Overnight Onstreet Parking

[jencoleslaw]

Plenty of streets around me had cars overnight on them during the storm and hence did not get the full plow. However, plenty of streets didn't have any cars on them (I live on a corner, in a big house on the third floor--i can see several blocks in four directions) and those streets are also a wreck. One of the JWU students left their car right outside our house, and moved it first thing in the morning on Wednesday, but the plow had already been by, so at least 20 ft of road didn't get plowed. The plow came back several times during the day and the next day, and not once did it clean up that 20 ft from where that car was, to the corner. Finally, last night a private plow, cleaning the parking area across the street, plowed as much snow off the street as possible.

so we have a few different issues here, one of which is the city's problem getting snow off the streets, cars or no cars.

[Patrick Ward]

My gawd, I just love the WBNA!

The WBNA is having a meeting with Councilor DiRuzzo next week to discuss expanding the (not yet implimented) pilot area in the West End. They would like to include streets in Ward 15 between Messer and Rt 10.

------------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT MEETING "FOR RESIDENTS OF WARD 15"

Have you wanted to park on the street without fear of a ticket?

Do you think there is a parking problem in Providence?

Do you love the city and want to help it continue to develop?

If you answer YES to any of these questions now is your opportunity to make a difference.

We NEED your support at a meeting with Councilwoman DiRuzzo in order to prove that there is a demand for MORE PARKING! We are asking Councilwoman DiRuzzo to make a pilot area for on-street permit parking in Ward 15.

This is our shot to get on-street parking and we've been told that we need to prove it.....well, please come out and help us prove beyond any doubt that we want PARKING!

Come to the meeting and let your voice be heard.

We need your help now!

Where: WBNA

When: February 20th @ 7PM

Who: Councilwoman Josephine DiRuzzo

If you can't attend please send Councilwoman DiRuzzo an email voicing your support for On Street parking ([email protected]) and copy the WBNA ([email protected])

[Patrick Ward]

Every now and then I will get an e-mail from someone explaining parking problems they are having. I got this a few months back from a woman on Federal Hill. Just thought I would through it out there.

---------------------------------------------

Hi there,

I am a homeowner on XXXXX Street (my grandfather bought this house

In 1923). I did not realize that others are doing work on resident

parking.

I would be happy to gather signatures (or what ever) in my area to

facilitate resident parking. I have a beautiful ornimental crab

tree that I love, it was a gift to my father. I may need to cut

it down in the spring for additional parking. It will break my heart

to cut it down Please let me know what I can do to help resident

parking become a reality for me and others in the neighborhood.

Also, in the meantime, where are there places to park? I have my

name in for the lot near ring and knight but there are 11 before

me last time I checked. I don't mean to preach to a choir ,but

Providence needs as many trees that it can have to help polution.

I know the bottom line is probablly money, I am willing to pay the

city extra in order not to

cut down my tree and loose a good part of my side yard where I

also have many flowers including a rosebush that is more than 50

years old who was my grandmothers. Connie XXXXXXXX

[Liamlunchtray]

I just wish that they would consider Harrison st and Hammond st over on the other side of the park too

[ruchele]

I just wish that they would consider Harrison st and Hammond st over on the other side of the park too

[Liamlunchtray]

Did you ask them to? I know that they were looking for petition signatures from at least Harrison St. It might not be too late to collect signatures and have Harrison added to the list!

[Bd02909]

I just wish that they would consider Harrison st and Hammond st over on the other side of the park too

[Liamlunchtray]

Liam, You live over here on Harrison? We must be neighbors.

[jkletzien]

I love a good forum dust up as much as the next guy, especially when both sides have smart people. But in this case, I'm not sure it's gonna get us very far

I agree with Patrick and the pro crowd that this is a regressive tax, detrimental to the environment, smacks of our provincialism - and should be done away with. However I also am in the same boat with TheAnk that my house will garner less rent than now, and I tend to agree with his assessment of government and public space. I should also say that the various anti arguments I find weak as most.

