Candidate for Newton mayor (and alderman) Ted Hess-Mahan was profiled in this story by Evan Allen in the Sunday Globe and the guest on Charlie Shapiro’s NewTV program “Newton Newsmakers.”
Ted Hess-Mahan ready for his close-up
by Greg Reibman | Sep 29, 2013 | Elections, Ted Hess-Mahan | 15 comments
That’s interesting that someone (Evan Alan, Boston Globe) could write what reads like a summary of our Mayoral race and not use the words “Engine 6” or “homeless”.
Here’s a red flag from the Globe article:
“[he’ll]…seek to alleviate traffic throughout the city by providing more parking.”
@Hoss: The article begins and speaks at length about affordable housing.
How does more parking lead to decreased traffic?
@Dan: Some might suggest that if folks aren’t driving around looking for a place to park, there’d be less people driving around looking for parking.
Good point Greg- I had the same question as Dan. But does more parking attract a greater number of cars to the area? It’s easy to argue yes. I guess whether that is good or bad depends on the location we’re talking about.
Well, I’d assume that much of our traffic problem is at commuting time, where parking is less of an issue.
Evan Allen and I spoke for well over an hour and again in subsequent follow up emails and phone calls, and I thought she did a terrific job. I do want to provide context for the parking comments, however, because she and I had an extended discussion about various ways to address parking issues particularly in village centers.
As Mayor, I would vigorously pursue solutions to reduce parking demand through public-private partnerships and shared parking arrangements. For example, for the past four years I have been trying to get the city and Newton Wellesley Hospital to collaborate on a parking garage in West Newton that would provide satellite parking during the day for the hospital and public parking evenings and weekends for local businesses and the police department.
In addition, we discussed “payments in lieu of parking” (PILOPs) which would provide administrative review and approval of parking waivers instead of through special permits, in exchange for payments that would go toward creating structured parking, pedestrian/bicycle mobility improvements and other ways to reduce parking demand in village centers. From a commercial perspective, PILOPs provide certainty for businesses that want to relocate and expand that they can incorporate into their business plan, and put money directly toward reducing parking demand instead of obtaining a special permit from the Board of Aldermen.
Finally, we also discussed the need for the city to actively pursue a public-private partnership with developers to use air rights to build structured parking in Newton Center as well as over the MassPike. This has been discussed ad nauseum for years, and instead of continually talking about it, the city should just do it.
The Newton Centre Task force concluded that most of the traffic in Newton Centre was from cars circling around looking for parking spots. This is a good approach that would work.
Why shouldn’t there be administrative review of parking requirements without a payment? Feels bribe-ish — a transfer of funds in exchange for special treatment.
Also, a minor point — but on the subject of parking the City is using a portion of Ward St, a public road, for employee parking. The sign says the public will be towed. This type of thing was a controversy in Boston years ago – using a public roads for police and MBTA parking. Should this be reviewed?
Hoss, when the Board of Aldermen approves a special permit, whether it is for a parking waiver or other relief, mitigation may be required as a condition provided it has a causal connection with the impact of the project. In the case of parking waivers, mitigation may include monetary contributions to pay for bike racks, pedestrian/bicycle mobility improvements, etc. Because judgment and discretion of the Board is necessarily involved in granting a special permit, there is always the possibility of reaching seemingly arbitrary results in different cases, although we do our best to avoid it. That is why a number of communities around the country have opted instead for administratively approved PILOPs based on a predetermined rate.
Ted Hess-Mahan — With that detail, I like it. Suggests terms certain (no guess work in the planning model) and reduced legal fees on the investor side.
Hoss: 🙂
How about we stop with the waivers and enforce the requirements that new developments provide adequate parking to begin with?
Letting people bribe their way out of requirements seems like the worst of all worlds, and particularly discriminating against smaller businesses, that might not have the deep pockets of Panera Bread etc.
The people who instituted these requirements were wise, and recognized that without adequate accessible parking from the get go, there would always be issues about parking shortages, and property values would be reduced because the local businesses would have a much smaller customer base to draw on. E.g only people who could/are willing to walk or bicycle over.
Ever notice that shopping centers/malls rarely have issues with parking shortages? Developers understand the intimate relationship between parking availability, tenant success, and property values.
I’m voting for Ted, simply because Setti Warren wasted a tremendous amount of taxpayer dollars in Newton Centre, and seems to have serious blind spot when it comes to bad ideas about urban planning.
Joseph, the problem in village centers is not usually supply, it is availability. One of our criteria for granting parking waivers is that there has to be parking available within walking distance (a two or three minute walk). If while walking people stop in another store or business, that adds to the village vitality. Win win.