Community Featured Transportation

Reader Poll: Should Boston Residents Pay for Parking Permits?

At-Large Councilor Michelle Wu is pitching the idea of an annual fee, potentially up to $100, for residents to obtain parking permits. This money could then be used to fund transportation projects. Read the hearing order from the city council meeting here.

Currently, Boston residents looking to parking their cars in their neighborhood need only to fill out a one-page application and prove their permanent residency to receive a free resident parking sticker. Some may argue this has led to an overwhelming number of permits, such as in the North End where there are close to 4,000 issued to compete for about 1,500 spots.

Proponents of the resident parking permit fee suggest this will discourage some people from getting permits, leading to less competition for spots. Opponents worry about the extra expense and how the money will be used. There are other conundrums to be figured out as well, such as what to do if there are more permits than parking spots.

What do you think? Should Boston residents pay to park? Vote in our poll and add your comments below.

Note: Web polls are not scientific, representing only those readers who choose to vote.

127 Replies to “Reader Poll: Should Boston Residents Pay for Parking Permits?

  1. For a guaranteed spot, of course I would pay $100! Oh wait, 4,000 permits for 1,500 spots makes that notion impossible. So no deal! What’s our new councilor’s position on this outrages idea? Would these “transportation” projects even benefit the vehicle owning residents of the North End? Or would they build another useless cycle track?

    1. Exactly,,,, there are not enough parking spaces for residents as it is,, they are now using the “fix the sidewalks” with the money BS … isn’t that what our tax money is for…?

    2. If you’d like a guaranteed spot, then you should buy one (or move to the ‘burbs).

      Then again, the City could simply auction off 1,500 permits, and then you would be guaranteed to have a spot somewhere in the neighborhood. Of course, I’m sure you’d find the auction price to be far higher than $100.

  2. We already pay a lot of taxes on our vehicles. Gas tax, sales tax, excise tax, service tax etc. this is to much. Not everybody who lives in this neighborhood is rich. There are lower and middle class families here. I understand the concept but taxing the people should not be it

    1. These fees do not begin to cover the cost of road maintenance let alone externalities (environmental harm, worsening public health, etc.).

      In 2015, the US Public Interest Research Group found that the average household pays $1,100 per year–“over and above any gas taxes or other fees they pay that are connected with driving”–to pay for roads. Every household pays this amount, no matter how much members of the household drive. Drivers pay “less than half the total cost of roads.”

      For more, read:

  3. $100 for a parking permit is outrageous. Cambridge charges $8. Do we dare say that living in the NE is getting much too expensive??

  4. I support a small fee for permit. And for multiple permits for a person, a very high fee. But really want an annual review of handicap placards. Lots of dead folks still need pole position parking.

    1. why should someone who has multple cars in their name pay a very high fee? what if you have four cars. you, your spouse, and 2 grown children who all need to drive to work. the cars just all are registered in your name. just curious .

      1. A high fee would be a deterrent to floods of cars on our streets. In your example, if this were city policy, I would sell my family some cars for $1. The family in just this example would have to make some accommodations. But the others who have multiple cars that park on our streets and don’t move except for street cleaning, would have to pay.

        1. I understand your scenario, still don’t think it’s right. and there will still be 4 cars parked on the street.

  5. i would gladly pay $100 for a resident sticker so long as the city starts towing every single car that is illegally parked and does a full audit of handicap spaces (and those with very questionable placards). too many parking spaces are being used and abused by these things.

  6. No way….enforcement of resident parking permits is random as it is now.

    Give back a couple of blocks that are now valet on Hanover St and I may think about it. I actually saw a valet sign moved across the street the other night so it was positioned in front of Umberto’s so people were afraid to use the spots around it. The valets just put the sign there so they could easily maneuver U-turns from Il Panino and park cars for people that were ready to pick up their car. It’s got totally out of control.

  7. A $ 100 fee for a resident parking spot? That’s absurd. When you consider that the owner of a motor vehicle in this state and the fees they pay their comes a time when enough is enough. What I would like to see is the termination of the “saved spot” policy when their is snow and I agree on a crackdown on illegal parking and the abuse of the handicapped parking spots.

