An article by Martina Jackson in this week’s Fig City News reports that a Committee, headed by former Ward 3 Councilor Jim Cote and Newton Highlands Area Council President Jeremy Freudberg, filed papers with Newton City Hall to put an initiative on this November’s ballot to repeal Newton’s seasonal parking ban.
Although the Committee only required fifty signatures as a requirement for a public hearing in the City Council, the Committee is determined to collect 10,000 signatures for a binding ballot question.
Do you think they’ll manage to collect the 10,000 signatures? Would you vote to abolish the parking ban if it does make it to the ballot?
I would vote to repeal the parking ban.
So would I.
So would I. I hope they can get the signatures. 10,000 is a lot.
I suspect this is going to become a big development vs. anti-development thing. Ugh.
I would certainly vote to repeal the overnight parking ban, but since I’m not a US citizen, my opinion doesn’t count. However, the opinions of my US spouse and children do.
Absolutely repeal the parking ban.
As an alternative, the City can announce parking bans in advance of anticipated snow events, with fines for enforcemant.
On the fence…
In part because I grew up in next door Brookline and no overnight parking (year round) was both a pain in the ass (especially in my 20s) but also an expected part of, “living in Brookline”. Which is why I am often surprised when folks act surprised to find out it exists (in either towns).
As for the pros and cons, not sure allowing overnight parking will make housing any cheaper or more plentiful. If anything, landlords may find free street parking as a reason to raise prices. And what about rezoning effort? If that is supposed to disincentivize car use, wouldn’t overnight parking provide the opposite? More density AND more cars? And lastly, snow removal is already tough on many streets in Newton (most of which are already narrow). Would overnight parking then make many of these streets impassible?
Seems like I’ve fallen off the fence to the “no” camp…for now….
A little Brookline history…
https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/brookline-tab/2020/01/24/why-does-brookline-ban-overnight/986392007/
@ Matt – all solid points. What if the following were implemented…
-No parking on declaration of snow emergency, declaration 1-2 nights before expected snow.
-Possibility to charge for overnight permit. Something small, but enough to help with the possible extra cost for police etc. maybe 100 per year per car. Which is probably a lot less than what people pay to park in some garage for the winter.
-Perhaps only allow it in areas where there is abundance of multi-family, ie where it is most needed? Along the brighton line, waltham line, etc.
Just spitballing. Seems like we can make the situation better. Personally I am fortunate to have a small driveway, but I can see how the outright ban could be painful for some. I think the way this is implemented matters a lot for my vote.
I’m a bit torn like Matt. I think in areas where the parking ban ban is a true hardship, I would like to see some relief. I really don’t get how the municipal lots close for parking when there is a ban. There should be some city provided options if there is a need to get the cars off the street for plowing.
I don’t see most people giving up cars. Not everyone works in a place that is easily accessible by public transportation (plus the reliability and safety factors of the T as if late) or is able to bike. It concerns me that there are efforts to increase density but eliminate parking requirements. I would rather see someone have sufficient parking on their own property where feasible (I’m excluding Nonantum, etc where there is a lack of space for parking) than park on the st because they don’t have enough parking. I see Upper Falls having challenges with Northland if the ban is removed.
All that said I lived in Brookline and worked outside of the city as did my spouse and we only had one spot. I had the experience of having my parking spot owner increase fees 50% and because the spot was close to where I lived I had to accept it. That stunk.
I guess my preference would be to loosen/eliminate the parking ban in certain areas of the City but not reduce parking requirements when we are adding density just because we feel people won’t have cars..
The Overnight Winter Parking Ban (which is actually only 3 hours long), is an old valued relic that some can’t seem to shake. From my personal experience, the City Council members have different reasons for either retaining or eliminating the ban, with the problem being they cannot get a consensus. Allowing the issue to go to vote will once and for all provide residents with the opportunity to make their own quality of life decision. Several terms back we did manage to gain a consensus to take one month off of the ban (15 days at the front, and 15 days on the back) and no one missed it, though many appreciated the action. As an exercise in due diligence, ask your City Councilor why the ban exists, and then ask that if they have vehicles, what is their personal parking situation (# of cars, driveway size, garage, etc.). Best if they speak for themselves.
