matt07302 wrote:
I don't think pushing up the price of a parking permit will lower the demand for them. It will simply be another fee going to a dysfunctional agency. The point of the permit is to make sure only people eligible for a permit get one. Bumping the fee will not reduce the amount issued, it's just another tax.

The parking authority could make a killing if they simply enforced parking rules. Not to mention make the crosswalks safer. They don't even check the permits when they roll down the streets. They should at least use different colors for the zones and year issued.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

A lot of fancy words and high falutin logic to try and reframe my words. I never advocated for exclusions, or a privilege for the few. Quite the opposite. But, if you want to avail yourself of a privilege such as parking, you should expect to pay a reasonable amount. If you think $15 is enough, then you and I have nowhere to go in this discussion. I feel that anything less than $100 for a residential parking permit is too low. That's like paying 30 cents per day. If you want to claim that is some sort of imposition that would somehow only make it so that rich people can park on the streets, then go right ahead.

Retirees, working poor, disabled on benefits, unemployed don't need cars ... welcome to bodhipooh world of user-pays and those that can't, can simply do without. Maybe we need yet another tax for parking rights!
With that logic Rhode Island and even parts of Paulus Hook should have parking scaled so high to keep out the riff raff like hipooh from parking there!

bodhipooh wrote:

A lot of fancy words and high falutin logic to try and reframe my words. I never advocated for exclusions, or a privilege for the few. Quite the opposite. But, if you want to avail yourself of a privilege such as parking, you should expect to pay a reasonable amount. If you think $15 is enough, then you and I have nowhere to go in this discussion. I feel that anything less than $100 for a residential parking permit is too low. That's like paying 30 cents per day. If you want to claim that is some sort of imposition that would somehow only make it so that rich people can park on the streets, then go right ahead.

jklm wrote:
How much of Jersey City has zone permit parking? Mostly downtown, correct?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
If we extend your logic further, we can imagine that for the right amount of money a resident should be able to purchase the privilege to have a permanent parking spot on the public street.

Isn't that just what the city did down on Columbus etc with the "reserved" permit only spots? Those piss me off every time i need to go to 30 Montgomery, and it's inconvenient to bike for some reason like snow.

alastor wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?

I see... so you are not OK with being asked to pay (what you consider to be) more taxes in the form of a more expensive parking permit (because, at $15 / year, you feel you already pay enough for parking on public roads) but you are totally fine with other people paying more taxes to subsidize your CHOICE. You (irrationally) claim that you paying more in parking permits favors the rich (still not sure how you made that connection) but you fail to realize or acknowledge that most of the taxes already paid are helping to maintain roads for traffic and transit purposes, nor parking. Simply put, parking on city streets is a privilege, and at $15 per year, it is undervalued and undercharged. It doesn't make ANY SENSE to charge that little.

Your reasoning is circular: parking is a privilege because you say it's a privilege. What exactly does that even mean? By this definition nearly every public service--including the very idea of liberty itself--is a privilege that answers to the social contract. Of course, there is a social contract, but the question regards how we should best balance the needs of the individual with the needs of others. I'm assuming you want to emphasize the word privilege to underline your claim that parking a car on a public street is a "CHOICE." Yes, indeed. So is walking on the sidewalk, camping at the national park, riding on NJ transit, and voting. I imagine you'd argue that parking on the street is different from walking down the sidewalk and more akin to riding on the train? Let's accept that premise--that parking, like the train, is a service we should pay for. The next question is why and then, how much? Of course, the ability to pay varies considerably based on personal wealth (I'm sure this principle doesn't require further elaboration). By creating a serious financial burden for low-income residents to park their cars, you are privileging people who have the means to pay over those who do not. This is bad public policy, and it creates a privilege that is a function of wealth, which you obfuscate by making this a matter of "choice." Public services--such as parking on a public street-- need to be accessible to the public and not the privileged few. What you seem to want is a type of exclusion that effectively privatizes a public street. If we extend your logic further, we can imagine that for the right amount of money a resident should be able to purchase the privilege to have a permanent parking spot on the public street. I suggest you check your privilege and direct your thinking to how we can make the city more equitable, more accessible, and more livable--rather than more divided, more isolated, and more inaccessible. Obviously, residents have a reasonable need for parking over the needs of non-residents; let's focus our energies on how to make parking accessible for ALL residents.

alastor wrote:
If we extend your logic further, we can imagine that for the right amount of money a resident should be able to purchase the privilege to have a permanent parking spot on the public street.

alastor wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?