    1. These fees do not begin to cover the cost of road maintenance let alone externalities (environmental harm, worsening public health, etc.).

      In 2015, the US Public Interest Research Group found that the average household pays $1,100 per year–“over and above any gas taxes or other fees they pay that are connected with driving”–to pay for roads. Every household pays this amount, no matter how much members of the household drive. Drivers pay “less than half the total cost of roads.”

      I agree that the spot savers are ridiculous. You can’t reserve the public space.

      For more, read:

  8. I agree with all of the above comments. This proposal by counsel woman Wu is just another foolish plan to suck more bucks from NE Residents! Remember that temporary Excise Tax that we continue to pay, jobs lost at all toll roads/bridges? Wu seems to epitomize the, Taxichusetts label! Bad, Bad, etc.!!!

      1. Jared…. let’s just say we pay 100.00 for a parking spot and someone without a resident sticker parks in these resident spots which they do….. what happens then???? Do you own a car????
        Do you realize the fights and commotion it would cause?

      2. Jared, lets just say the fee passes. if everyone pays the fee, you still have 4000 stickers and 1500 spots. say 1000 people dont get stickers, some may park in a garage,which they would have done in the first place but that’s a different story, now you’re down to 3000 stickers and still 1500 spots. It’s just my opinion that nothing will change the status quo.

  9. Sort of lacks information regarding what would happen when you find someone without a sticker taking a spot. There is not much enforcement currently when a tourist takes a resident spot. Using the money for transportation projects. I would rather use the money to address the lack of parking issues. This sounds like a means of extracting more money from the community and sending it somewhere else.

  10. If they audited and enforced the actual resident stickers they should be able to pay for these transportation projects… such an obtuse proposal…

    1. It’s not just about fees, but about the ridiculous status quo: 4,000 permits for 1,500 spots. That does not make sense.

  11. $100 equates to about $0.25 a day. i hope most of this outrage is over the principal and not the amount. good grief.

  12. $100 is too low, WAY too low.

    Consider that visitors, guests, and residents from other parts of the city would need to pay $4,695 per year* to have the same ability to park their car 24 hours/day, 365 days/year on the same city streets where you can park for free all day, night, and year.

    I get that residents should have a discount (after all we pay property taxes, etc.), but a nearly 200% discount is laughable.

    As for the Councilor Wu’s proposal, I fully expect people to whine about something they get for free today. But if you can’t afford $3.65 per day for the privilege to park your car 365 days per year on the public street, then you can’t afford to own a car.

    *metered spaces are uniformly $1.25/hour, but the city does not charge for parking on Sundays and from 8 PM to 8 AM.

      1. Yes, I do. Then again, a willingness to pay $1.25/hour at a meter also lacks a guarantee of a open spot. If you really want a guaranteed spot, then I suggest moving to a home in the ‘burbs with a driveway.

        Ideally, we would follow San Francisco’s dynamic parking approach, which increases the price of on-street and garage parking in high demand areas during peak periods, and decreases rates during off-peak periods. The goal is to set the price at a level such that some on-street spots are available, so that fewer drivers are clogging streets by circling the block looking for a spot.

        For more, read this:

    1. Jared while you are at it please add up the figures of how much revenue vehicles add to our economy. Not just through sales, gas, and excise taxes but also through the ability to be truly mobile.

      Your “numbers” are just numbers. Skewed in your favor. Tells no full story.

      1. I welcome those numbers, but I’ll let you argue the other side of a debate. In your research, I hope you also deduct the costs of sitting in traffic, on public health (e.g., asthma, obesity, diabetes), on the environment (pollution and greenhouse gas emissions), on military excursions to secure oil supplies (lives and dollars), and on household budgets in any numbers you present.

