8 thoughts on “Battle Brewing Over Proposed Changes to City Parking Rules

  1. Pingback: Today’s Headlines | Streetsblog New York City

  2. Enough seniors drive cars or have visitors that drive cars that the city should maybe just leave this alone. Even enough ‘affordable’ housing residents will have cars to require some on site parking. What about the tenants currently using the parking lots? They’d be dumped out into the street fighting for Alternate Side Parking spaces. Drivers might be a numerical minority in NYC, but they are the middle class and above. They use their cars to shop, visit friends and contribute to the NYC economy. The local opposition to this tells me it’s another dumb deBlasio idea.

    BTW 1 and 2 family homes also have parking requirements – usually one space per unit.

    • Like NNY said but more so. Forgotten yet proven by studies repeatedly(but usually ignored/surpressed by the anti-car bunch): the prime reason for paying the great price of maintaining a privately-owned-vehicle(POV) in NYC is: I NEED IT TO GET TO MY GOOD-PAYING JOB BECAUSE PUBLIC TRANSIT DON”T GO THERE! Access to a car doubles one’s chances of getting a job(proven). Access to a car triples the likelihood of greater income from that job(proven).
      If a car cost $9,000/year to keep then it is logical that the owner earns that $9,000/year AND MUCH MORE to offset that personal cost.
      Commuting by POV requires a storage spot at the start-point and at the destination. In a built-up environment that means accessible, affordable and sufficient parking, or else the owner goes to somewhere else(‘burbs?) and the city’s economy begins to collapse.

      Am I getting through to you?
      All the public meetings I have attended with CPC and around Brooklyn on the Mayor’s Plan, the parking part is a non-starter.

  3. Its plain and clear; not everyone can take public transport. I am a senior with a car who is unable to take public trans or walk
    everywhere (like I used to) as I got hit by a car while crossing the Westside highway as
    a pedestrian and I have chronic knee and back damage. I also take my
    dogs to work with me everyday. And I have a business that requires lots of deliveries of small goods.
    A major issue is that there is not enough affordable parking in the city. A parking ticket judge told me long ago when she said that if the city wanted to limit car congestion on all levels, they could limit the number of cars registered. As long as they register unlimited cars, there are unlimited opportunities for police to write tickets and the city to make income and that is why the city will not limit the number of cars registered. We parking ticket payers call it the unnamed city tax.
    . There is not enough parking on the lower east side Manhattan , two bridges area – not to mention very limited public transport. And it gets worse every day for various reasons. The parking lots in my mitchell lama coop cost 35.00 a month and it is 275.00 a month in the nearest paid paring lot, which is full. It takes 12 years to get a parking space and much less time get an apartment because the older people in my co-op are dying in numbers. And there are people making money on their 35.00 month parking space.
    The city needs to look at parking on a zone by zone basis and not change a city wide rule to benefit some few situations. They should start by looking at which areas pay the most parking tickets. These areas should get city parking structures with reasonable parking fees.
    People need their cars, not everyone can or wants to, take public transport.

  4. The notion that those of low income are less likely to need off street parking is absolutely absurd. What about the independent taxi drivers and others who have to use vehicles for work? And what about the many residents who don’t have the luxury of walking to doctor, bank, or to a grocery store with affordable prices within blocks of their residence? The notion about the low income residence not needing their cars reflects an ignorance about the nature of working class jobs in this city.

    Seems to me that this latest attempt to identify sites for housing–while perhaps well meaning and necessary– will only intensify urban fragmentation and diminish quality of life. It also appears to reflect a certain class bias of well entrenched housing interests who are simply looking for the next development deal to feed their own coffers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *