There’s been a lot of discussion on this thread here and this thread here about proposed changes to Newton’s overtime parking rules.
Here’s the minutes and the audio from the City Council’s March 23rd Public Safety and Transportation meeting* where this proposal was approved to be sent to the full city council for a vote. (Deliberation of the proposed parking rule changes came nearly two hours into the meeting)
After listening to it, I can’t help but get the impression that the discussion was rushed and the committee was tired and anxious to pass the proposal without a lot of debate. I’d be interested in hearing if others reach the same conclusion.
Particularly rushed is the deliberation over the proposal’s most controversial aspect: A new rule that would make it illegal to park at the same meter, the same block or even the same city parking lot twice in the same day.
Direct discussion about the “no same day return” visits does not start until the very end (37:30 on the tape). Three minutes later the proposal is voted on. Voting in favor are Councilors Jake Auchincloss, (PS&T Chair) Jay Ciccone, Jim Cote, Andrea Downs, Chris Markiewicz and Rick Lipof. Councilors Brenda Noel and Becky Grossman voted no.
I found that the way Councilors Grossman’s and Noel’s concerns were dismissed over a significant public policy decision to be troubling. Also troubling (although I understand the comments were perhaps said in jest) are comments telling Grossman and Noel: “Don’t put this on second call,” suggesting that the committee hoped to put these new rules into place without any actual debate before the full city council.
Of course, that’s ultimately what didn’t happen: After a public outcry over the weekend, on Monday the proposal was kicked back to this same committee for further discussion.
*The audio here is just for the overtime parking discussion, the full meeting audio is also here.
Greg,
If you listened to this in its entirety, you would hear and understand the levity at the end of the meeting. When I said don’t put this on second call, as you noted it was said in jest, laughing and kidding and nobody in the room took it as if I was making that plea. As City Councilors we all know that we have the right and ability to put something on second call or to ask to have it sent back to committee. That is exactly what happened and it was voted unanimously by the committee to do so. And wisely so, as we are considering several other parking changes around the city and this revision of law should happen in conjunction with those changes. That is how the process works as we move from concept to law. So please don’t try to stir something up that is just not there.
Councilor Lipof: I’m sure your comment was meant to be lighthearted and I certainly hope any freshman city councilor would understand that as well. But that doesn’t alter the overall impression that this deliberation felt rushed; especially given that you were about to endorse a pretty significant policy that would impact lots of people (many more than some of the stop signs and other items before the committee that evening).
Councilors Grossman and Noel raised many of the very same concerns that the public would raise in letters to the council and on Village 14 over the weekend. The rest of PS&T seemed pretty dismissive of those concerns and, in hindsight, came across as out of touch with how people access our city.
I understand that this policy needs to be fixed. I understand the real need to turn over parking spaces. I share concerns about full day parkers monopolizing prime parking spaces. I look forward to working with the city, you and your colleagues on creating a more holistic solution to our parking challenges.
In addition to moving too fast, the committee ignored the possible unintended negative consequences to residents and business owners.
When it was first docketed by the city council on January 1, 2018 as docket item 38-18, it sounded innocuous: “to clarify the language and improve enforcement.” The wording did need clarification so obviously the public didn’t follow it through process. It wasn’t until the proposed new ordinance was passed in committee and was on the agenda of the city council that thankfully it was noticed and brought to the public’s attention that rather than just clarifying language, the committee added new controversial regulations.
“I share concerns about full day parkers monopolizing prime parking spaces.”
where exactly is this happening and what is the precise definition of a “prime parking space” as it pertains to this ordinance? I really do not see how one could come up with any definition of such a thing. One person’s prime parking space is another person’s long walk to the train ( or whatever). No wonder that the language was deemed vague.
I’m glad the council has taken up the issue of the broken parking situation in Newton Centre and is taking time to refine an incentive-based policy for better parking management. The status quo is not working; change is needed; and the responsiveness of PS&T to comments here is an example of good iterative policy development based on public input.
Nathan: I agree. This needs to be addressed. But I’d like to remind everyone that this is not just about Newton Centre. The proposed rules would have been city wide and we need a policy that reflects a variety of uses and needs.
There are many things that concern me about both the ordinance and the process in committee, including Councilor Lipof’s comment on the previous thread.
I understand that there was “levity at the end of the meeting” as Councilor Lipof comments, but since there were legitimate concerns, questions and suggestions about these changes to the ordinance, wouldn’t this have been the time to place it on second call instead of ignoring both the councilors expressing them and their concerns to pass it out of committee?
If the committee is “considering several other parking changes around the city and this revision of law should happen in conjunction with those changes,” why did 6 councilors pass this one out of committee?
Councilor Lipof said, “That is how the process works as we move from concept to law.” Not exactly. Generally when committees approve additional regulations rather than just clarifying the current ordinance language, there is adequate discussion and input from someone other than the person requesting the changes, the Transportation Coordinator, and a representative from the Newton police. In addition generally committee members want to explore unintended negative consequences before approving changes.
Some of Mr Koses’ statements to questions asked were more like retorts such as when asked “why must a driver move a block rather than to an available parking space?” he replied “drivers should appropriately use long‐term and short‐term spaces.” How is this an answer? It sounds more like “be quiet.”
The Traffic Coordinator and some members of this committee seemed to want this item rushed through without proper input and discussion.
Why did minutes start referring to “committee members” rather naming the councilor when one of them is speaking? Without attending the meeting or watching it on NewTV there’s no way to tell who is commenting, unless you can identify their voices on the audio. The public has a right to know which councilors are saying what in a meeting. How else can we hold them accountable?
@Marti: I mostly agree with your take on this. However at one point David Koses (transportation coordinator for the city) did warn the committee that this would be “controversial.” Although several councilors seemed eager to accept the city’s proposal, Kosis’s warning seemed to have been ignored.
It should read, Councilor Lipof’s comment above.
Newton is no longer Newton. Simply disgraceful how nonchalant the discussion was. If Newton is a shining city, and if Newton is an affluent city, and if Newton is the city we want it to be, do not tell people they cannot come back and park on the same day. Do not tell employees that we’re going to make your life difficult. How about a sticker for all employees that they purchase on an annual basis that lets them park in a designated area without having to feed any meters for the entire day, provided that they have purchased their employee sticker. How about getting some new ideas in the room. Newton is no longer Newton. The bigger problem is the lack of vibrancy in our village centers. How many nail salons do we need? How many banks? Well, at least I can get paint in Newton center. I’m not even sure why people would want to come back to Newton center multiple times a day, but if they do, don’t hurt the businesses by telling customers they have to keep moving their car blocks away.
Nathan, it should take time “to refine the process.”
As Greg says this ordinance amendment wasn’t about Newton Centre, it covers all of Newton. These are major changes and should require input from all stakeholders, including employees working for close to minimum wage and their employers.
Those of you who support waivers for and elimination of parking requirements for business owners and housing, including residential street parking in neighborhoods with no off street parking and enforcing the arbitrary parking ban are creating some of the problems. In your zeal to eliminate cars from taking up space, you refuse to consider the negative consequences while there are still cars that require a place to put them.
In essence, this is causing the most vulnerable of us to suffer those consequences – residents with no off street parking, the lowest paid employees, local businesses vital to our community, those with mobility issues, and others.
It wasn’t long ago that several village centers munipal parking lots were pronounced “surplus,” including in Newton Centre. Planning should take time and discussion. It’s the only way to get it right in the long run while making it fair and equitable.
Note: The audio has updated so it’s easier to hear and excerpts only this overtime parking discussion. If you only have a few minutes, jump ahead to the 37:30 part on the recording.
@greg: Important to note that this wasn’t the first time that this item was in discussion by members of the committee, the police, and the parking folks. Not sure of the dates for you to grab some additional audio, but it was sent back to us for clarification prior to the 23rd of March meeting date.
Also to the community as a whole: The City Council did not intiate this action (though Councilors have had concerns for years), this came down from the Administration through various departments. Meaning that this was vetted by a lot of people and the final language was to solve an enforcement problem. We’ll take another look at it, but this is clearly a topic wherein you cannot hope to please everyone.
Quite possibly the Chamber could spend some time over the next month coming up with some common agreements in each section of the city on what would be acceptable to businesses and the like? This would be more helpful than building up opposition to changes.
Councilor Cote: You’re absolutely right this issue is not new, but if I’m not mistaken, the proposed restrictions that would prevent return visits to the same space, block or municipal lot was deliberated for the first time at this meeting, correct?
The Chamber is eager to engage with the city on this matter.
@greg this was not the first time any of the item was discussed. Sorry it’s a short reply. On the road.
Councilor Cote, are you saying that these parking restrictions were discussed by the council or in committee prior to their docket date of January 1, 2018? If so, when? I’m hoping you mean in the previous PS meeting.
As I have said repeatedly, this item was docketed on January 1, 2018 #38-18 as a request from the Traffic Coordinator to amend the overtime parking ordinance to ”clarify language and improve enforcement.” Sounding innocuous, the Public did not follow it through process.