  13. I am not opposed to paying for a parking permit if it is spent on something that would benefit the North End. That being said there are plenty of other things that should be taken into consideration before this. We have too many handicap spots in North End. I know of people who have been dead for 10 plus years that still have a spot outside of their house. I also know of people who haven’t actually lived in the north end in years and still have stickers. valet companies park cars wherever they please, motorcycles take up whole parking spaces, we have zip cars taking up spaces on commercial street when they should be paying to park, there are areas with fire hydrants within 10 feet of each other eliminating spots, a bike lane that didn’t help, and it also doesn’t help that there can be 10 different construction sites in this neighborhood at any given time. Fix all that before you charge people.

    1. Drivers pay “less than half the total cost of roads” and that includes “any gas taxes or other fees they pay that are connected with driving.” Why should general property taxes make up the difference when not everyone owns a car?

  14. Come talk to me when you require a fee for bicycle lane use. Until then, we’re basically funding their race track.

    1. Fortunately, the cost of riding a bike–in road maintenance alone and not capturing environmental and public health impacts–has already been calculated.

      For every $1 worth of damage that the typical car does to a road per 1,000 miles traveled, a bicycle does $0.0005862 worth of damage.

      If we ignore the myriad taxes that people who ride bikes pay to support public roads, and you still insist on charging an appropriate fee, then I would be happy to charge $0.01 for every 17,000 miles ridden to cover the cost of wear and tear on the roadway.

      On the other hand, the U.S. PIRG Education Fund calculated in 2015 that the average household paid $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees—to pay for roads, whether or not they owned a car. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an extra $1,100 in your pocket?

      For more, read this:

      1. Jared is a biker. Ugh. Our property taxes paid for the bike lane that very few people, and even less North End residents use. Our property taxes should pay for us to park our cars.

        1. I neither own a bike nor have a bikeshare membership. I appreciate bike lanes because they narrow the streets, making it harder for people to speed through our neighborhood. It’s a safety issue for me.

          1. OK! So assuming that you are referring to automobile drivers who “speed through our neighborhood” how do you resolve the double jeopardy of speeding irresponsible bicycle riders. Those individuals (not all but too many) who do not adhere to the rules of the road and are oblivious to traffic signals?

            1. I don’t like it when anyone speeds, especially since I’m the one walking that they might hit. That said, several studies have found that people on bikes break the rules just as often as people in cars (and likely as often as people on foot). I suppose the big difference is whether I’m going to die if someone hits me.

              I’d bet that a person inside a 4,000 lb car that can go 100+ mph is more likely to kill me. It doesn’t even need to happen at high speeds. AAA found that a person hit by a car traveling 25 mph has a 10% risk of dying and 50% risk if the car is going 40 mph.

              Something interesting about when people on bikes break the rules is that more than 70% of the time they were doing so in order to stay safe (study linked below). 77% of time people in cars break the rules it’s to save time (e.g., run a red light, rolling stop, speed, etc.).

              All that said, 40,000 people died in car crashes in 2016. How many people did bicyclists kill?

              2017 study about breaking the rules:

              AAA study:

          2. jared just add speed bumps. i afree about the speeding. in cambridge and other areas they have raised crosswalks.

    2. Operating a bicycle in the city is a lot less expensive than operating a car. Boston overall isn’t a safe city to ride a bike in. Too many narrow streets along with the reputation for having the nations worst drivers (well earned). Bikes in major cities are a trending thing. Mayor Mennino had a web site named Bike Boston. This is where the bike lanes and ultimately the bike track comes from. Simply painting the lanes was useless and dangerous. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to dodge some tourist on a Hubway while walking down a sidewalk.

      1. Building these lanes makes biking in the city safer each day. When it’s safer to bike, more people do so. For example, DC tripled the number of people biking to work each day by investing in bikeshare plus bike infrastructure, at a clip of 5 miles per year. As of last December, the city had built 80 miles of bike lanes since 2000.

        For more, read this:

        As for Boston’s infamously “narrow” cow paths, that’s really only the case in the North End and a few other parts of the city. For the most part, the city has wide, gridded streets like the Back Bay and South End. The late 1800s streetcar suburbs of Dorchester, Roxbury, and West Roxbury also have wider streets because they were built to accommodate surface streetcars.

