The Newton City Council is scheduled to vote on a proposed shared parking pilot program on Monday that won’t solve all of Newton’s parking problems but could be a game changer for some local businesses, employees and customers,
Under this proposal, a business or nonprofit that has excess parking would be allowed to rent those extra spaces through a parking app or private arrangement (something our current zoning code doesn’t allow).
So, for example, a church could rent spaces on weekdays to local employees or a bank to could rent spaces to a restaurant for use in the evening when the bank is closed.
As proposed, the council would have the authority to cancel this three year pilot program at any point. But it could make a big difference to businesses who struggle to find places for their employees to park and for customers who can’t find a metered space because they’re being used by employees.
And this all would happen without building any more parking lots.
Even though this plan passed Zoning & Planning 7-0 (Councilor Baker was absent) I understand there’s a chance the council will postpone taking a vote on Monday. That would be unfortunate because the sooner it’s approved, the sooner we can help businesses, employees and customers in time for the busy fall and holiday seasons.
This sounds like an excellent idea.
Great idea.
Hope it passes. Hope it works.
I fail to see any downside to this. If there are unforeseen difficulties, the City can always fix these and do so expeditiously. Why delay the vote any longer??
This is a great idea that needs to be implemented now.
Great idea. Does the City get anything out of this?
@Amy Sangiolo: the city will collect tax revenue on the private parking.
Perhaps the city could lease and meter such spaces for general public use and split the revenue with the space / garage owner. Surely there’s an app for that.
Yes, please. The garage next to the Dunkin’ Donuts in West Newton square is a perfect example of vastly underutilized parking capacity which could be shared, as pointed out by Russell Preston of Principle Group.
My quick skim of the proposal did not see anything about personal/property liability, which I understand to be a reason that private lot owners are not usually keen on shared parking arrangements.
Anyone know if/how this is addressed?
City Councilor Lisle Baker tells me he plans to move postponement of a vote on this proposal because he was unable to attend the zoning committee meeting where his colleagues approved the measure 7-0 and he has questions about it.
I told Councilor Baker that I thought that was unfortunate because our merchants and their employees and customers could really benefit from this initiative and that any delays hampers the implementation of this pilot program in time for the busy fall and holiday shopping season.
Can’t he just ask the questions before the vote? It obviously would have passed even if he’d been there and voted against it. This is ridiculous.
Ah, if only the Charter had passed and all councilors were accountable to all voters.
Jerry F has this correct. The parking lot has to have proper insurance, and, this will be counted as income. If someone’s vehicle is broken into, or a person is robbed at night, will the property/liability insurance cover it for this “side business”. If I were a bank, and I was going to get a couple thousand dollars a year for renting my lot to a movie theatre it wouldn’t be worth the hassle.
Did anyone ask the banks and other owners of these lots about this, and the implications?
What people seem to not realize is the level of red tape than can be involved with these situations. When the sign in a parking lot says “parking for customer s of 123 Main Street only, it’s not because the owner is greedy and selfish; more likely when they get their insurance the insurer asks them if the parking is for their customers only, and if it’s not, then special conditions have to be met: proper nighttime lighting, perhaps a fence, perhaps security at night, plowing done to accommodate night parking in the winter….you get the idea.
@Rick Frank – so the owner of the lot can require that the renter pay for insurance and lighting. This wouldn’t force them to rent, it would allow them to.
I used to own a fast-growing startup in Newton. Due to our growth and parking limitations at our offices, we rented spaces from the local church. If our landlord had not helped us find additional spaces at the church, we had plans to move to Wellesley. In other words, City Councilors wake up, understand the reality of running a growing business in Newton, and activated this extra parking app.
@AmySangiolo: Why does it matter that the City [Government] “get anything out of this”? Isn’t it enough that the People and local businesses benefit, and we make more efficient use of land?
@Greg: Thanks! That’s exactly what I was hoping for.
@Michael Singer: It does matter that the City gets “something” from this. As a former City Councilor, I recognize the need for shared parking. In fact, I was a strong advocate to allow churches and businesses to open their parking lots so that patrons of other businesses could use that space to park when it woudn’t intrude on the parking lot owner’s interest. However, I do recognize that providing this does give a potentially huge financial benefit to non-tax paying entities so I was hoping that the City, as well as local residents and business owners, would get “some” benefit from this zoning amendment. The City has some large budget items to deal with – the looming OPEB, new contracts for our city employees, and still a lot of school and other municipal buildings to upgrade. We can’t and shouldn’t rely solely on our residential taxpayers to foot that bill.
Believe it or not both the Newton Villages Alliance and Chamber spoke in favor of this pilot program at the the public hearing!
I don’t believe that’s ever happened before!
Now I appreciate how hard our city councilors work. And given the sheer volume of meetings, it’s understandable if councilors miss occasional meetings. But to hold up the legislative process because you were unable to attend a meeting just seems wrong; especially for an initiative that passed 7-0 and doesn’t seem to have any opponents.
Andrea is right: This is the problem with ward councilors. One councilor who is only accountable to one ward is able to have an outsized influence on an issue that doesn’t really impact his ward.
That’s wrong too.
I hope Councilor Baker changes his mind.
@Jerry F/Rick Frank: This program is voluntary. Property owners do not need to rent their excess spaces if they don’t want to.