Park Slope Permit Parking

Why shouldn't those of us with a car kick in a little towards street maintenance? Why should people who only take the subways have to be taxed for that? NYC is heading towards a fiscal crisis...

So you would agree that people who only drive should not have to be taxed to support the subways and buses?

We are all taxed for everything ... and no one should be taxed twice... not those who take the subways and not those who drive.

BTW, drivers are already taxed twice... the tolls they pay on bridges and tunnels go into the general budget... they are not used solely to repair the bridges, tunnels or roadways, all of which are underfunded and falling apart.

The difference is irrelevant. The $2 subway and bus fares are used only (AFAIK) for subway and bus maintenance, but the $7 tunnel and $4 bridge tolls are not used exclusively for roadway or bridge maintenance. Drivers are forced to subsidize public transit; the reverse is not true.

sweet tea wrote: we all subsidize roadways, on a federal as well as a state level.

Right, neither the mta, through fare collection for transit and tolls for the bridges division, nor NYCDOT road and bridge construction through city taxes, could stand on their own without state and federal money.

sweet tea wrote: and while it's possible to avoid owning a car in nyc, it's not possible to avoid paying tolls, etc., since the cost of transportation is contained in the price of everything for sale.

okay, but that cost should be pretty evenly distributed among everyone that pays for any good - they all have externalities built into them.

But this started with booklaw's contention that car owners already pay (through city taxes and presumably tolls) for the privilege of parking, and should not have to pay again in order to get a residential parking permit.

There are a couple of things wrong with this.

First, everyone (for the most part) pays taxes toward the building and maintenance of roads, and we all benefit from having good roads. But if a car owner's taxes are payment for the privilege of parking on the street then what does a non-car owner get for those same taxes? Can I break up the street in front of my home and plant an 6'x10' patch of grass? So that argument does not work. Now, a car owner does pay some tax that a non-car owner does not, such as the gasoline tax and tolls. However, directly paying tolls is pretty easily avoidable by using the untolled crossings, and that toll money goes to MTA anyway, not DOT, so it can't really be counted as payment for parking on a city street. Similarly, the gasoline tax is mostly state and federal, so it is not reasonable call that payment for a parking privilege.

Second, as I mentioned before, if you were to calculate the market cost of a yearly parking space and compare it to one's actual tax burden you would see that your taxes vastly undervalue the cost of an on street parking space.

At no time did I argue that our taxes entitle us to a dedicated parking space... just that the city should not tax us (or toll us, for that matter) for street parking.

Again, we are all allowed to walk in the park and on the city sidewalks, and none of us is charged for the privilege. Not all of us actually walk in the park, and some rarely walk on the sidewalks.

The fact that some people don't own cars, but still pay city and state taxes, is no more compelling than the argument that people who don't use Prospect Park (or Central Park) should pay lower taxes.

Or perhaps we should only be allowed to walk on sidewalks in our own neighborhood, and then only if we buy a special permit?

I don't like the idea of Balkanizing neighborhoods by limiting parking to residents of those neighborhoods, so I would dislike even free permits (although admittedly not as much as I dislike paid permits).

And the sidewalks?? Shouldn't runners have to pay a special fee for their use of the sidewalks?

And the bicyclists? Shouldn't they be taxed for their use of dedicated bike lanes?

A political decision has obviously been made to reduce the number of cars in the city by making cars even more inconvenient and expensive to own and drive; all of the rationalizations (even yours) don't make it fair.

One reason I can love Park Slope, even though it is part of a city I have otherwise detested for the 40 years that my career has required me to be here, is that my car enables me to get out of the city when my sanity requires it. Without the car, I could not live in New York.

Why do I detest New York? The population density. The fact that no matter what one decides to do, or when one decides to do it, a couple of thousand other people have the same bright idea, and thus it is necessary to plan ahead, to buy tickets months in advance, to leave an hour earlier than one would have to anywhere else, so as to allow time for travel delays and to negotiate long lines before getting to one's destination.

