Overnight Onstreet Parking

[Garris]

I'm not sure I understand this concern. Where are all of these extra cars now? Or are you saying that people will buy more cars only because they don't have a place to park them now?

- Michael Csollany

I can think of several couples I know off the top of my head who maintain only one car here since that's all they have parking for or others who rent spaces or rent garages nearby where they live.

If the parking ban is relaxed, these people will probably buy/maintain a second car here, or they'll just stop using the rented space/garage. And certainly, those rented spaces/garages won't go away if the parking ban is relaxed.

- Garris

[runawayjim]

I can think of several couples I know off the top of my head who maintain only one car here since that's all they have parking for or others who rent spaces or rent garages nearby where they live.

If the parking ban is relaxed, these people will probably buy/maintain a second car here, or they'll just stop using the rented space/garage. And certainly, those rented spaces/garages won't go away if the parking ban is relaxed.

- Garris

some people want a protected space, especially if they don't use their car that often. i know i wouldn't want to leave my car in the street all the time if i didn't use it on a regular basis. or maybe garages will lower their rates.

as for the couples with one car... let them get another one. they'll feel the pain when they have to pay taxes.

[ruchele]

And certainly, those rented spaces/garages won't go away if the parking ban is relaxed.

Probably true that the garages won't go anywhere, but won't demand for rented spaces on paved lots be drastically reduced? If you can park on the street for free, much fewer people are going to choose to pay $25-$75/mo to rent a spot a block or more away from their house. I sure wouldn't. My greatest hope is that ending the parking ban will make it much more profitable to develop a lot than rent it out for parking. (of course, the tax rate for undeveloped lots should go WAY up to encourage people to develop or sell. . . )

[Recchia]

Probably true that the garages won't go anywhere, but won't demand for rented spaces on paved lots be drastically reduced? If you can park on the street for free, much fewer people are going to choose to pay $25-$75/mo to rent a spot a block or more away from their house. I sure wouldn't. My greatest hope is that ending the parking ban will make it much more profitable to develop a lot than rent it out for parking. (of course, the tax rate for undeveloped lots should go WAY up to encourage people to develop or sell. . . )

Exactly! Though most surface lots around the city are just for daytime parking anyway.

[runawayjim]

Probably true that the garages won't go anywhere, but won't demand for rented spaces on paved lots be drastically reduced? If you can park on the street for free, much fewer people are going to choose to pay $25-$75/mo to rent a spot a block or more away from their house. I sure wouldn't. My greatest hope is that ending the parking ban will make it much more profitable to develop a lot than rent it out for parking. (of course, the tax rate for undeveloped lots should go WAY up to encourage people to develop or sell. . . )

i think it coudl help put an end to the surface rented lots in places like federal hill (and there's a few on the east side that i know of).

[jencoleslaw]

i think it coudl help put an end to the surface rented lots in places like federal hill (and there's a few on the east side that i know of).

betcha a dozen donuts the surface lots on federal hill become valet lots.

[urbie]

That is precisely what I'm worried about, and is one of the reasons I'm ambiguous on this issue. There are neighborhoods in Boston I've seen that don't look much different from Providence neighborhoods (cars jammed in everywhere possible), plus cars on the street.

The situation is now what it is, and unless permit granting is accompanied by some serious requirements regarding green space conversion and lot usage, I don't think we'll see a single thing change except more cars...

- Garris

Sure, some neighborhoods in Boston have a lot of cars "jammed" into them (which I never thought was a problem, when I lived there), but I don't get what's so awful about a property owner deciding he wants to park cars all over his yard -- assuming proper drainage, yada-yada. As for the streets, you can still have as many no-parking zones as you want -- or you can do what they do in some places (like Flagstaff) and have these non-space spaces in-between the parking spaces. I think those are supposed to allow pedestrians to get through more easily.

With no on-street parking, many of the three-deckers in Jamaica Plain (where I lived) would have been next to worthless, because there was no room for them to have off-street parking. Sure, you could have rented them -- but without the option of having a car, not too many people would have wanted them....

