Last month at a meeting of the Newton City Council Public Safety & Transportation (PS&T) committee, during a discussion of variable parking pricing, committee chair Jay Ciccone drew a racially insensitive comparison between the inconvenience of having to park farther away from your destination than you might like and the Jim Crow laws that got Rosa Parks arrested in 1955 for refusing to move to the back of an Alabama bus.
Some necessary context. Variable or dynamic parking pricing is technically a meter rate scheme where parking rates are periodically reset to encourage optimal parking use in a commercial area. Optimal parking use is defined as something like 85% occupancy, created by setting a price that’s not so high that it discourages all parking in a high-demand area, but high enough to create an open spot or two during peak periods. This kind of on-street parking use has been shown to generate turnover, to reduce excess traffic from circling for spaces, and generally to create more commercial activity.
A key component of a dynamic pricing implementation is to have a meaningful price distinction between high-demand parking — such as along Union Street in Newton Centre — and nearby low-demand parking — such as the Pleasant Street lots in Newton Centre. With a large enough price difference to encourage price-sensitive drivers to park in the low-demand areas, variable pricing creates some regular vacancy in the high-demand areas .
After extensive staff and committee discussion that was almost uniformly enthusiastic in favor of the proposal, and before public comment, Councilor Ciccone expressed two misgivings. What follows is a transcript of his expressing his first concern. The full audio is here. Councilor Ciccone’s comments start at 1:45:38.
I have made every attempt to transcribe accurately. I did not transcribe “uhs” and “ums” and the like. If I have made an error or errors, please let me know in the comments and I will update.
Okay I’m just going to add … add a couple of things. I mean. The one thing that I’m concerned about: law suits. We’re telling people, okay, we’re going to be raising the price here. And, well, this guy can afford to park there now but this guy can’t. So now we’re moving him into the next level back or maybe even two levels back because he can’t afford to park in that place now because we have this dynamic parking set in place. So, it’s kind of like, if you think back, telling Rosa Parks, well you can’t sit in the front of the bus. Okay, so I’m really concerned about that. Okay, that’s the first thing.
The comment betrays a disturbing ignorance of basic civil rights laws. Councilor Ciccone is the appointed chair of a standing committee of our city’s legislative body. A committee that has oversight over the Newton Police Department, a city agency responsible for enforcing civil rights. And, he doesn’t seem to understand the fundamental difference between legal and illegal discrimination. How does he hold the chair of such an important committee?
The comment betrays a disturbing ignorance of the history of Jim Crow laws and trivializes their impact. Rosa Parks was arrested protesting a pervasive system of legalized oppression based on skin color. Comparing the struggles of Black Americans under Jim Crow to a driver who chooses to walk a few blocks rather than pay an extra dollar or two to park is just plain offensive.
The comment betrays an unfortunate ignorance of the current state of parking regulation in the city. The city already has (legal) price discrimination. Only a small portion of on-street parking is subject to parking fees. At some remove from every metered space in the city, there is a legal, free parking space. In some parts of the city there are differently priced parking close to each other. In other words, it’s already possible that someone can’t afford to park in a paid spot and has to walk to what Councilor Ciccone refers to as “a level back.” If price distinction among nearby parking spaces is a problem, it’s a problem that already exists.
And, the comment is just lazy and ill-informed. We have been discussing variable priced parking in this city for at least ten years. Councilor Ciccone has been the chair of one of the two committees with jurisdiction over variable priced parking for multiple terms. Variable priced parking has been implemented in municipalities across the country. The spirited discussion at the committee table demonstrated that his colleagues are highly knowledgeable about what’s happening in other cities and about the arguments for and against variable priced parking. If he has a good faith concern about the risk of litigation, he has had ample time to look into whether or not there’s been litigation in other jurisdictions that have implemented variable priced parking. He has access to a fully staffed legal department.
The hook for Councilor Ciccone’s comparison to Rosa Parks was not a good faith concern, but an unresearched, unsubstantiated conjecture, easily refuted with a Google search or a phone call.
Next: it gets worse.
Wow Sean. You are drawing some very unfair inferences that are not supported by your transcript of Counselor Ciccone’s words. First, the main idea he wished to convey is that variable pricing discriminates against the poor. That is precisely how it works: raise the price until some people (the poor) decide not to buy. The counselor compared this to a well-known example of city-sanctioned discrimination: segregated seating on Montgomery buses. Councilor Ciccone was correct that both can be viewed as examples of municipally sanctioned discrimination against disadvantaged groups. Clearly, Councilor Ciccone chose Rosa Parks because he has respect for her story and empathizes with it. Her story can teach us about all forms of discrimination, not only racial discrimination. Also, the Councilor was speaking contemporaneously and shouldn’t be judged so harshly.
Perhaps he made an overly dramatic comparison or his legal analysis was not fully developed to your satisfaction, but it seems clear to me that his reference to Rosa Parks was intended to honor her. It can be extremely hurtful and damaging to insinuate, as you have done, that somebody made a racist remark. I think you have overreacted.
@Sean
I somehow suspect your agenda is far away from the people who councilor Ciccone represents in his ward.
I agree with M. Singer. Councilor Ciccone made an innocent
comparison. He feels certain that this parking policy is unfair.
Sean Roche has painted a grim picture of the councilor’s
statement.
If he believes that making such a comparison is either acceptable, then Ciccone obviously doesn’t have the sense he was born with.
Is it really possible to have graduated from the Newton schools and think that it is in any way logical to compare a parking fee increase to Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement? If that’s the kind of critical thinking that was produced by a Newton education, then guess I should thank my lucky stars that I grew up in Needham.
For the record though, congestion and on-demand pricing does stink. The Congestion Charge in London, for example, has simply ensured that the wealthy have a smoother commute into the City, and 16 years later the public transit system remains virtually unusable during peak hours. We shouldn’t be creating ways for the rich (or those who don’t care about wasting money) to game the system and have more comfortable commutes.
I think the suggestion that people who are more price sensitive will be more greatly impacted, is true. Which is what I believe Councilor Ciccone was trying to say. And given the huge racial wealth disparity in America, I didn’t see his comment as completely off the mark. (I was at the meeting observing.)
That said, I support variable pricing for parking and think we as a City, State, and Nation, could help reduce wealth disparities better by improving public transit and the ability of low-income working to get to jobs without spending up to 1/3 of their salary on transportation.
As Councilor Downs says frequently, there is no such thing as Free Parking. I’d rather our tax dollars went toward improving alternatives to private cars and increased congestion, which City-subsidized low-cost parking promotes.
So, no, it’s not kinda like telling Rosa Parks she can’t sit in the front of the bus. Not even a little. Cheap parking is not a civil right. The councilor’s remark was at best insensitive to the civil rights struggle and the fact that the federal government is rolling back the clock on civil rights on behalf of some economically disadvantaged white voters. It sounds like the Councilor meant to invoke class warfare (divisive, but arguably a valid concern) but instead something offensive and racially charged came out.
At first I thought is was hard to tell which is more disturbing: Alderman Ciccone’s more or less innocuous, but somewhat insensitive and probably un-necessary comparison of the parking issue to Rosa Park’s situation or Mr. Roche’s over-the-top, long-winded, condescending, and completely unnecessary diatribe. Then I thought for a microsecond and realized which one it was.
Wonders never cease. I agree with Elmo.
@Adam – Councilor Ciccone should be relieved of his leadership role on the committee. Period. Full Stop.
And what is going on with President Laredo? What is his responsibility in this? First the sexist and bullying comments, and now racist comments from Councilor Ciccone. When do we start to question whether Councilor Laredo should be President of the council?