Historically, the departments that work on the streets more than all of us, Fire, Police, and DPW, have been in agreement that the ban neither benefits, nor inhibits them in the performance of their duties. Keep in my mind that the cars return to their place on the streets daily from 6am to 2am, a good majority of the day and they cause no concerns. So you can see it’s just a nuisance regulation of 3 hours (you can park for 1 hour in the 2am to 6am time) that has lost its relevance.
Think of your neighbors: The Parking Ban impact on the quality of life of your neighbors is immense, causing hardship for the elderly, those with accessibility concerns, family gatherings, and walkers with sidewalks being used for parking.
Please call or email me with any concerns or to assist us in this endeavor.
Thank you
I hope that during snow bans that people MOVE their cars. Having lived through FEB 2015 in Newton, it was awful. I can tell you there was NO ON STREET parking in my neighborhood, because we had ONE path INTO the neighborhood which was the same path OUT. Had people parked on the street, I can’t imagine the chaos. So, I hope that the police/City will tow cars during snow bans, which they have not in the past.
I am torn, because more cars more traffic. I am most concerned about the winter of 2015 and other winters like that. Once we eliminate the overnight parking ban, what happens during really severe winters?
“Once we eliminate the overnight parking ban, what happens during really severe winters?”
I think they get really serious about actually towing cars. We’ve had people park on our street during a daytime snow emergency and they don’t even get a ticket, let alone get towed. Yet, when we accidentally forget to move our car overnight when there’s no snow on the ground and 0% chance of precipitation, we get slapped with a $25 ticket which I think is downright heinous.
@newtonmom: I was the Ward 3 City Councilor at Large during the storms that you cite. New England was hit with a number of storms in a very short period of time. The storm taxed the capabilities of the DPW’s snow removal system, and in fact the City Council had to meet to provide extra funds for equipment to handle the clean-up. Having, or not having the parking ban for a situation like that wouldn’t have made a difference during that period.
The city declares snow emergencies during periods of snow and no one is allowed on the streets and of course weren’t back then either.
What you are being asked to look at very simply are the burdens that we place on residents by limiting their access to their homes. This is not an issue to be confused or twisted with other issues, but an issue to address on the merits of the needs of residents.
The City Council can impose traffic solutions on an as needed basis anywhere in the city, which is important to know when you hear of illogical connections to the dialogue.
I’ve lived all across the country, including in cities with lengthier and snowier winters. No place has had the types of parking bans found around Boston suburbs. Solutions are ample and quite easy to follow. Acceptance of change is the barrier here.
I leave this link and the assurance that I will vote to repeal the ban at the earliest opportunity I am afforded.
https://www.minneapolismn.gov/getting-around/snow/snow-emergencies/snow-parking-rules/
I have three concerns/objections:
1. This should be the subject of debate in a deliberative body (i.e., City Council). A simple yes/no on a ballot question will leave little room for nuance or compromise solutions. This shouldn’t be a ballot initiative.
2. I don’t have confidence in the city’s ability to tow cars blocking plows. Think about it – the blizzard is about to start, and somehow the city will be able to marshal dozens of tow trucks to start towing cars? Doubt it. The plows will likely be impeded, and streets will become impassible.
3. I get the hassle of moving the car at night, but isn’t that partly the point? Take a family with a couple of teenagers. Should they get an old beater for the kids to drive around town? The lack of parking is a real consideration for not doing so. But if parking isn’t a consideration, we’ll undoubtedly have more cars on the road, more cars in Newton, more congestion, more pollution, etc., etc. Seems contrary to all the “green” and public transit initiatives the city has been pushing.
Excellent points Tim.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Green Advocates to comment on whether we should enable more cars parking on streets at the same time they are advocating for the elimination of parking
1. The City Council has not solved the current situation. They City Council will have the ability to fix trouble traffic spots in the city.
2. Towing is accomplished with private companies and believe me they will show up when called. They get paid by the vehicle owner.
3. Managing the number of cars owned by your neighbors is not your concern. Everyone has there reasons for their mode of transportation and given the cost of vehicle ownership in MA I doubt people by cars that are not needed.