        Still, on narrower streets it’s arguably safer to bike and walk because their constricted design discourages people from speeding on them.

        1. Bikers and skateboarders LOVE gliding/riding on our narrow streets to the detriment of pedestrians who have no choice but to walk on the street. Oh and “cow paths”? Our narrow streets are “one horse” streets unique to downtown Boston Proper. Look it up!

        2. Really need to let the drivers know about the speed limits. And what stop signs mean. The corner of Lewis and Commercial is really dangerous, enough that I hate to see them fix the potholes. We need to bring the cows back.

      2. In a perfect world those on bicycles would follow the rules of the road, not ride in the middle of the street, stop at red lights, yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, ride in the bike lane rather than a sidewalk when the bike lane is 10 feet away, don’t go up one way streets and then not stop at the intersection, etc. but alas, this is not a perfect world. It is also not Beijing where bicycles are common but rather Boston where bikes are about 3% of the vehicles on streets that were made for cars, trucks and buses.

        1. Many of the streets–aside from modern highways–were made for people on foot, horseback or in carriages. Those same streets are paved because bicycle groups lobbied for them to be paved in the late 1800s to enable smoother rides.

  15. As for property taxes to pay to park cars, that’s an interesting one. Since there are only 1,500 spots on the street in the North End and 4,000 permits, does that mean we should tear down some buildings to make room for the 2,500 cars that do not have a spot?

    To tear down fewer buildings, we could even build a 2,500-spot parking garage. Sure, a garage costs around $30,000 per space to construct (let alone maintain), but we can cut funding to all other services to make up the difference!

    1. Totally disagree! This forum opens up an educational experience for all residents both those who have lived her for generations and those new to our great city.

  16. I live on a part of the waterfront that doesn’t even have permit parking. I mean I literally can’t get a sticker based on my address. Talk about unfair. $100 a year sounds pretty good compared to what I go thru and pay.

  17. Because of one person this poll and question has turned into the tired bike vs auto argument. The question was should Boston residents be charged $100 to obtain a resident parking sticker? The answer of course is no. The reason ? We residents of MA + Boston have been gouged enough by the State House and City Hall paying endless taxes and fees. For years they have been trying to pass a bill to charge motorists for miles driven. As I wrote earlier when is enough, enough?

    1. Maybe when there is enough money to pay for all of our outstanding obligations for road maintenance. We’re not there yet!

      1. Jared you are right. I used to ride a bike every day and it was great. Then I turned 16 and I became an adult and bought a car!!!

        1. I bet you’re earning more than you were at 16 too, so you wouldn’t mind paying for the privilege to park in the public space. Of course, if you want endless free parking, then I’m sure the ‘burbs would welcome you with open arms.

  18. Ok , so you pay 100.00 for a sticker. The Norht End is an urban area. it’s not like before where families occupied a building so they may have had only 1 car. now you have multiple families in that same building and they each own a car. where do you expect us to park?(speaking to the city,not anyone on this thread) you think that residents will pay 300. a month to park in a garage or 100. a year to park on the street. nothing will change, eccept the city will be TAXING us again. call it what it is. also, i work out of the city, i can’t bike to work, nor use the T. now what? And as far as handicapped spots. they are not legally for a specific person. anyone with a handicap placard can park in those spots, even out of state placards. do I think some should be removed? if there are 5 spots on one block maybe. With all the builing going on, build a North End only Parking Garage. stop with the resident buildings surrouding the North End…

    1. “The North End is an urban area” Correct. If your household needs to own several cars then, fortunately, we invented a place with ample parking–it’s called the suburbs. Consider moving there.

      1. Now why would I do that? I was born and raised here. I raised my children here. i”m not going anywhere. Thanks for the advice though!

    2. MC you are incorrect about handicapped parking spots.Only the person who is issued the permit can use them.They must be driving the car or a passenger in it.The placard has a photo of the handicapped person on it plus an expiration date .Of course the State provides a “sleeve ” which allows a person to cover their photo? So this is the reason you see a healthy 20 something using a handicap placard .Like everything else in this city zero enforcement of blatant abuse.

