliveries to stores where they shop.
Ok if we are accounting for externalities
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:05pm
Then we have to factor in the health impacts that come with motor vehicles, we don't get to weight that solely against the benefits of cars.
But more to the point, I would almost want to extend plowing/salting to sidewalks and saying that while yes, I don't own a car but I would gladly pay more if it meant the sidewalks get as cleared as roads do, again for the general benefit to citizens.
I would agree sidewalk
By bgl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 11:38pm
I would agree sidewalk plowing would be awesome (and save my back every winter). However - I wouldn't agree with your point on weighing against the benefits of cars. Trucks are the main cause of road damage/wear (and snow plows), and generally pollute much more than cars. These, again, are 100% needed whether or not one drives, same with emergency vehicles. The trade off in pollution/health causes is something we have traded for modern life/amnesties. Passenger cars continue to get more efficient/pollute less, going so far as basically zero impact (at time of usage) with electric vehicles.
Again, I agree resident stickers should have a fee and should be limited to number per household. I also agree that we need to emphasize public transit. I don't agree, though, that just because someone doesn't have a personal car that they don't benefit from the roads or snow/salting during the winter of them, just like people who don't take public transport still benefit from it.
Yes he is. How does he take
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 8:26pm
Yes he is. How does he take the bus if the streets don't get plowed? How does the fire truck or the ambulance get to his house? How does food get to the corner market?
Like this
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 10:08pm
Say the city collects 1 billion a year in residential taxes. We all split 1 billion a year based on the value of our homes etc. Now they collect 10 million in residential parking fees. The.city already has gobs of money. So deduct the net revenue and instead of 1 billion we split 990 million in taxes. The city gets the same amount of revenue and we all get a whopping 1% break on our taxes.
For places like Beacon Hill,
By aaron.s.weber@g...
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 3:04pm
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.
Because it's not legal.
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 3:35pm
Parking permits are fees. In Massachusetts, fees can cost between $0 and the total cost to provide the service (including enforcement, staff time, staff overhead, buildings necessary to house staff, etc).
You can't auction, and you can't "overcharge" in that context.
Sure, state law could be changed, but that's not up to Councillor Wu or her colleagues.
A common misconception but
By aaron.s.weber@g...
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:50pm
A common misconception but this is not true. The statue you refer to limited the maximum that could be charged for parking meters and has been repealed for several years now
Point of Order
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:51pm
In order to facilitate conversation, please link to the law that you are speaking of here.
Thanks.
Sorry, didn't have it with me
By aaron.s.weber@g...
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 6:29pm
Sorry, didn't have it with me at the time. That would be chapter 40, section 22a, revised under the 2017 Municipal Modernization Act,
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T...
Thanks. That helps.
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 8:08pm
Thanks. That helps.
If we don't have on-street parking equality..
By Friartuck
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 9:56pm
That is identical regardless of neighborhood, what kind of society have we become? Auctioning? WTF..
If you rent in Boston and
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:00pm
If you rent in Boston and want a parking permit then yes you should pay a steep fee. If you own a condo Boston and pay property taxe$ then you should pay less of a parking permit fee.
You realize rent covers property taxes, right?
By Ari O
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:45pm
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.
Badly regressive tax policy
By Wolfote (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:06pm
I’ve been asking progressive city councilors why they’re ok with a badly regressive tax policy. Because I can afford a house I pay next to nothing in real estate taxes. Someone without a down payment saved up pays three times as much as me.
People coming in dropping $500K to millions on condos in Boston aren’t doing it for our residential exemption. They’re paying to live near high salaries and Boston’s amenities. And we let them take full advantage without sharing the cost of city services like educating the children, the way they would anywhere else!
Get rid of the exemption. Do it in a graduated manner so lower income homeowners pay less, seniors can defer it to sale, etc.
no
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:26pm
no, in this case owners and renter's should be treated equally.
no
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:26pm
no, in this case owners and renter's should be treated equally.
nah dude
By tape
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 5:20pm
nah dude
The visitor pass is long
By anon (not verified)
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:09pm
The visitor pass is long overdue... I might add that the pricing should vary by neighborhood. It should be rather pricey in the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and considerably cheaper in Brighton, Jamaica Plain, Hyde Park, etc.
Also, every current Resident Only zone should have a pay-to-park option. The rate would be higher than whatever the going rate is for nearby meters. If a meter on the main street is $2 per hour, than doing pay-to-park on a residential street should be $5 per hour. Residents can cry foul, but the ones who actually use their cars will be able to more easily find spaces, rather than encountering the same cars that only move twice a month for street sweeping.
Sure, why not?
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 1:53pm
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).
100k?!?
By Lmo
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 2:35pm
100k?!?
OOPS - ``
By Stevil
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 4:22pm
No k.
Pages
Add comment