As a resident close to the green line, I have seen first hand before 2020, Newton declare a snow emergency and no towing cars parked on city streets. If the city isn’t going to tow during a snow emergency game over. The city won’t be able to clear the snow. Repeatedly I called the police non emergency line stating that cars were parked during a snow emergency. I was told over and over again that the city isn’t going to tow commuters because they are working in the city.
I don’t make the rules. I follow them. There is no way that any commuter didn’t know a major snowstorm was going to hit that day. The commuter took a chance and parked on a street to avoid the parking fee. It was the neighborhood that didn’t get plowed. The residents had half plowed streets. And the same cars parked on the street for the next snow emergency.
If the city isn’t going to tow during a snow emergency, I can’t vote for lifting the ban. Even if we have half the snow of 2015, the city needs to tow the cars on the street during a snow ban.
@NewtonMom – I think you may be mixing two things up. Independent of snow emergencies, Newton doesn’t allow overnight parking on the street in the winter. When there is a snow storm the city declares a snow emergency and bans parking on the streets.
So yes, if the city doesn’t tow illegally parked cars during the snow storm that’s a problem but it has nothing to do with people parking overnight on a clear weather evening.
Yes, let’s work to get the city to tow as needed during snow emergencies but that doesn’t mean we should punish residents who don’t have a driveway for every other day of the winter.
@Jerry – generally speaking do you agree with pro-density, pro-biking, climate championing, pro re-zoning contingent that we should be driving less and building more?
If so (for example) overnight parking effective negates the limiting of parking spaces in the Northland special permit, and people can have unlimited number of cars, flooding its neighboring streets.
Yet another reason why Village Center Re-zoning is inequitable across Newton’s existing residents (haves and have nots).
Matt, People who purchase or rent new units at market rates in developments such as Northland are not going to rely on street parking, with its inconveniences and uncertainties. If that’s a concern, parking regulations local to the site can be modified. That’s true for the winter parking ban, and it is true for government imposes parking minimums.
I favor getting rid of the winter parking ban, even though I support some of its side effects. We can tailor ordinances to meet specific needs without the hammer of a blanket ban.
We do need to work through those issues very carefully though. It is already hard to install bike lanes in the city because of parking. Car storage (using the street to store cars that are infrequently moved) is already not allowed but will need morem enforcement. I have seen some evidence of people who might have hording tendencies using our streets this way. We also need effective tools to regulate and limit parking at a fine-grained level, possibly with stickerless parking permits tied to license plates. And we need an effective snow removal and notification strategy.
We need all of these elements working together before the ban is permanently lifted. Until then, a year by year moratorium might make sense. There is certainly no reason for the draconian heavy enforcement that happened under the previous police chief.
@Matt Lai: Matt lets be reasonable. Who’s going to do what you suggest? Again, working people generally will not purchase and register vehicles that are not needed. Anti housing advocates need to separate this from your neighbors quality of life needs.
Possibly Village14 can put together a list of residents willing to allow their neighbors use of their driveways, at no cost during the ban season.
“Matt, People who purchase or rent new units at market rates in developments such as Northland are not going to rely on street parking, with its inconveniences and uncertainties”
But they will take a shuttle down Needham St to take the T to Boston.
Unlikely
I agree with Matt Lai, so I won’t repeat.
Let me go one step further. There should be an overnight ban year long. Cars parked on streets are ugly. Aesthetics are important.
Does your statement about the roadway aesthetics extend to daytime hours as well? That is, after all, when most people would witness it.
We have a neighborhood school system, an expensive school transportation system, and significant traffic congestion caused solely by driving to and from school. We have a limited and incomplete biking and walking network to get students from home to school and back, yet kids and families do the best they can today.
The major (but not only) limitation to fixing discontinuous bike lanes and sidewalks is street parking.
This is likely insurmountable on a large scale from a political point of view, even when clear safety issues are involved. If we can’t act because of the safety of our own kids, an aesthetic argument isn’t likely to prevail.
@Jim Cote – it’s not “working people” who will be the primary residents. I guarantee there will be more Lexus’, BMW, Audi and Mercdes in that parking lot than Toyota, Honda or Chevy (not that any vehicle is truly inexpensive these days). If a couple is paying $5k for 1 or 2 bedroom unit and is only allowed one parking space, I guarantee the other car will be on the street if overnight parking is allowed. It’s not a big of a stretch as you may think. And for someone who can pay that amount in rent, a ticket on a snow day is the lesser of two evils (getting out of bed). This is not the voice of an anti-housing advocate but rather a support of safe and maintained roads.
@Mike Halle – really like the year-by-year moratorium idea. The pace of change is so fast these days, flexiblity really is the right way to go!
@Matt Lai – I think you lost me. The regulation to not allow on-street parking for a few hours a night, during a few months of the year isn’t about discouraging car ownership. As Jim Cote pointed out, its hard to even get a clear agreed upon rationale for this law from its supporters.
My objection is that a few older neighborhoods in the city (Nonantum, Upper Falls) were largely built out without on site parking. For many of our neighbors in those villages that don’t have driveways and/or garages, on-street parking is essential. There are a few days a year when on-street parking is potentially a problem … and for those days we have “snow emergencies” to deal with it. Banning overnight parking every day for months serves no clear purpose and causes hardships for many folks in those neighborhoods.
@Jerry – As your Upper Falls neighbor, I know full well the hardship of no overnight. At the same, I’ve also seen how much of a struggle it is for DPW to properly plow our narrow roads, even when empty. Also, it does not take much – a couple of landscaping trucks or a party – to make many of our Upper Falls streets nearly impassible.
That said, if the proposal was modifed to a year by year moratorim as Mike Halle has suggested, I could be onboard with that.
I can think of several homes in Newton corner that have paved the front yard to park their cars on it. A lot of homes in older neighborhoods were built for 1 car per family. My old street in Waltham had no driveways period for many houses.
I really don’t see why we need to look at everything through the pro-development/anti-development lens. If you live on the north side, you know how unfair this policy is. If the concern is development, there are solutions to that. Make folks parking overnight on the street get stickers, and tell the developers building new units that their apartments aren’t eligible for the stickers. That is EXACTLY what Boston does. Works well. Problem solved.
Worried about snow emergencies? The City can contract with tow companies to tow cars the day before. Again, Boston and other communities do this. Why can’t we?
For the communities worried about students parking all year, again, stickers would work for most of those issues.
A blanket ban is easy to administer but heavy handed and unfair. If cost is a concern, charge $100 for the stickers. They already charge a bit now for guest stickers for areas with 2 hour parking, and that system works well.
You’d think there would be a parking control system vendor selling something that allowed registration by license plate.
That would save the cost and trouble of stickers, allow police to check parking validity from inside their vehicle, and permit a lot of flexibility for who can park where. Could even ticket by mail in some cases.
Mike, that would be great. I hate getting my guest sticker. But to some extent it is also that local neighborhood folks have a right to park on certain streets. That might be harder to code/enforce without the stickers.
But I do find the debate over development somehow taking over the streets to be a problem that is easily solved. It might not be solved to the developers liking, but it is easily solved.
@Fig – dig your idea as well. Stickers + towing (when needed) would be a good solve as well.
My rough standard for the utility of existing laws and regulations, applied to the winter parking ban, is this:
If the winter parking ban didn’t currently exist, and someone proposed it, would it be enacted?
I believe the answer in this case is clearly no. As Fig says, people can’t even agree specifically why it exists. All we have for rationales are hunches and side effects.
It’s just an opinion, but it’s been my observation that Newton’s City Council is far better at creating problems than solving them. The Council has allowed restaurant operators to literally take over the streets, while at the same time banning Newton residents from parking on them. It’s the downside of having a large City Council with zero accountability.
Mike, some thoughts about outdoor street-side dining (which is a completely separate issue from the winter parking ban beyond the fact they both involve parking, as far as I can figure):
* Street parking allows members of the public to park their vehicle on public property, for possibly hours on end, in a residential or commercial zone for a rate far below any commercial value. That’s “taking over a street” as well. We just accept it as normal.
* An active and busy restaurant can serve far more people with outdoor dining than corresponding street parking ever would.
* Street side dining, and outdoor dining in general, seems pretty popular, novel, and special to people. Parking in front of a restaurant may be convenient, but it’s ordinary. I’m going to defer to Councilors’ read on the public’s desires here.