Urb

[Jerry2]

I'm not sure I understand this concern. Where are all of these extra cars now? Or are you saying that people will buy more cars only because they don't have a place to park them now?

- Michael Csollany

I don't understand this logic either. While I know most people won't be ripping up asphalt to create a lawn, there are a lot of areas in this city that have predominantly single family owner-occupied dwellings that have created driveways from former lawns and greenspaces. Drive to Mount Pleasant, upper Hartford, Silver Lake, Washington Park....etc. etc..There are many homeowners that would convert their front or side yards back to some sort of recreational use. Those areas are not congested and wouldn't have the same problems as say...in FH. I think that for someone to say there will be more cars ....as if people are going to rush out and stock up on vehicles...is ridiculous. A repeal of the parking ban would positively affect the majority of people in Providence.

[urbie]

I don't understand this logic either. While I know most people won't be ripping up asphalt to create a lawn, there are a lot of areas in this city that have predominantly single family owner-occupied dwellings that have created driveways from former lawns and greenspaces. Drive to Mount Pleasant, upper Hartford, Silver Lake, Washington Park....etc. etc..There are many homeowners that would convert their front or side yards back to some sort of recreational use. Those areas are not congested and wouldn't have the same problems as say...in FH. I think that for someone to say there will be more cars ....as if people are going to rush out and stock up on vehicles...is ridiculous. A repeal of the parking ban would positively affect the majority of people in Providence.

Well, truth be told, there would be one more vehicle -- specifically, my '74 Chevy pickup (see http://www.kafalas.com/truck for details) -- if on-street parking were allowed. Meg and I come from two families of gearheads, and have always accumulated various sets of wheels. So yeah, it cannot be denied that there would be one more set in the city if we could park it on the street. But there would be no more drivers, and probably very seldom more than one vehicle in use at a time.

I don't see it as being that big a deal, allowing parking where there's room for it. But if it does get implemented, I really don't see the case for making a "you MUST greenify your lot to get a parking permit" New Urbanist Fatwa*. Instead, give an incentive to do so, as one person suggested -- maybe a one-time property tax credit or just a flat-rate payment from the city. Persuasion, not coercion. Just doing it by fatwa won't work -- what landlord is going to reduce the attractiveness of his property by replacing an off-street space with an on-street one?

Urb

*I like a lot of the New Urbanist ideas, to the point of having sent one of James Kunstler's books to the mayor of Flagstaff (and was gratified to see, on an unscheduled visit to his office, that he's actually got the book on the shelf right above his desk -- not to say that he's read it, but based on some of the policy decisions coming out of City Hall, I think he probably has. But I like Kunstler's ideas best where they give people more options, not fewer. E.g., getting rid of minimum lot sizes, single-use zoning, and other modern regulatory idiocy.

[eltron]

completely anectodotal, but:

when I bought my house, the ENTIRE lot was paved, with parking for about 9 cars for a two family house. The previous owner rented spots out to neighbors for extra income. The summer after I bought the house, I tore up a section of the paving and built a brick patio (with recycled bricks from a torn down chimney), and put in grass and garden plantings. I would tear up MUCH more IMMEDIATELY if the onstreet parking ban was lifted.

just one person's action, but I bet I'm not the only one...

[eltron]

I don't see it as being that big a deal, allowing parking where there's room for it. But if it does get implemented, I really don't see the case for making a "you MUST greenify your lot to get a parking permit" New Urbanist Fatwa*. Instead, give an incentive to do so, as one person suggested -- maybe a one-time property tax credit or just a flat-rate payment from the city. Persuasion, not coercion. Just doing it by fatwa won't work -- what landlord is going to reduce the attractiveness of his property by replacing an off-street space with an on-street one?

*I like a lot of the New Urbanist ideas, to the point of having sent one of James Kunstler's books to the mayor of Flagstaff (and was gratified to see, on an unscheduled visit to his office, that he's actually got the book on the shelf right above his desk -- not to say that he's read it, but based on some of the policy decisions coming out of City Hall, I think he probably has. But I like Kunstler's ideas best where they give people more options, not fewer. E.g., getting rid of minimum lot sizes, single-use zoning, and other modern regulatory idiocy.

