|An example of extending the "no parking" area.|
Existing "no parking" in yellow, proposed in red.
On Winter Street just north of D Street
"...[a resident feels] the property value has gone down because there is no longer on-street parking on either of the streets next to the residence...this property will have a difficult resale process and diminished value...this constitutes eminent domain without compensation...people utilizing the bus leave garbage and cigarette butts on the property diminishing its value."Never mind the way that robust transit serves public need and enhances urban mobility. Also never mind the needs of differently-abled people who use the bus and would find advantage in greater clearance with the parking removal.
If Cherriots and the City are out of compliance, and would court a lawsuit, why is this even at CATC? As a purely technical matter, this should not be subject to the NIMBY process. Why do we continue to indulge the politics of our mania for free parking in the public right-of-way?
(On the other hand, if this is not a purely technical matter for compliance, Cherriots and the City should be clearer about where they are exercising discretion, where they are out of compliance, and should not frame it up as wholly about "compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.")
|from Walkable City Rules|
In the end, by framing it up as a matter subject to the politics of parking and to neighborhood preferences, rather than a technical matter for better mobility and street function, the City and Cherriots may have missed an opportunity to start a different conversation about the way we treat the public space known as a street, about the harms of driving, and about the ways our parking arrangements induce carbon emissions. We have to start threading our climate emergency into these other topics.
|Final pie chart from Our Salem: It's all about the cars|