* Street-side dining may take away parking that might be useful for adjacent businesses. On the other hand, busy restaurants are neighborhood or village destinations. They bring people in to locations that might otherwise have had fewer visitors. That’s good for businesses and the city.
* I am not aware of any hard evidence that trading off a relatively small amount of street parking for outdoor dining has lead to fewer customers in Newton. Even for people who drive (including people who drive to outdoor dining), it isn’t clear that they would abandon their trip if no parking adjacent to the establishment is available. They might just have to park further away. We don’t know for certain.
* I don’t know if City Council would ever take the fall for an unpopular civic program (which I don’t believe describes Newton’s outdoor dining project anyway), unless Newton were under a very different form of government. City staff and the executive implement such programs. I think the Mayor will ultimately get the praise or the criticism.
My point is that the City Council forgets who they are working for. They are elected by the voters of Newton to act in the best interest of the citizenry. The Council has been very accommodating to restaurant owners by conceding sidewalks and streets , while turning their back on tax paying citizens who have a need to park on public roadways.
Mike S, I see it a bit differently. By allowing the restaurant parklets I think the city councilors ARE working in the best interests of Newton residents. Many restaurant-goers prefer sitting outside rather than indoors–and some are still hesitant to dine indoors for COVID reasons. By keeping these small restaurants busy they’re adding to the vibrancy of village centers, and, hopefully, setting the stage to bring more retail back to the city. Admittedly, I do wonder how the proposed rezoning will impact the small restaurants and retail–but that’s a different thread…
@Mike Seconding Lauren’s point, I and many other Newton residents enjoy the street dining. It is a benefit for businesses, many of which are locally owned AND diners. There is simply no evidence that it is a net negative for the city. In fact, it likely increases the tax revenue while bringing a really positive European, alfresco vibe.
Interesting discussion as always.
I disagree with the point of “fairness” to properties without driveways. When people buy properties without driveways, they understand the impact this has on parking, and this is factored into the price or the rent. If you had two identical properties, one with a driveway and one without, the one with a driveway would undoubtedly sell for more. If you had a driveway and a garage, it would go for more than just a driveway. And so on. So this isn’t a question of fairness. It was all known ahead of time and factored into the purchase price or rent.
Tim, I think there are a couple extra points to consider. Some existing properties in Newton have no parking on-site. If those residents need a car, they are punished through the law (enforcement of a winter parking ban). That law can be quite selective (ticketing every night or once in a while). The law has also been used fairly widely in the past for, say, residential visitors parking on the street during winter holidays.
For all the things that the law is supposed to be doing, it seems that there are better mechanisms to do them. For example, why just winter? Why use police outside of a public safety context when other options are available? Why treat all of Newton the same?
As I said previously, there are beneficial side effects to the law, and we should be careful about lifting it. It sure would be better, though, if our laws had a clear and defined purpose. This one doesn’t.
“When people buy properties without driveways, they understand the impact this has on parking, and this is factored into the price or the rent.”
Well, sort of. The fine used to be $5. So, if there was no snow on the ground or in the forecast, those of us could make the decision to just risk the ticket. It was seldom enforced on my street at the time, so periodically deciding that I would just eat the $5 was something I did. Especially when I had a baby and moving the car was very troublesome. But sometime in the last decade or so, it went up to $25 which is a pretty steep increase. So those of us who lived here before the increase may have previously chosen to live with the ban but that all changed when the fine went up.
I had a residential permit and parked on the street in Cambridge when i lived there for many years. It was fine. Why not just have the same system in Newton?
Alex, because if the zoning passes, there will exponentially more residents without parking, or who don’t want to pay for parking, and they will all seek resident parking stickers and park on neighborhood streets. If there is a cost associated with providing parking…and there is, why should the city …and visa vie the tax payers, provide that parking
Mary Lee, Thank you. I think i understand, i.e., if the zoning passes, Newton’s population density will become just like Cambridge’s and Newton’s streets will be packed with parked cars, too.
