Parking Spot Squat

dailyheights

Did anyone see this or talk to these people? This was reported on Naparstek.com a few days ago:

"On Saturday, a group of Livable Streets advocates staged a 'parking squat' in Park Slope, Brooklyn (see QuickTime video here). Organizers David Alquist, Jeff Prant and Geoff Zink showed up in front of the Connecticut Muffin shop on 7th Avenue and 1st Street at 9:00 am, dropped quarters in two parking meters, unfolded lawn chairs and proceeded to hang out, drink coffee, read the paper and chat with friends, neighbors and passersby in street space that would typically be occupied by two lifeless automobiles."

"A parking squat challenges the idea that the vast majority of a crowded city's street space--its public space--is best used for the storage and movement of private automobiles. Space is one of New York City's most precious and valued commodities. The sidewalks of Park Slope's shopping avenues are narrow and on nice weekends they are jam-packed. Yet, while pedestrians hauling strollers and shopping carts jostle up against one another on tiny strips of sidewalk, single-passenger vehicles frolic across vast swaths of asphalt."

"And while some people in this neighborhood pay as much as $2,500 per month to rent an apartment the size of a parking spot, renting an actual parking spot costs a mere 25 cents per hour."

Is it really only a quarter?? If so, that's maybe $3 a day (assuming meters are "read" only 12 hours per day) and $90 a month. At that rate, you could rent a 1,000-square foot apartment for $360 a month.

Read more here: Naparstek.com: Parking it in the Slope

carnivore

Awesome!
I've always felt that the city shouldn't be subsidizing motor vehicle traffic so much. If we're going to give public space to parking, we should charge market rates! In Manhattan, those meters should be taking in several hundred collars a month.

rose

I'm not sure about the frolicking part. Driving in Park Slope isn't really that much fun. I park my car on the street, but I'm not opposed to the idea of the city charging for the privilege. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to charge so much that people say fuck it and move to the suburbs. I was just thinking this morning that there should be:

1. residential parking permits on the side streets

2. no overnight parking on residential streets for commercial vehicles (I actually always thought this was the law but it doesn't seem to be enforced)

3. a limit to how big a car you can park overnight -- or at least a surcharge for giant SUVs, Hummers, and big vans -- they take up so much space.

Oh, and how about enforcement against illegal curb cuts. There are half a dozen of these on my block -- people turn their front "yard" into a private parking lot. It's ugly and it's not fair to other people who live (and want to park) on the block to permanently remove a parking space.

Okay, I guess none of this was really relevant to the original post. Oh well.

drano

Are those "curb cuts" really illegal? I guess I assumed that you couldn't make a new one, but if the driveway had been there before a certain point, it was fine. If they're illegal, just park them in and they'll be on the hook when they have you towed or whatever. Just call the police.

Note that although I don't have a car at the moment I've always found the notion of private driveways in a place like Park Slope a bit odd. It seems that someone would have said by now, "Um, ok, so we basically lose a space so that one individual can have a guaranteed spot." No net gain, a little iffy from a fairness standpoint. Seems I own that bit of road just as much as the guy who tells me I can't park there because it's his "driveway".

At least one troll is going to respond to this with, "OMG you are teh JEALOUS!"

friendlypitbull

If you charge 'market rate' for street parking then only the wealthy will have cars.

findcate

Residential permits would be great!

sweet tea

i'm actually pretty surprised nyc doesn't do residential permits. they are common in chicago. they don't solve everything though; i spent plenty of hours waiting for parking there, even with my little sticker. and forget about parking in a neighborhood with a different permit number. (which makes having a car kinda silly, if you can't go anywhere in it.) a friend of mine lived on the border of two zones, which was hell because it meant she could only park on some of the streets within walking distance of her house. nothing like finally finding a spot on a snowy night and knowing you can't have it....

whyfi

sweet tea wrote: i'm actually pretty surprised nyc doesn't do residential permits. they are common in chicago. they don't solve everything though; i spent plenty of hours waiting for parking there, even with my little sticker. and forget about parking in a neighborhood with a different permit number. (which makes having a car kinda silly, if you can't go anywhere in it.) a friend of mine lived on the border of two zones, which was hell because it meant she could only park on some of the streets within walking distance of her house. nothing like finally finding a spot on a snowy night and knowing you can't have it....