Prospect Park and the Botanical Gardens are absolutely beautiful, and I love and use them. But they are no substitute for the countryside, or for the Catskills and the Adirondacks. I've enjoyed Reese Park and Manhattan Beach, but I prefer less crowded beaches.

I take the subway back and forth to Manhattan every weekday, and I have no problem with that. But if I had to take the subway into the city (or to Astoria, for that matter) on a Saturday night, or to City Island on a Sunday afternoon, I'd rather stay home.

When I go to Boston or DC, I like to drive. Admittedly, I could take Amtrak, but then I'd be limited to public transportation when I got there. Those choices don't even exist when I want to ski in New Hampshire, Vermont, or Western Pennsylvania, or to visit friends in Long Beach Island or the suburbs of Philly.

Those people who refer to cars as a "luxury" must have very limited horizons. They are a luxury only if you rarely leave the five boroughs.

So if you decide to force car owners to give up their cars, you make the city less desirable to people who have lived elsewhere (as I did for my first 22 years) and grew accustomed to the freedom of driving, as well as to people who depend on cars to get to jobs or recreation outside of the city boundaries.

"Since I don't live in the Slope, I don't care too much but don't want Park Slope people coming to Windsor Terrace to park when they can't find places on the alternate side parking days in the gated community of the Slope."

of course windsor terrace car owners never park in our gated community?

I'm all for the permits, especially for, as someone mentioned, all the workers from the methodist. It's worked well in other states so we should give it a try.

I totally disagree. Sidewalks take up space that could otherwise be used for traffic lanes... or for lawns. Bike lanes could otherwise be used for traffic lanes. Cars get excluded from Prospect Park so that runners can run without fumes.

No use is inherently more pure than any other. It's all a question of politics... who imposes their priorities on whom else.

Don't feel sorry for me... living in this unlivable city has enabled me to enjoy a wonderful career I could not have had anywhere else. I have no regrets.

booklaw wrote: I totally disagree. Sidewalks take up space that could otherwise be used for traffic lanes... or for lawns. Bike lanes could otherwise be used for traffic lanes. Cars get excluded from Prospect Park so that runners can run without fumes.

No use is inherently more pure than any other. It's all a question of politics... who imposes their priorities on whom else.

Don't feel sorry for me... living in this unlivable city has enabled me to enjoy a wonderful career I could not have had anywhere else. I have no regrets.

Well I don't have a car, but by your logic, I should be entitled to install an automobile-sized storage locker for some of my stuff in one of the street parking spaces. Surely you don't think that that public storage space should be reserved exclusively for people who own automobiles, do you? I mean, we all pay the taxes that maintain that space.

We all use the streets whether you have a car or not, whether it is parked on the street or not. The taxes that go to street maintenance that we pay are for everyone's use not just privately owned vehicles. If you don't have a car you are using the street when you buy groceries or just about anything else - how do you think this stuff gets in to the stores? The idea that "i don't have a car so my taxes are subsidizing the people that have one" is silly. I had a car and parked it on the street but it was stolen. Is my life easier now that I don't have to deal with parking in "no park slope"? Yes but at the same time my wife and I are very bothered by our inability to visit people outside of the 5 boros. I have many friends in New Jersey, family in Long Island. We would love to get away from the city from time to time and not having a car makes it impossible. Don't give me the speech about renting cars, it's expensive and quite a hassle. We want to get another car but we don't want to be price gouged by a garage and waste our time looking for parking constantly. Permit parking does make sense in some ways but it needs to make sense for everyone. Right now the situation is awful and it needs alot of help. Oh and for the people that register the cars out of state to save some money there is a big risk. If you car is stolen or damaged the insurance company may easily deny your claim.

Subject: Re: Parking permits are not in keeping with the NYC traditio

charlesbklyn wrote: The people advocating parking permits don't sound like New Yorkers. ...

booklaw wrote: A political decision has obviously been made to reduce the number of cars in the city by making cars even more inconvenient and expensive to own and drive; all of the rationalizations (even yours) don't make it fair.

One reason I can love Park Slope, even though it is part of a city I have otherwise detested for the 40 years that my career has required me to be here. ...

Now that sounds like a New Yorker!