But all due respect, traditional liberal talking points ain't gonna light a fire under City Hall, nor are libertarian insights going to carry the day in a forum of committed new urbanists.

If change is gonna happen I think we need to look at this from the point of view of the city government (not its citizens, or runoff, or tree canopy) what its need(s) is, see where there is common ground, and then harp on that (those) point(s). By my reading, it needs money, if this policy can raise more money than ticketing alone (and I believe it can) than that point needs to be researched and made crystal clear. I know it is difficult since the general fund is inscrutible, but perhaps the first step is to go to the Mayor and ask for these income/expense to be pulled out, then do the research and cite the precedents (forgive me Patrick if you've done all this and I just haven't seen your presentation)

To help w/ theAnk's problem - and it is a problem - there could be a tax breaks for property owners that provide parking, and have less than their allotted number applying for a parking permit. Or, at the very least grandfather in these breaks for those of us that bought at a inflated price based on the present conditions.

[runawayjim]

If change is gonna happen I think we need to look at this from the point of view of the city government (not its citizens, or runoff, or tree canopy) what its need(s) is, see where there is common ground, and then harp on that (those) point(s). By my reading, it needs money, if this policy can raise more money than ticketing alone (and I believe it can) than that point needs to be researched and made crystal clear. I know it is difficult since the general fund is inscrutible, but perhaps the first step is to go to the Mayor and ask for these income/expense to be pulled out, then do the research and cite the precedents (forgive me Patrick if you've done all this and I just haven't seen your presentation)

[jkletzien]

In a perfect world you are absolutely right...

but my humble take on it is that public policy is about recognizing the legitimate arguments (property values, and snow removal) and sorting out the illegitimate ones (emergency vehicles, crumbling community, drug dealers) and then finding compromise.

Most triple deckers have about +/-40' of street front, so 2-3 cars can get in there MAX (accounting for the odd hydrant, etc..) so any solution is going to require landlords to also provide some parking (which then adds curb cuts further reducing the total amount of street frontage by another 3/4 of a car per building). Recognizing this and at the very least grandfathering in some breaks for landlords that are providing this amenity to offset their rent/property devaluation is good strategy as it wins more of them to your side. It may not be great environmental policy, but honestly this is one of the "pro" sides weaker arguments (IMHO the increase in green space would be more than offset by the tactic encouragment of buying and bringing in more cars to the city).

If it ain't in perpetuity than so be it, but if a Police Lt. is citing this as his major objection, you can bet there are a lot more entrenched Providence interests that are just waiting to kill it along these lines, better to consider and work with their legitimate beef now.....

[runawayjim]

i'm still not seeing how this is a legitimate issue. property values are so subject to change with lots of variables, the ability to park in the street overnight isn't really one of them. besides, the amount of rent you'd be able to get isn't going to change a whole lot if you offer off street parking. off street parking is still more desirable than on street parking because your car is less likely to get damaged. in fact, i'd be willing to bet that this would raise the values of some properties that currently don't offer off street parking because there'd be a solution other than paying several hundred dollars a year for a rented space in a parking lot somewhere.

it isn't about being in a perfect world. there is absolutely no point at all to lifting the parking ban if the city is going to give no reason for property owners to get rid of their paved yards because they'll get tax breaks. the city doesn't have the money to start giving tax breaks to someone who lost a little in the real estate game.

[jkletzien]

I think it is a legitimate issue for the reasons supplied by TheAnk, and for the reason that that is how the Police Lt. shouted down Patrick Ward. You may not think so, and I understand your reasoning to a point, but if those people are putting less of a burden on public property, then to get this done, why wouldn't you? Your property is allotted 6 permits for the use of public property, you only use two, why shouldn't you get credit for the other 4 - you are after all putting less on the taxpayer?