A recent study in Brooklyn Heights showed that the permits wouldn't do any good as there are simply more cars (owned by residents) than spaces available. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case in PS, too.

sweet tea

that was certainly the case in the chicago places i lived. the only thing that helped at all was the diversity of the last neighborhood i lived in. because people were different ages and worked different shifts and etc., there was more turn-over. in the first, more homogeneous, neighborhood i lived in, forget finding a spot after about 6:32 when everyone came home from office jobs.

friendlypitbull

findcate wrote: Residential permits would be great!

Sure - but that is advocating the exact opposite of what these protesters (appear) to be saying.

They (appear) to be saying, free (cheap) parking is bad b/c it giving car owners (presumed to be bad) valuable space at a fraction or zero of its actual worth.

Resident permits say, (because you live here) not only will we give you free (or real cheap) parking, but will actually give you a certain 'claim' on that space.

communitybuilder

That residential permit study, released by Brooklyn's business community, is very flawed.

First, residential permits would limit the # of people cruising for spots on neighborhood streets. That would reduce congestion and increase parking supply, de facto. Many of those who park on neighborhood streets today are Downtown Brooklyn employees, particularly govt employees.

Second, and this is important: Permits should not be free. They should be priced. The revenues generated could raise money for transpo and public space improvements that help New Yorkers not need cars to begin with(improved bus service anyone?). The permit fee could also be set at a high enough price point that convinces some people its just not worth owning and parking a car in these neighborhoods. Parking space is such a valuable commodity, it deserves to be priced accordingly. Since Downtown Brooklyn has fantastic transit options, making it more difficult and expensive to park is viable. (in other words: Govt employees, time to get yr butts on the subway).

Third, Atantic Yards and the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning are creating an entirely new set of trip demands that aren't accounted for in the permit study. We need permits to prevent thousands of arena event attendees from cruising neighborhood streets every night looking for free parking. Permits are essential if there is actually going to be an arena. ESSENTIAL.

anonymous

Subject: Residential Permits

Actually, the idea of residential permits does not contradict what we were doing.

Residential permits could be free to residents, or there could be a charge. Non-residents could park for a lmited time - say one or two hours, max - using a Muni-Meter, and the price for that parking could be set at a "market rate," or at least some higher rate than is charged currently. 100% of the parking revenue could be earmarked for mass transit or improvement to the local infrastructure: benches, planters, better signage, more street upkeep, etc.

Setting a parking fee that was more market-driven would help encourage a kind of parking equilibrium, with better balance between supply and demand. For anyone who's really interested, Prof. Donald Shoup of UCLA recently published a book called "The High Cost of Free Parking." It's gotten a lot of attention in transportation and planning circles.

WhyFi, the reason the Brooklyn Heights study you cite is faulty is because it concludes that the answer is "do nothing." However, if they did institute residential permits, it would at least help control the transient non-resident parking, thereby improving the parking prospects for residents.

rose

Drano wrote: Are those "curb cuts" really illegal? I guess I assumed that you couldn't make a new one, but if the driveway had been there before a certain point, it was fine. If they're illegal, just park them in and they'll be on the hook when they have you towed or whatever. Just call the police.

I think some of the older ones, at least the ones that lead to an actual garage, are grandfathered in. But at least two people on my block have created new ones in the past year or so and I'm quite sure that's illegal. I just don't know who enforces it. And I'm too lazy to go the the trouble of getting my car towed just to prove a point to my neighbors.

I would definitely pay for a residential parking permit. It used to be so easy to park at my end of the Slope, but that has changed in the past couple of years. I'm sure part of that can be attributed to the big new apartment buildings that have gone up, but some of it is because there are so many more restaurants and stores down here than there used to be. I'm selfish enough to think that I have more of a right to park on my block than someone who's going to Baby Bird or the loathsome Bar 4.

whyfi

Subject: Re: Residential Permits

SlopeGuy wrote: WhyFi, the reason the Brooklyn Heights study you cite is faulty is because it concludes that the answer is "do nothing." However, if they did institute residential permits, it would at least help control the transient non-resident parking, thereby improving the parking prospects for residents.

From the NY Daily News

The 97-page study found area residents own more than twice as many cars as there are on-street spaces.

Brooklyn Heights has 4,103 cars for 876 spots...