      1. That’s not true. I live at 15 thatcher and my cousin’s step-sister can use our handicap spot because we have the same grandpa.

      2. I know that part of the law reguarding the card has to match the passenger. I meant that if you and I both have legal handicap placards, and there is 1 handicap spot in front of my house. you or i can park in that spot. it is not my spot…

  19. No fee things will not change and a big mistake on the bicycle lane it’s to large and it took space for the cars.

  20. Thanks Jared. I learned a lot from you responses. I think parking fees could reduce the number of new students and young professionals from bringing cars to the neighborhood. Rescuing the number of new vehicles coming to compete for spots will probably be a good thing overall.

    1. or reduce the number of old residents from keeping cars. why should new residents be precluded from having cars? they pay to live here like everybody else, and probably pay more in most cases.

      1. are you serious about taking cars away from the elderly? the topic was should there be a fee. yes or no. that’s it. YES or NO? while you’re at it tell the elderly they have to get out of the North End. How about stopping new people from having cars. You want to move here you can’t have a vehicle. we all pay to live here. I said it before. nothing will change as far as parking goes no matter if a fee goes into affect or not. you may get a few people to pay 300.00 a month to park in a garage, but I doubt it.

        1. Truth,would like to ” remove”old residents or anything or anybody that was a part of the old NE including the feasts.Regardless of the topic he ALWAYS takes a shot at “oldtime” residents.

        2. so old residents can have cars, but new residents cannot have cars. do you really think that makes any sense?

          1. You brought it up about taking cars away from older residents. does that make sense. I was being sarcastic.

  21. Here’s what people need to understand. The $100 per year will make no difference in traffic mitigation. It won’t make traffic any better on Hanover and commercial st. The money collected won’t clean the air or reduce global warming. Chances are it won’t even free up that many parking spaces.

    The only thing this tax will accomplish will be burdening the elderly, middle class, and lower class with another unneeded tax. They will be the ones truly effected.

    1. If the parking fee is set a level where fewer people register cars to park on the street for “free”, then it could reduce gridlock.

      16 studies conducted between 1927-2001 found that, on average, 30% of the cars in congested downtown traffic were circling the block looking for parking.

      That figure comes from Donald Shoup, a professor at UCLA known for his book The High Cost of Free Parking. Vox has a short video with him that gives the highlights:

      Of course, if we truly want to free up street parking, we need to implement dynamic pricing for on-street parking like San Francisco and parts of downtown Washington, DC.

      1. Great idea. San fransisco is a great example. SF has the highest rental prices in the country. Their rental prices almost double the North End. Middle class families can’t live there due to foolish ideas like “dynamic parking”.

        “$4000 for a studio is a little steep but hey at least there is a parking spot down the street!!!”

      2. Nice try. The housing affordability crunch is due to a shortage of homes in the Bay Area, not a shortage of parking.

    2. if someone can afford to live in the north end AND have a car, they can certainly afford $100 a year. let’s be serious. this is downtown boston, not calcutta.

      1. Who are you to make that assumption? Just because you are financially stable doesn’t mean everybody is. Whether it be a college student paying off debt or an elderly person with an old car living off of a social security check, not everybody is made of money.

        Your excuse is used for every tax that is suggest or implemented. “It’s a small amount you can afford it”. Well all these little taxes add up and hurt middle class citizens. You should do more to understand the struggles of middle/lower class citizens.

        1. $100 a year? if you are that hard up for money, especially those poor college graduates with students loans (i know, i am one), then maybe you should move to a less expensive neighborhood if $100 a year is going to tip the scale that much. like most issues, this probably isn’t about the money or the parking permit, but is about how the neighborhood just isn’t what it was 50 years ago. boo hoo.

          1. Hmm I don’t really recall myself making any comments about this neighborhood 50 years ago. Do you? Are you trying to change the subject?