It was referred to the Public Safety Committee who discussed it on January 17 after which it was held to their meeting on March 21 when with little discussion it was approved to go to the full council.
Minutes from January 17, 2018:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/87473/01-17-18%20Public%20Safety%20Report.pdf
Yes, it came from the administration via the Traffic Coordinator. It’s the council’s responsibility to be the checks and balances for the administration not to rubber stamp requests.
Greg, the warning about the controversial language by the Traffic Coordinator can be interpreted in more than one way.
Marti, the item goes back at least to October, when a draft was heard by PS&T. It was redocketed. The Council has a thing about clearing out the docket and starting over at the end of the term, I think. Does the timing really matter? The meeting was public. Most people don’t follow the PS&T docket or know PS&T exists until news gets out. And committees don’t always get it right the first time. I’ve found the transportation coordinator to be extremely transparent, so I’m not sure what you’re implying. I haven’t suffered through the entire meeting audio yet, but what I heard so far from the audio is that there was no intent to ticket people who parked in the morning and again in the evening and that the were really going after people feeding the meter. But if that’s the case, they ought to come up with more precise language that fits the intent. I wonder why two hours in between parking wouldn’t be sufficient? That’s what we always assumed was reasonable in my neighborhood (and yes, it impacts residential streets as well) . Would that be so difficult to enforce?
Thanks Adam. Starting over at the beginning of the with new docket numbers causes confusion. It would be helpful if the previous docket number was mentioned when it’s given a new docket number. The time period doesn’t necessarily matter but voters need to know an item’s progression otherwise changes seem to jump out at the last minute which leads to speculation on secrecy as this one did. Conspiracy theorists are thriving.
I do think this proposed change should have been included in the current administration’s newsletter.
Most of the public may not follow PS&T meetings when the issue docketed is an appeal of a parking ticket but if parking ordinances are being rewritten with language that essentially changes them, rather than clarifying the current language, some of the public will follow the docket item’s progress.
I’m not insinuating anything about the Transportation Coordinator only about how a warning can be interpreted. I should have just left that out.
@village14: Now that we can call off the Mueller investigation of the Parking, seems like a lesson learned to actually look into the matter before calling people out for lack of transparency, rushing to judgement, etc. The City Clerk’s office can usually provide great background info that would be of great value to the inquiring mind.
Have a great day everyone.
Councilor Cote, whether or not the details of these proposed parking rules were available to any citizen who has the time, patience and inclination to scour council committee meeting minutes and agendas from years gone by is besides the point.
I’m guessing you realize this.
The fact is, this touched a nerve once the public found out about it. And the public only found out about it, 48 hours or so before it was about to be approved.
This is a challenge that we all face in this era of diminished media reporting. But that does not excuse the rather caviler way many of your colleagues and you dismissed the questions by Councilors Noel and Grossman about how the public would respond.
(And for those readers who have not listened to the tape — and I know the very thought sounds excruciating — skip to the final three minutes, the 37:30 mark to hear just what I’m referring to. Tell me if you don’t agree: most of the committee failed to grasp that the public was going to be concerned about this.)
The only reason people know that these changers were up for a vote was because one of your colleagues called me to ask if the chamber had a position on this. Otherwise, I suspect this might have passed quietly on first call. I’m guessing you realize this too.
To make matters worse, I fear that the committee will now choose to let this die in committee. That’s a mistake because this is still a problem that needs addressing.
@greg: it’s OK to say “I’m sorry.” In the future the I recommend that the Chamber establish communications channels within the Mayor’s office, and the Clerk’s office to identify items that are of importance to the business community. This item started in the previous administration and the City Council being a part-time body also has to assume, as you do, that the proper channels and contacts have been covered.
Councilor intitiated docket items usually start to solve situations/challenges presented to us by residents and business owners.
I went to West Newton last summer to shop and have lunch and got a parking ticket. Yes, I deserved it – in that I was four minutes over the meter.
I’ve not shopped in Newton since. And never will.
Talk about penny wise and pound foolish! Retail is on the verge of collapse everywhere.. are you trying to hasten its demise?? Has anyone here done ANY research on what happens to town centers when you make it difficult to park (whether thru increased meter pricing or crazy rules about not coming back the same day)? I have seen it near my home town in Miami, parking regs completely decimate a once thriving town center. Please, take a step back and do some research. It is very clear. (P.s. I frequent Newton Center often, for many of my services, I don’t understand why you would make it harder for me to spend my money there and LINGER in the nice green space you have spent so much money creating!)