Sure, it would improve the chances, but even with only cars owned by residents, the odds are still really crappy based on the above figures... at what point do you ask yourself if it's worth it?

drano

Rose wrote: [quote=Drano]Are those "curb cuts" really illegal? I guess I assumed that you couldn't make a new one, but if the driveway had been there before a certain point, it was fine. If they're illegal, just park them in and they'll be on the hook when they have you towed or whatever. Just call the police.

I think some of the older ones, at least the ones that lead to an actual garage, are grandfathered in. But at least two people on my block have created new ones in the past year or so and I'm quite sure that's illegal. I just don't know who enforces it. And I'm too lazy to go the the trouble of getting my car towed just to prove a point to my neighbors.

I would definitely pay for a residential parking permit. It used to be so easy to park at my end of the Slope, but that has changed in the past couple of years. I'm sure part of that can be attributed to the big new apartment buildings that have gone up, but some of it is because there are so many more restaurants and stores down here than there used to be. I'm selfish enough to think that I have more of a right to park on my block than someone who's going to Baby Bird or the loathsome Bar 4.

You should call 311, they are pretty easy to deal with.

friendlypitbull

Subject: Re: Residential Permits

SlopeGuy wrote: Actually, the idea of residential permits does not contradict what we were doing.

Residential permits could be free to residents, or there could be a charge. Non-residents could park for a lmited time - say one or two hours, max - using a Muni-Meter, and the price for that parking could be set at a "market rate," or at least some higher rate than is charged currently. 100% of the parking revenue could be earmarked for mass transit or improvement to the local infrastructure: benches, planters, better signage, more street upkeep, etc.

Setting a parking fee that was more market-driven would help encourage a kind of parking equilibrium, with better balance between supply and demand. For anyone who's really interested, Prof. Donald Shoup of UCLA recently published a book called "The High Cost of Free Parking." It's gotten a lot of attention in transportation and planning circles.

WhyFi, the reason the Brooklyn Heights study you cite is faulty is because it concludes that the answer is "do nothing." However, if they did institute residential permits, it would at least help control the transient non-resident parking, thereby improving the parking prospects for residents.

SlopeGuy sorry but sitting in the street to protest the use of public space for car parking and then advocating residential parking permits are contradictory positions....

1.residential parking is still taking up public space;

2.While permits may reduce the time residents circle for spots it would increase the freedom residents would have to use the car because they'd have less fear regarding losing their spot = more car teips and more traffic;

3.Permits if low price or free would simply encourage the non-car owning population to get a car since one of the biggest obstacles (parking) would be easier =more circiling, more traffic, more pollution;

4.If you price permits high then you end up with an elitiest system with only the wealthy being able to park on PUBLIC streets-which might achieve the goal of less traffic but seems unfair to punish the middle class and poor to achieve it.

Anything that makes it easier (resident permits) to own a car will result in more cars (and more people looking for parking)

BTW - Parked cars serve a very useful function seperating the moving traffic from pedestrians and create a 'safe' zone

dope on the slope

How about converting 50% of our parking garages to vehicular living space, sort of like an RV park. You would only pay rent when you exited. First come first serve so to minimize the advantage of the wealthy.

It would also produce many units of affordable housing quite quickly.

What's not to like?

I don't own a car, but if we're going to charge people with SUVs more because they take up more space, that could be a slippery slope. What about a surcharge for bulky strollers, scooters and dogs on the sidewalk? Before you know it, anyone with significant "junk in the trunk" will be charged extra for their wide load. I'm afraid I might qualify if I don't cut down on the pints.

communitybuilder

pitbull, you make some interesting points. but you are wrong about a few things.

the idea that a fee-based parking permit system is "elitist" is a common fallacy. the fact of the matter is that car owners and car commuters in nyc, on average, have significantly higher incomes than non-car owners and transit commuters. car owners are also a significant minority, even in brooklyn.

so, if you were to call anything "elitist" it would be the current system. a less wealthy majority of new yorkers have to pay $4 to get get across the East River and back to go to work in the morning via subway. likewise, they have to hand over the majority of their neighborhoods' public space for the storage and movement of other people's privately owned motor vehicles. this majority receives minimal benefit from all these cars (ok, yes, parked cars act as a traffic calmer sometimes, but so do bollards, trees and benches). and the negative impacts from all these cars are constant and overwhelming -- horn-honking, car alarms, third-world childhood asthma rates, global climate change, oil war, to name a few.

meanwhile, a signficantly wealthier minority of car users receive free passage over the bridges in and out of manhattan and free parking upon their return home (and often at work as well). the infrastructure for all of this motoring, including the stunningly expensive east river bridges, is all subsidized from the city's general tax revenue. there are no user-fees on city-owned streets and bridges. we all pay for this motoring even though most of us don't own cars.

so, tell me again how making these remarkably privileged urban motorists pay for their on-street parking is elitist?

frankly, the system isn't even all that great for the elite, motoring minority. because roads and parking are given away for free in nyc, we have lots of traffic and scarce car storage space. pricing these things would help ease congestion and free up parking as it has done in cities around the world.

stacey

communitybuilder wrote: the idea that a fee-based parking permit system is "elitist" is a common fallacy. the fact of the matter is that car owners and car commuters in nyc, on average, have significantly higher incomes than non-car owners and transit commuters. car owners are also a significant minority, even in brooklyn.

I have to disagree - most car owners I know (and that includes me) do not have "significantly higher incomes". In order for me to make some extra cash I have work overtime a lot and I cannot afford car service from the train home so I have my husband pick me up (sorry but waiting for a bus for 45 minutes in the freezing cold just doesn't do it for me ). Many families who own cars find it easy to travel with the little ones in cars. Most families I know are just scraping by. The ones that own cars and make a lot of money pay for parking lots.

I can get with the idea of parking permits but they should be handed out on a sliding scale basis.

armchair_warrior

residential parking permits would be great cuase i know alot of guys who have upstate addresses for cheaper insurance. this way those jokers will learn to either change it back or not park in some areas!

communitybuilder

stacey,

it's a factual fact. it's not an opinion. the median income of car owners in nyc is higher than people who don't own cars. the majority of nyc households don't own cars. these are facts.

communitybuilder

From www.Bridgetolls.org:

The poor drive a lot less than the wealthy in New York City, owing to the high cost of insurance and parking, not to mention purchase and upkeep. In every borough but one, renter-households are less than half as likely to own a car than households that own their home. (Even in the one exception, Queens, the average home- owner household has 1.9 times as many cars as the average rental dwelling.) And drivers who commute on an East River bridge earn almost $15,000 a year more than their neighbors who don't.

Although exceptions can be found -- we are, after all, a city of eight million souls -- by and large, the free bridges (and free parking) are a subsidy enjoyed by more-affluent New Yorkers. Moreover, as Josh Mason of the Working Families Party has pointed out in City Limits, lower-income citizens tend to be heavier users of public services, so the toll revenues will benefit such citizens more than their wealthier counterparts.

stacey

communitybuilder wrote: From www.Bridgetolls.org:

The poor drive a lot less than the wealthy in New York City, owing to the high cost of insurance and parking, not to mention purchase and upkeep. In every borough but one, renter-households are less than half as likely to own a car than households that own their home. (Even in the one exception, Queens, the average home- owner household has 1.9 times as many cars as the average rental dwelling.) And drivers who commute on an East River bridge earn almost $15,000 a year more than their neighbors who don't.

Although exceptions can be found -- we are, after all, a city of eight million souls -- by and large, the free bridges (and free parking) are a subsidy enjoyed by more-affluent New Yorkers. Moreover, as Josh Mason of the Working Families Party has pointed out in City Limits, lower-income citizens tend to be heavier users of public services, so the toll revenues will benefit such citizens more than their wealthier counterparts.

Thanks Community but I would still like to know how they came up with this. Not doubting but l still find it hard to believe because like I said most people I know dont make a lot of money but own cars. $15,000 more a year can not be called "more affluent". But like the article says there are exceptions. I would just like to know how many Thanks for the link too I will be reading it in more detail

friendlypitbull

Community I think you are mixing apples and oranges -

A residential parking permit fee is a totally regressive fee (sorry Stacey but sliding scale is a logistical nightmare and isnt going to happen); the more you charge for the fee (and therefore the more effective it is in removing cars from the street) the more regressive. Charge a high enough fee and only the wealthy (here I speak of actual wealth not reletive wealth that you mention) will be able to afford cars and use the parking for which everyone - rich and poor alike 'own'

So while the relative wealth of car owners vs not, is an interesting statistic (do you have a cite) it is irrelevant to the regressive effect of high parking permit fees.