If you insist on making the green argument, and believe the net effect of this will be the same amount of cars, but with more front lawns, I think you're being as overly optimistic as the CHNA is being overly pessimistic. Simply put the green aspect of this initiative isn't that strong - this is after all in large part an argument about capacity (similar to widening a highway) you can add capacity to temporarily ease congestion, but in the long run that capacity will be filled too. In many ways I think to myself there are probably a lot of ardent environmentalists out in the world that would love to adopt our present regs as more pro environment than the proposed plan. Truth be told, if it were 1949, I would be suspiscious that GM is sponsoring this initiative.

This law/regulation should be done away with as it is a money loser for the city, a regressive tax on the poor, determines much about unit size and who lives here (aka few one bedrooms), and makes teardowns profitable, but its greening effects are, in the end, pretty thin. Telling landlords that if they do provide parking for their tenants (I'm not talking about teardown lots which are a blight) that they're not going to receive some benefit is a little stubborn (IMHO), and by the looks of who's complaining may prevent anything from ever getting done.

[runawayjim]

the city isn't giving anything to anyone. they're charging for the permits. the landlords aren't paying a dime for the permits, it's the people who use the permits that buy them. there is no additional burden on landlords, other than this perceived loss in rent (which i still don't think will happen, because off street parking will still be more desirable). i don't think you're understanding that.

[jkletzien]

I do, in fact, understand that, and you do realize you are arguing with someone that actually supports the initiative, and is only proposing ways to get it passed?

[runawayjim]

you do realize you are arguing with someone that actually supports the initiative, and is only proposing ways to get it passed?

[Patrick Ward]

I do, in fact, understand that, and you do realize you are arguing with someone that actually supports the initiative, and is only proposing ways to get it passed?

[TheAnk]

1. Current market conditions have nothing to do with the values of houses with parking vs houses without parking.. If you meant legislative risk, thats valid..

2. If you say there is no validity to the fact that rents for apts that have off-street parking will fall, why is it that literally every person calling for an apartment, before even asking what la renta is asks if there is off street parking, and how many cars?

Is this just because they "prefer" to park off street? I disagree.. I generally agree that people do prefer off street parking to onstreet parking.. But given no ban, most would just park in the street rather than pay extra for an apartment that has off street parking.. Thats rational..

For the record, I dont own any "paved yard" properties.. I have yards AND parking that does not look out of place... I think it is foolish when I see cars half parked on sidewalks and half on a lot where a tiny swath of grass might have been.. It looks (is) ghetto..

I also agree that the green aspects of overturning this ban are paper thin.. So much so that when put up against ppty values, police response, and snow removal don't have a punchers chance..

I DO think though, that the revenue aspect has merit.. And thats the one that I worry about... If one can prove that increased revenue could be gained while not severely retarding ppty val/snow/cops then I can see it working..

My opinion is it can be done.. How? By towing like crazy during snow stork warnings (not done now) without exception, charging a fee for permit (a decent amount), and and... By offering a break to people who offer offstreet parking (similar to a homestead exemption).. Other than previously mentioned selfish reasons, this actually makes sense globally..

Sounds crazy.. But jkletzien makes a great point.. On street parking, would not very likely make people unpave their yards.. But it may will increase the amount of autos (GM).. I'd say both aren't incredibly likely, but the latter is more so than the former for sure..

So while the green aspects might be in good faith, as so often happens the end result is the exact opposite of the intention..

[TheAnk]

And please don't get me started on taxing people who pave their yards.. Kinder Gentler Libertarian Ank (KGLA) can't take it.....

[runawayjim]

while it may not make people unpave their yards, people will continue to pave yards if the city gives a tax break for people who offer off street parking. that's the point i've been making.

and while some people may not be willing to pay more for a place with off street parking, i can guarantee you that many people will be willing to. it may not be quite as much as you used to be able to get, but it's still more than a place without it.

this wouldn't be a legislative condition, it would actually be removing legislation that currently artificially increases the value of properties with off street parking.

[jkletzien]

I think you're right most would (prefer a place w/ off street parking), but if it was an extra $100 in rent/month or $25/year than I think you would likely have a lot of people choosing the latter (esp in income brackets were $1200 is A LOT of money), and then rents trend down for houses that provide parking. In other words I beg to disagree, and believe it is a legitimate concern, raise the price for a permit to $500-700/yr (which I think is too much) and it isn't.

In general you may not like tax credits, but in this case if you are taking a service provided by a few landlords now, and undercutting them as the public entity for $25/yr (which I think is too little if we're striking a balance), you've effectively taken away a commodity they are selling, and it would make it easier for them to swallow, and easier to get it passed, if you taxed them less.

Will it produce more pave overs, maybe yes, but likely no IF you made the credit less or equal to the price of the permit.

There are other more potent reasons to fight for this than the environment. Revenue, Brain Drain, City fabric, punishing the poor disproportionately, etc...

[runawayjim]

I think you're right most would (prefer a place w/ off street parking), but if it was an extra $100 in rent/month or $25/year than I think you would likely have a lot of people choosing the latter (esp in income brackets were $1200 is A LOT of money), and then rents trend down for houses that provide parking. In other words I beg to disagree, and believe it is a legitimate concern, raise the price for a permit to $500-700/yr (which I think is too much) and it isn't.

In general you may not like tax credits, but in this case if you are taking a service provided by a few landlords now, and undercutting them as the public entity for $25/yr (which I think is too little if we're striking a balance), you've effectively taken away a commodity they are selling, and it would make it easier for them to swallow, and easier to get it passed, if you taxed them less.

Will it produce more pave overs, maybe yes, but likely no IF you made the credit less or equal to the price of the permit.

There are other more potent reasons to fight for this than the environment. Revenue, Brain Drain, City fabric, punishing the poor disproportionately, etc...

[jkletzien]

i think you're thinking too much like a landlord and not enough like a taxpayer. i'm not willing to foot the bill for you to lose rent. your rent income would decrease, but not by much. rents in places that don't offer parking will be able to increase slight. everything would be more in balance. in every other major city you couldn't rent an apartment with off street parking for that much more because they offer it. the current ban allows landlords to artificially increase rents. removing that ban would force you to put more work into being able to get the rent you want.

you're saying give a tax break of $25 per resident? and yes, tax breaks will definitely cause more pave-overs no matter how you try to spin it.

yes, i realize that there are other reasons besides environmental ones for removing the ban, but that doesn't make the environmental reasons any less important. you're sounding pretty greedy right now. what can the city give to me for free? that's all i'm hearing. at least you're in favor of lifting the ban, but tax breaks are would be a stupid fiscally irresponsible move by a city that is already with some serious economic issues.

[jencoleslaw]

If i lived in PVD and worked for an enviro non profit I'd apply for a grant from one of the big green funders to do a study/pilot project that would give mini grants to homeowners to tear up their parking an install green space. maybe I'd even integrate it into the agency's programming, where the folks doing environmental job training do the work to create green space and, and/or permeable hardscape...

Also, i currently live where there is on street parking, but i still prefer to put my BRAND NEW CAR (a hummer) in the driveway. I think many people would pay a little extra to ensure their car is parked off street if given the opportunity, so i think TheAnk would still have those people who would pay the extra $25 or whatever per month to have their car parked right outside their window.

I think the green angle is how you are going to sell this to many people, but not everyone, and 3/4 of the city council doesn't know what green means, so you will have to find financial incentives for them to support it thru-out the city...figure out a way for this thing to not just break even but make a little extra "green" and suddenly it will be greatly supported!

[runawayjim]

you're not hearing me then, what I'm saying is if the cost of the permit was the same or slightly more than a tax credit say $200-300/year than there would be little/no motivation to pave over after rents converged more. I concede you will always get more for off street, but it sure would be nice if you conceded those figures will trend closer to the middle if you advocate the city government apply market pressure by giving something away for close to free that people have always paid a premium for.

You can make the public space case but the fact on the ground is this, there is an overnight parking ban in 7/8 of the city and a lot of folks are ready to fight any changes to it, to get it passed for the rest of the city in some form you may need to compromise.

I'm greedy, and not a taxpayer, that is funny. I hereby pledge I'll take any tax credit and put it towards the RI food bank, oy vey.