Sometimes in government, issues are matters of principal, with vast ideological gulfs dividing opposing sides. Other times, and particularly when it comes to city concerns, the concern is one of balance. The right answer is not to go to one extreme or another, but rather to accommodate the needs of both sides. One such example is now a concern on Beacon Hill.
Last May temporary no parking signs appeared along a good stretch of West Cedar Street. The signs announced that parking would not be permitted for two weeks due to construction. Anyone parking in the prohibited area would have their cars towed.
Residents accustomed to the vagaries of construction and the Transportation Department moved to comply. On the day that construction was to have been completed, someone taped over the expiration date and wrote in a new date, extending the no parking period another two weeks.
Four months later, the signs are still up and parking is still prohibited. Once-tolerant neighbors are now angry, particularly since the only construction parking apparent is that of the personal vehicles of the contractor.
The West Cedar Street problem is not unique. Temporary no parking signs are posted all over the Hill. According to the Transportation Department, vastly more Beacon Hill residential parking stickers have been issued than there are spaces available. This makes an open resident parking space as highly prized as gold. The temporary parking restrictions cut into their availability. This is particularly aggravating when the temporary period stretches for months and residents can discern little construction activity in the area.
Right now, construction-related no parking signs are issued to virtually any contractor who asks for one. The fee for the permit is small, only $25, and the time of the restriction can be extended indefinitely by contractors if they say they need it. The restrictions are for virtually anything, including moving, the location of a construction dumpster, or construction vehicle parking.
What is the solution? Moving to the other extreme — prohibiting temporary no-parking bans — would exert enormous hardships on the business community, homeowners and property owners who are trying to renovate and even those who are trying to move. But some better balance is needed, one that accommodates the needs of contractors while avoiding the apparent abuse that occurs today.
Most people would agree that a one-day ban on parking to permit someone to move is reasonable. Most would also agree that a construction-related ban to allow parking of a dumpster is also reasonable, provided that time limits be placed on their use. Similarly, parking bans to allow for use of heavy equipment and the like are also sensible.
On the other hand, it does not make sense to have parking bans simply for the sake of a contractor’s convenience. As it is, Boston permits commercial vehicles to park in residential spaces. This is sufficient. There is no need to take over residential parking spaces to make contractors’ walks to work a little bit shorter.
Finally, time limits should be enforced. No parking permits should not be extended in duration unless full justification for doing so is made to the Transportation Department.