I've got to agree with you here - the onstreet parking ban is just plain stupid, and to force owners to "greenify" is unnecessary and a bit of overkill. We have to make things EASIER to do the right thing, not harder...

BTW, I hate James Kunstler...always have, always will!

[jencoleslaw]

i just believe that in neighborhoods that are rife with absentee landlords and three family tenaments, to even HOPE that part of that paving will be turned over to green is a pipe dream. And i live in one of those neighborhoods so to not get any benefit whatsoever from the lifting of the parking ban, and instead get more cars is not something i'd be jumping for joy over. The single family home turning over a driveway into a yard may happen, and i did that myself when i bought a single family home with parking for 6 cars, but i wouldn't turn my entire driveway into yard just to park on the street. Hardly anyone is going to do that. You still need a place to park when it snows and during street sweeping.

Now, i am a big fan of lifting the ban and have been lobbying for it for a very long time, but i don't think it is going to get us the results we want in the very dense neighborhoods. Folks with three families and limited parking will be able to rent to more people with cars now and people who previously didn't have cars might now get them if they don't have to pay $75/month to park. Unfortunate to be sure, but not imaginary.

[Cotuit]

Folks with three families and limited parking will be able to rent to more people with cars now and people who previously didn't have cars might now get them if they don't have to pay $75/month to park. Unfortunate to be sure, but not imaginary.

I think in dense areas like Federal Hill we'll see similar issues to what they have in Boston as far as convenience. People may still choose to spend $75/month for off street parking rather than have to circle the block searching for a street spot every evening.

[jencoleslaw]

I think in dense areas like Federal Hill we'll see similar issues to what they have in Boston as far as convenience. People may still choose to spend $75/month for off street parking rather than have to circle the block searching for a street spot every evening.

in federal hill parking is only $25 a month. it is the east side where it is so much more. I still think house lot sized parking lots will not be developed but will become satellite valet parking lots.

[eltron]

i just believe that in neighborhoods that are rife with absentee landlords and three family tenaments, to even HOPE that part of that paving will be turned over to green is a pipe dream. And i live in one of those neighborhoods so to not get any benefit whatsoever from the lifting of the parking ban, and instead get more cars is not something i'd be jumping for joy over. The single family home turning over a driveway into a yard may happen, and i did that myself when i bought a single family home with parking for 6 cars, but i wouldn't turn my entire driveway into yard just to park on the street. Hardly anyone is going to do that. You still need a place to park when it snows and during street sweeping.

Now, i am a big fan of lifting the ban and have been lobbying for it for a very long time, but i don't think it is going to get us the results we want in the very dense neighborhoods. Folks with three families and limited parking will be able to rent to more people with cars now and people who previously didn't have cars might now get them if they don't have to pay $75/month to park. Unfortunate to be sure, but not imaginary.

I've got to disagree...

Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and I am sure countless other places have a density and landlord demographic at least as dense as federal hill, and the green quotient of those neighborhoods is multiples better, with a high "car density" and all.

As Ruchele says, things are not going to change overnight. Likewise, and I know this from experience, many of the absentee land-lorded buildings are turning over to owner-occupants, as thats the only thing many can afford, and you've seen the start of the condo-conversions...

[JimmyGreaves]

getting rid of minimum lot sizes

I agree. We can't expect to supply affordable single family homes on a minimum lot of 6,000 square feet. Cotuit has also mentioned getting rid of required parking minimums in the zoning which I also agree with. Slightly off-topic topic but I thought it required seconding.

The repeal of the overnight parking ban will require a multi-pronged approach. We can't expect the city to benefit from this unless the city fully funds and implements enforcement of parking regs and the state and feds provide RIPTA with more funding to increase service. One-hour headways on East Side and Elmhurst routes will not provide residents with an incentive to consider living without a car. This is unfortunately a complicated solution that contains many aspects.