@Mike Halle: The only question I need you to answer is when will you throw your hat in the ring and run for City Council from Ward 3? Of the 3 Councilors representing Ward 3 (West Newton) only Andrea Kelley responds and reacts for the needs of the residents. The other two came on with one goal, to fight development and progress. They’ve had zero success at this given the approvals of Northlands, Riverside, and Dunstan East to name a few projects approved under their watch. They refuse to assist residents with their parking needs and instead have teamed up with those tying quality of life parking needs, to again their pet project of fighting developers. (Note ask your councilors about their parking situation) One Councilor, Malakie, has yet to come clean and explain her involvement in the 2021 Ward 3 election crimes. The OPCF completed their investigation at dead ends given the well organized criminal nature of the enterprise with well covered financial tracks using fake names/financials. Mike has been working hard behind the scenes accomplishing more for the residents of West Newton than the cited councilors .
Time to campaign Mike!!!
Jim Cote – In reference to your statement that “One Councilor, Malakie, has yet to come clean and explain her involvement in the 2021 Ward 3 election crimes. The OPCF completed their investigation at dead ends given the well organized criminal nature of the enterprise with well covered financial tracks using fake names/financials.” –
I hope Julia Malakie sues you for slander over your statement, because she would absolutely win.
@Lauren and Matt–
I’m not suggesting outdoor dining isn’t popular. [I’ll be happy to offer my opinion on that issue with another comment later in this thread]. Rather, I was drawing a comparison between the way the City Council gives away valuable space on public streets to restaurants, but can’t seem to come up with an overnight parking solution for the citizens who actually elect them.
@debra waller: It’s tough responding to what happened in 2021 without sounding like sour grapes, however, there was a crime committed and obviously someone/group did this for their benefit. Who did it, and then why wouldn’t a person have commented that benefited the most? Never even an apology, or words condemning the activity. Election interference happens all the time as we’ve seen recently in the US Attorney’s office. My legal actions are still ongoing at this time.
Jim Cote – What you are saying doesn’t sound like sour grapes. It sounds like slander. If you say that a “crime” was committed, then you better make sure there is some evidence for that.
To say that “Election interference happens all the time as we’ve seen recently in the US Attorney’s office,” is not evidence.
I’ve been asked to share our recent family story to explain how my only concerns are for the residents quality of life and access to their homes. Taking actions for buildings and people that may never exist is not something that can be properly forecast. This past March, when my now deceased father-in-law had to be hospitalized on the day prior to his death, multiple cars had to be moved to allow for the ambulance to access the side entrance to his Watertown St house. In a perfect world, and knowing his medical condition, we could have kept the driveway open for his last few months. There is no hardship provision to fix a situation such as this except to remove the ban.
@Jim – very sorry for your loss.
I am very grateful for the thoughtful discussion on this topic. Adding on to what my friend Jim Cote already contributed…
@ Jerry Reilly, Meredith Warshaw, MMQC, Robert Welbourn, Jim Epstein, Sam S.: Glad to have you on board! I don’t suppose you each have a couple thousand friends who can sign? But seriously, it is a lot of signatures, and I hope those who have time will volunteer. Please fill out the form on our website or get in touch with me if you—or someone you know—is interested! (You can also use the form as a way to join our mailing list.)
@ Frank D: I hear you on the implementation details. Unfortunately with the structure of the initiative petition it’s hard to include everything and there’s the risk that you might lose more votes than you gain. The good news is that we already showed during the early COVID years that we’ll do fine to simply lift the ban. The City Council and Traffic Council can and will continue to refine things (but the current hand-wringing about lifting the ban, rather than simply lifting it, won’t get us any closer to those refinements).
@ Tim: Oh how I wish the ban were the subject of debate in our favorite deliberative body! Unfortunately, the City Council has refused to take up this issue in a meaningful way. Just look at how many times the Public Safety & Transportation Committee (which has jurisdiction over this ordinance) has cancelled their regular meetings this year. And a victory at the ballot box wouldn’t mean that there can’t and won’t be compromises, it just means that the ultimate solution will (or should) be built around something which is not a blanket ban.
@ Mike Halle: I’m intrigued by your idea of a year by year moratorium. I think at the least we can feel confident enough to not have an overnight ban 12/1/23-3/31/24. But will we ever go back to the exact ordinance as it is now? As you point out, it seems to lack a clear and defined purpose and there are better ways to achieve all of the things it is supposed to achieve. Do you think that on 12/1/24 we’ll have made such little progress that it will be necessary to regress completely?
@ Mike Striar: Definitely an interesting comparison to outdoor dining, which I myself have mixed feelings about. The good news is that street parking can be available to anyone and not reserved to a particular person or entity.
@ Tim (again): Regarding fairness, I hear you. But I think if there’s a way that we can help people without compromising safety or other goals, then we should indeed help them.
@ MaryLee: Curious to get your thoughts on whether we’d be dealing with spillover parking from new development even if we ended up keeping the ban as-is?
Ok! That’s enough from me for now. Thanks everyone!
Jeremy et al, the more I think about it, the more I think that a year by year moratorium might be the most workable compromise.
We effectively did so during the pandemic. Waltham used the same mechanism before removing their winter overnight ban outright.
As you have said, we have other ordinances that cover most or all of the things that winter parking ban happens to address. During the moratorium, we could ramp up enforcement of those ordinances. We could complete and start implementing the bike-ped plan and deal with issues related to bike lanes. We will have voted on the MBTA Communities Act and at least some zoning changes. We would have time to deal with mechanisms to prevent blocked streets and excessive off-street parking from developments if we choose to.
There would be hesitance by developers and property owners to assume a permanent lifting of the ban. However, those most impacted by it would not bear the financial burden of our indecision or inaction.
We would learn, and in case of disaster we could do nothing and the ban would return.
I really don’t see a reason not to try it now. Plenty of time to deal with the worst of the problems (snow emergencies and student parking over winter holidays, I would suspect).
@Jeremy – very much appreciate your efforts. Over the past years, it’s becoming apparent that the only way to get things done in Newton are signatures and having issues solved directly by residents at the ballot box. Not sure I agree, but will happily add my signature. But let me also ask you this….
Are you in favor of the current Village Center Rezoning plan and the general approach by the City Council to minimize parking per unit of housing built or generally trying to move towards a car-lite, car-free Newton? If so, lifting the parking ban will only have the opposite effect – car friendly. What say you, sir?
Matt,
The zoning proposal isn’t to “mimimize” parking requirements, it is to eliminate them. The rationale is that providing parking adds expense to developers and we should let that market (i.e developer ) decide. But it is also acknowledged that people will expect parking.
The Planning Department acknowledges that parking will be needed and that the move to eliminate parking requirements is just a strategy to show on paper how we COULD achieve the MBTA Communities requirements
But since we know that developers would prefer to not have to provide parking, this proposal to eliminate the winter parking ban would just enabling the shifting of the burden of parking from developers and onto our neighborhood streets.
In a vacuum, if we didn’t have the context of the Upzoning and MBTA Communities Law, I could potentially get behind the elimination of the ban. But the State will be assessing Newton’s plan for compliance to determine if it is credible. I believe it would likely NOT pass the credibility test with no parking requirement UNLESS Newton widely allows on street parking year round.
There are ways to address this, such as strict time limits, but that requires enforcement which again shift the burden to the city
MaryLee, it isn’t that developers don’t necessarily want to provide parking. Parking in a new development can be a valuable amenity, and you’ll have fewer takers for new and expensive units if they don’t provide parking. People who depend on personal cars like off-street parking and don’t like on-street parking. For people paying thousands of dollars in rent each month and who have a car, off-street parking fees aren’t an enormous extra cost.
Right now, though, the city dictated 2 cars per residential unit, even though studies have shown that in Newton that number is in excess. We are requiring the building of expensive empty space, while encouraging the people who have more cars per unit into denser developments.
With each new development we gain knowledge in what people today need. Maybe you or other people are skeptical of no required minima, but I see no evidence that relaxing or removing the requirement will lead to no parking being built.
Many cities allow street parking with sticker but excludes any residents from high density buildings. Fair compromise which addresses the perception of developer favoritism
Ie the intention was always to help those who live in areas without a driveway NOT to help someone who pays 4k in monthly rent in a luxury rental
Repeal it. The parking ban disproportionately causes more hardship on citizens without driveways. Just isn’t fair. There are other options, like the many spoken about here. I personally like the Waltham parking plan. Designate parking on odd and even sides of the street. .