            I am making a legitimate argument from the perspective of a middle/lower class resident (which there are still many). You have resorted to a fictitious argument about “the neighborhood 50 years ago”.

            yes you are right this tax alone will not break the wallet of most people. However, this is not the only tax and fee residents pay. This tax added on to others fees will lie on the shoulders of the middle and lower class. If we allow to be taxed on parking spots then what is next?

            1. We old time North enders understand the meaning of ” the neighborhood of 50 years ago” comment.

  22. Just another form of Greed & we can’t let the City get away with this, among the other issues.

    I rhink this extremely small neighborhood should have only Resident Parking & let the Visitors & the Tourist
    Pay to Park. Time to PROTEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. It is long overdue.

      1. Save your stats and studies Jared. When are you going to realize that maybe people just don’t want to pay another $100 tax? And they shouldn’t have to listen to you consistently tell them to move to the suburbs. Don’t like the long time resident complaints? Maybe it’s you that should move.

      2. Enough about moving to the suburbs Jared. I said it before, i’m not going anywhere. I honestly believe paying for a resident sticker will not change the situation. you will always have more cars than spots. even if you charge for the sticker, you wont lose too many cars parking on the street.

  23. I have to wonder how much this program costs to administer? It appears to me that the Councilor is just throwing out a number. I might agree with this program if it were to pay for itself if the cost manufacture, staffing and distribution could be recovered. Those who don’t have cars or park on the street won’t have to subsidize those that do.

    Whatever the Councilor is proposing doesn’t appear to be well thought out. Sounds like she came up with a number and a vague suggestion of what to do with the money. I doubt whether this has a real chance of being approved, but goes to show how easy it is for the elected to propose more taxes without stating a substantial need for the money.

    1. There’s an existing cost to administering the “free” residential parking permit program. Any fee would help pay for–if not exceed–the administrative cost. If you’re saying the fee should be higher, then I agree.

      1. I wasn’t recommending a cost, since I have no idea what it costs to administer the program. The real cost is the missing component. The $100 figure seems like a shot in the dark and what is done with the money raised sounds like it is going to pet projects. If a fee is to be assessed, do it based on some real life information. But my gut feel is if it is more than $100 per permit then we should be looking at costs, not fees.

  24. Why is it that so many politicians who are elected to serve the people are always trying to take money out of their pockets? If it’s not new fees or taxes then it’s another “leader” telling us that people living here illegally should be able to vote. We have other “leaders” who continue to over build in Seaport when claiming that global warming will be causing high tides and flooding in …………Seaport! Now I know why politics is defined as the last refuge of the incompetent.

    1. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society” – Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

      There’s also no such thing as a free lunch

      1. Holmes wasn’t around when there was a Tea Party going on. Also, he was just another government employee who was paid with other peoples, hard earned (especially in those days), money.

  25. What is going on with theses Politicians that we elect, yes, we elect to help and serve the people instead all they are doing is nickel and dimeing us one way or another. Property taxes were just raised take the money from that. Every time you turn around they are trying to impose more fees. The streets are disgusting, rats running ramped, lighting is out in the lanterns at every turn fix those issues leave the permit parking alone. Not to mention paying a sticker that doesn’t even guarantee to a space really now?

    1. Its like going into a restaurant paying for dinner and the waiter tells you may get your order or you may not.

  26. I pay monthly to park in a Garage. These are my feelings, The No. End had quite a few things taken away.
    No. Washington St. is divided, half is No. End & other half is West End, just to mention “1” thing. If anyone should have to pay to
    park it certainly shouldn’t be the residents, young or old, longtime resident or a newcomer. Charity starts at HOME. Let the Visitors &
    Tourists Pay to Park. Residents are paying outrageous rents & now they want you to pay $100 for a resident
    stickers. This is Insanity, whether you can afford or not. The No. End is Home to many of us, not just a
    Pit Stop. The Snow Removal, Trash, Rodents, Illegally Park Cars, Noise, Removing a Trash Day, & now Paying for Residents Stickers.
    What the hell are they doing with the Money they already have?