[jencoleslaw]

I agree. We can't expect to supply affordable single family homes on a minimum lot of 6,000 square feet. Cotuit has also mentioned getting rid of required parking minimums in the zoning which I also agree with. Slightly off-topic topic but I thought it required seconding.

The repeal of the overnight parking ban will require a multi-pronged approach. We can't expect the city to benefit from this unless the city fully funds and implements enforcement of parking regs and the state and feds provide RIPTA with more funding to increase service. One-hour headways on East Side and Elmhurst routes will not provide residents with an incentive to consider living without a car. This is unfortunately a complicated solution that contains many aspects.

i think, without looking at any of my paperwork, that 6K sq.ft is the min for a multi family and 4K is the min for a single family.

[eltron]

i think, without looking at any of my paperwork, that 6K sq.ft is the min for a multi family and 4K is the min for a single family.

Minimum lot area is 6k in r-1 zones, 5k in all other zones, regardless of single- or multi-family.

[jencoleslaw]

Minimum lot area is 6k in r-1 zones, 5k in all other zones, regardless of single- or multi-family.

that's wack. so the bigger the unit the smaller the lot can be? that makes no sense.

[yossarian]

Minimum lot area is 6k in r-1 zones, 5k in all other zones, regardless of single- or multi-family.

But residential lots in existence before the current zoning ordinance was adopted (which I expect would be most in the City are grandfathered in).

204.3. Permitted uses of substandard lots of record in R Zones. Any lawfully established lot which has less than the minimum area required for the zone in which it is located, may be used subject to the provisions of this ordinance and the following:

(A) R Zones: A single-family dwelling may be erected in any R Zone on any separately owned lot.

So what the ordiance does is limit the ability of an owner with a large lot to subdivide.

[JimmyGreaves]

Sorry for getting us off topic. The lot size discussion should probably be moved to the "Providence Zoning Issues" thread.

[Frankie811]

Getting the boot. The city

[runawayjim]

Getting the boot. The city

[Cotuit]

I agree, why should the city not be generating revenue in this manner? You violate the traffic laws, you pay. You don't violate anything, you don't. Where's the problem here? The City Council would have one believe we are violating people's civil rights.

[jencoleslaw]

i would like to see a breakdown of what kind of tickets are being issued. Is it overtime daytime parking on the east side and downtown, or are there more overnight parking tickets, and would encourage the city to find out. We are currently in the middle of a pilot program regarding the overnight parking--why would you change the variable by starting to boot people? That isn't good data collection if you change the rules mid study, is it?

While i am in complete agreeance that illegal activity and non payment of tickets should not be scoffed at, i would much prefer that the city go after quality of life issues such as rats, trash, barking dogs, unshoveled sidewalks, parking infractions like parking on sidewalks so you can't cross without going in the street, or in crosswalks and fine THOSE people, put liens on THOSE houses and properties.

getting most parking tickets is kind of a victimless crime (unlike red light running). My quality of life isn't hampered when my housemate gets a parking ticket for leaving his car out overnight, but it sure as hell is when someone's trash is overflowing next door and blowing all over the neighborhood, or there's a loud party til 4 am, or the place across the street is overrun with rats and all of those infractions translate into lots and lots of money in fines.

So let's hire a company to go out on trash day and fine everyone not recycling, or not putting their trash in the right kind of barrel. And let's hire a company to fine everyone who doesn't shovel within 4 hours of a snowfall, and let's fine everyone who has a sh*tty vacant lot full of rats and trash, and let's fine people who leave their dogs outside to bark all night long. If the city wants to make money then let them make money in a way that makes the city a better place to live, because those are the things that effect quality of life. Not parking tickets

and ps., parking in fire lanes, handicapped spaces and tow zones shouldn't get you a ticket, it should get you TOWED away, just like on parking restriction days.

oh, and when it costs more to get your car unbooted than it does to illegally tear down a building, there is something seriously wrong with the way the city does business and treats its residents.