BTW - I am not saying that b/c it is elitest/regressive it shouldnt be done - only that it is regressive and people have to be honest about that - especially the protesting crowd who often laments that NYC is becoming only for the rich.

Your points about auto owners getting a free ride is also a common fallacy - car owners pay for roads and parking in terms of city, state and federal gasoline tax and extra cityy and state sales tax, as well as registration fees and toll fees (remeber are roads and bridges are often paid for and maintained with city, state and federal $).

You of course may have an argument that drivers dont pay enough relative to their societal cost but it is utterly false that car owners pay nothing and and are simply sycophants on the motoring system. And considering that 99.9% of those societal costs come from car operation and not 'parking' - if we are going to tax anything it should be usage (best measured by gas consumption)

Finally I believe you are wrong about parked cars as a buffer - benches cannot acted as a buffer since no one is going to want to sit next to moving traffic anymore than they want to walk next to it ; bollards besides being ugly simply do not provide the necessary distance that cars do; finally trees/landscaping can be effective but is honestly not practical on a mass scale anyway. If you want to create an active and safe urban street life retaining the street wall (with buildings) and having a lane of parked cars has been found to be the most effective method.

jamzer

Why is it that no one is talking about how these people allow their kids to play in the gutter?

Isn't that a little disgusting, even to protest the horrors of free car parking?

communitybuilder

First off, I'm guessing you don't have a kid. Kids get dirty, parents have "wipes," and that street doesn't look any dirtier than any other outdoor surface in Brooklyn. The dirt helps build the immune system, god bless 'em.

Second, kids in NYC used to be able to play in the street all the time. I grew up being able to play in the street. Every once in a while you shout "Car!" and go back to playing. This idea that the urban street is the sole domain of motor vehicles is a very new idea. That's why I think it's cool to see such a small, vulnerable kid happily playing in the street. Streets for people. Why not? How did we get to a place where it is more weird to see a kid playing on a neighborhood street than a freakin gigantic yellow Humvee?

carnivore

friendlypitbull wrote: You of course may have an argument that drivers dont pay enough relative to their societal cost but it is utterly false that car owners pay nothing and and are simply sycophants on the motoring system. And considering that 99.9% of those societal costs come from car operation and not 'parking' - if we are going to tax anything it should be usage (best measured by gas consumption)

Cry me a river. Cars are subsidized in a million ways, from the steel that goes into them, to road maintenance costs (which far exceed any taxes specific to car-owners), to the wars we fight to secure the oil to run them. There's no such thing as a right to a car (which is why the state can require a drivers license but not a pedestrian license). Car owners need to pay their fair share.
It's even more outrageous how many households have more than one car parked on the public streets. Maybe each household can get one free permit (free for spots that are currently free, such as on side streets), while all other cars have to pay fair market rates for the space they occupy. This would also be less regressive, targeting those wealthy enough to maintain 2 or more cars in the city.

pitu

you know, the parents of that baby have a car, and a curb cut
which they use freely as perma personal street parking in addition to access to their garage

:evil:

rose

pitu wrote: you know, the parents of that baby have a car, and a curb cut
which they use freely as perma personal street parking in addition to access to their garage

:evil:

Ah yes, Park Slope, the land of self-righteous hypocrisy.

Do they have a giant SUV with a "No Blood for Oil" bumper sticker?

armchair_warrior

communitybuilder wrote: First off, I'm guessing you don't have a kid. Kids get dirty, parents have "wipes," and that street doesn't look any dirtier than any other outdoor surface in Brooklyn. The dirt helps build the immune system, god bless 'em.

Second, kids in NYC used to be able to play in the street all the time. I grew up being able to play in the street. Every once in a while you shout "Car!" and go back to playing. This idea that the urban street is the sole domain of motor vehicles is a very new idea. That's why I think it's cool to see such a small, vulnerable kid happily playing in the street. Streets for people. Why not? How did we get to a place where it is more weird to see a kid playing on a neighborhood street than a freakin gigantic yellow Humvee?

i agree i grew up playing stick ball, roofa ball(how ever you spell it) and tag and hide and seek. hell those cars were great for bases.

jamzer

For the love of all that is holy - I was kidding around Community.

I do have a kid, and when he is old enough, I will let him play all kinds of games in the street. I promise. Now that he is 2 and likes to put everything he touches in his mouth, I keep him out of the gutter and dog urinals (AKA tree pits).