  27. This is truly another pressing issue of city living. Firstly, I’m certain the current program is faulty in the sense that prior residents have stickers and abuse the system until the sticker is out dated.We have too many valet spots in the neighborhood, handicap spots are abused and business owners not residing in the area hold stickers….not a good idea…imposing a 100 fee for parking to residents is a bit much- it would be a revenue booster for the city to see that current meter maids were actually a bit more vigilant in their work, perhaps more spots would be available to the residents by deterring illegal parking. I would agree that obtaining an unlimited number of stickers is a little over the top- perhaps 3 per family at no charge-over and above you can probably afford a 100dollar annual sticker if you can afford all that car insurance. Owner/occupiers should be exempt from additional fees- these are the people that are the foundation in this neighborhood. They are the people who are picking up the excess trash, calling 311 for neighborhood issues and they are the people who make up the essence of community. Owner/occupiers pay the taxes and we need to focus on what is best for this community and it is about time the city treats the life long residents with some care and concern. Imposing a fee is not unreasonable to those with excessive amounts of vehicles-but honestly the city should spend time cleaning up their act with the policies already in place.

  28. For those who are paying property taxes in the area you should be granted a max of 4 stickers or so. The renters- should have a nominal fee perhaps 50annually- per sticker. The owner/occupier should be entitled to submit for additional stickers based on occupancy. Business proprietiers should not be issued a resident sticker. Honestly, look into the current problems before imposing fees- how about accountable and present meter maid- less valet spots- make better what you have before you start tapping everyone around you-and yes handicap spot abuse is a problem-
    The life long residents should be take care of and listened to- they are the ones advocating for the community- pickin up the trash the city workers don’t get, calling 311 for incidents – the owner/occupiers keep what little we have in some order

    1. There aren’t enough spots as it is and we really need to encourage fewer cars. Should be only 1 permit per household. 3 or 4 is absurd.

      1. Jared- a family who pays taxes to reside in the neighborhood should receive additional stickers- if your renting then only one sticker should be permitted.

      2. Show your car registration – not bill – that will cut down on cars- no 2 year permits renew annually – then let the meter maids do their job

    2. let me guess, you don’t think life long residents abuse the handicap spaces? in my experience, they are the ones that abuse it the most!!

    3. 3 or 4 permits per household is absurd. We’re in the middle of a dense and densifying city. There aren’t enough parking spots as it is and we really need to encourage fewer cars. Should be 1 $100 permit per household, pay much more for additional.

  29. It should be free to those with residential exemption. Meaning the own and pay taxes for the property I’m which is their primary residence. Additional and and all others should pay.

    1. i think you may be get push back from all the renters who are indirectly paying for taxes and mortgages in neighborhood…

  30. Folks right now anyone who registers a car can have a sticker- if I have 10 Cars registered I can have 10 stickers- how is it then limiting a family to 3 or 4 absurd

      1. And the current program would allow it – families may need more than 1 -Dave, be realistic this is not Beijing- we are blessed not to have the restriction of one car per family. Back to topic 100 is outrageous.!

  31. Honestly -the city should be sure your car is registered in Boston show your registration when you get a sticker not a bill and bank statement-this would save a lot of illegal spots being take

  32. Your insurance designates your residency- high insurance for Bostonians- why doesn’t the city request what really determines residency-

    1. A resident parking permit or sticker is for a specific neighborhood not all of Boston.If a person should move out of a specific neighborhood they should have apply for a new sticker.Maybe its just me but I have noticed that the enforcement of illegally parked vehicles in some neighborhoods has been non existing since Walsh became mayor.But when it comes to street cleaning they dont play around.

  33. This may come as a surprise to some people .handicapped placards are free and one of the perks is you can park at any meter and not pay a penny anywhere in the state.

  34. Conundrum or Rubik’s Cube.
    The resident permit parking issue has been a problem for decades in Boston’s neighborhoods.
    We have no comprehensive plan to solving this Rubik’s cube.
    After quickly surfing the web to view past articles on the resident permit parking dilemma, we can easily see that the cities efforts have been to focus on residents to either walk, bike or take public transportation. The first thought that came into my mind was that the city had not put many resources into the resident parking issues.
    After reading several more articles that major cities across the globe face, I realized that it is simply just basic math.
    Supply and demand.
    So what type of resources would actually make sense, or would even be feasible, can some improvements or progress be made?
    I guess the big question is? will charging residents a yearly fee for resident parking permits be productive in any type of
    solution or plan the cities transportation department has set forth or implemented.
    The problem here is we have not seen any planning.
    After the supply and demand dilemma, the human condition then makes up the rest of the squares on this Rubik’s Cube. The spaces are no different from any other asset or commodity. Unfortunately the city cannot control how we behave as human beings.
    As a long time resident of the North End, I have witnessed all types of abuse and greed to monopolize parking spaces.
    I’m sure just about everyone in their neighborhood has seen some abuse and fraud first hand at some point and time.
    However, I did not realize how some residents have five and ten resident parking permits in their neighborhoods, which I’m sure is somewhat rare but does truly exist. I”m not sure why they are on line making an argument about the right to have so many spaces.
    So as an owner occupied long term resident of the North End, do I want to pay the city of Boston an annual resident permit parking fee?
    Well I guess until the city has a comprehensive plan on how to get human beings to act more responsible and civilized in society, then my answer is NO!
    The math just does not add up! supply and demand, 4500 resident permits and 1500 spaces was the last estimated study, although the city itself has not spent any resources to mange resident parking inventory and permits.
    The revenue from the parking fee will not stop fraud or abuse, where else are you going to get a parking space for a year for $100.00, or even $500.00 a year.
    The fee will just cause fraud and abuse to escalate.

    1. Actually you are right, in that the math isn’t right. If you look at just the buildings in the neighborhood, that are 4 and 5 stories high with apartments in them and the apartments are relatively small, plus let’s add in all the places that are tucked in alley’s without a curb in front, are the people to on street parking ratios in balance? Let’s say you want to park your car (arbitrary size) in front of your apartment (or condo, does it matter?), maybe you could get two cars on the curb in front of your unit (maybe better word). So you are right math and physics don’t work and can’t work unless you subscribe to metaphysics. By charging for the registration, this might reduce the number of stickers awarded, but given the population density, won’t solve the lack of parking issues.

      Any plan, is going to be claimed to be draconian to some or grossly expensive to others. Given the equal rates of contention, I wonder if any plan could succeed. What if the plan were to do away with the Greenway and open it up to resident parking? Imagine the war. Urban environmentalists against the gas guzzling greedy car owners of the North End. Another brute force method would be to force all condo associations and apartment buildings to provide free parking to their residents having cars. Building a huge parking garage, if you can find a place, is another solution, but do you think that would be free? Given the property costs, expect either fairly expensive parking or big increase in taxes. It’s hard to find a solution better than what we have now. People who can afford to pay, put their car in a parking garage while those who can’t pay, try their luck on the street. Some choose to not own a car and use a car share when the necessity dictates. There is no convenient way to make the situation better.

      But until there is better information the current suggestion of paying $100 for something that is currently free appears to be another way to extract money from the residents. Make the electeds show good reason. Make the electeds ask for money, not demand it.

  35. This Discussion can go on forever. No matter what the city does as far as parking stickers go, people still need to park somewhere. I said it before, if you charge for stickers, no matter the price, if forced, people will pay. you’re still going to have more cars than spots. Other than paying crazy money to park in a garage or lot, where else are people going to park. You may get some people to give up their cars, but not enough. I’m curious to hear any opinions on where people should park. would you like something taken away from you. Buildings converted to condo’s,ex. the vermont building near the regina, has linited parking. there are over 10 units in there. most have vehicles. some can afford a spot in a garage, but most park on the street. Bottom Line. Nothing is going to change. you will always have more cars than spots no matter what the city does. It’s always about generating more money.

Comments are closed.