I see... so you are not OK with being asked to pay (what you consider to be) more taxes in the form of a more expensive parking permit (because, at $15 / year, you feel you already pay enough for parking on public roads) but you are totally fine with other people paying more taxes to subsidize your CHOICE. You (irrationally) claim that you paying more in parking permits favors the rich (still not sure how you made that connection) but you fail to realize or acknowledge that most of the taxes already paid are helping to maintain roads for traffic and transit purposes, nor parking. Simply put, parking on city streets is a privilege, and at $15 per year, it is undervalued and undercharged. It doesn't make ANY SENSE to charge that little.

Your reasoning is circular: parking is a privilege because you say it's a privilege. What exactly does that even mean? By this definition nearly every public service--including the very idea of liberty itself--is a privilege that answers to the social contract. Of course, there is a social contract, but the question regards how we should best balance the needs of the individual with the needs of others. I'm assuming you want to emphasize the word privilege to underline your claim that parking a car on a public street is a "CHOICE." Yes, indeed. So is walking on the sidewalk, camping at the national park, riding on NJ transit, and voting. I imagine you'd argue that parking on the street is different from walking down the sidewalk and more akin to riding on the train? Let's accept that premise--that parking, like the train, is a service we should pay for. The next question is why and then, how much? Of course, the ability to pay varies considerably based on personal wealth (I'm sure this principle doesn't require further elaboration). By creating a serious financial burden for low-income residents to park their cars, you are privileging people who have the means to pay over those who do not. This is bad public policy, and it creates a privilege that is a function of wealth, which you obfuscate by making this a matter of "choice." Public services--such as parking on a public street-- need to be accessible to the public and not the privileged few. What you seem to want is a type of exclusion that effectively privatizes a public street. If we extend your logic further, we can imagine that for the right amount of money a resident should be able to purchase the privilege to have a permanent parking spot on the public street. I suggest you check your privilege and direct your thinking to how we can make the city more equitable, more accessible, and more livable--rather than more divided, more isolated, and more inaccessible. Obviously, residents have a reasonable need for parking over the needs of non-residents; let's focus our energies on how to make parking accessible for ALL residents.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

alastor wrote:
@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?

I see... so you are not OK with being asked to pay (what you consider to be) more taxes in the form of a more expensive parking permit (because, at $15 / year, you feel you already pay enough for parking on public roads) but you are totally fine with other people paying more taxes to subsidize your CHOICE. You (irrationally) claim that you paying more in parking permits favors the rich (still not sure how you made that connection) but you fail to realize or acknowledge that most of the taxes already paid are helping to maintain roads for traffic and transit purposes, nor parking. Simply put, parking on city streets is a privilege, and at $15 per year, it is undervalued and undercharged. It doesn't make ANY SENSE to charge that little.

alastor wrote:
@jc_dweller

Nobody driving a registered vehicle is benefiting from "free parking." Moreover, no vehicle owner with a JCPA permit is benefiting from "free parking." In addition to the permit fee, the resident pays either property tax or rent that goes to property tax in addition to the other state and local taxes--all of which pay for the PUBLIC roads. By suggesting that permits should be several hundred dollars, you're arguing that a resident's ability to park a vehicle on a public street should be a privilege reserved for the rich at the expense of everyone who pays taxes relative to their income. In other words, you're suggesting low-income residents should pay taxes so that high-income people can park on the public streets everyone funds. Furthermore, you're ignoring the importance of vehicles to low-income families who cannot afford private parking and need transportation to commute to work. Frankly, I don't understand why someone would be annoyed with concerns about how residents access transportation and the livability of their city. How about we behave like citizens in a democracy and advocate for a solution that has equality in mind such as 24-hour permit restrictions that will benefit all Jersey City residents regardless of their class?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another example of poor town planning and high density high-rise apartment complexes - The de-centralisation of the city would have been the way to go, but then the cost of the infrastructure eats into profit margins for developers, thus throwing a few 100K to politicians is much cheaper to swamp city infrastructure via planning zone changes in their favor!

lulwut? this would happen with high rises or not.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another example of poor town planning and high density high-rise apartment complexes - The de-centralisation of the city would have been the way to go, but then the cost of the infrastructure eats into profit margins for developers, thus throwing a few 100K to politicians is much cheaper to swamp city infrastructure via planning zone changes in their favor!

ChaChaWoo wrote:

So, how do I get my name on the council agenda?

ChaChaWoo wrote:
Appreciate the feedback, but these spots that the mail trucks are taking is not free parking. It is metered parking, and it is made so intentionally, so that people can pull up, access the post office, and then be on their way. But when the trucks begin to park outside around noon, this becomes much harder to do.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

ChaChaWoo wrote:
I live across the street from the Washington Street Post Office. Recently, I?ve noticed that the mail trucks are taking up a significant amount of the parking spots outside.

Compound these missing parking spots with the fact that 2 new residential buildings (one very large) were recently constructed on York street leading up to Washington, we are now struggling to find any parking at all.

There is a story that mirrors what is going on here in NYC: http://nypost.com/2014/04/01/postal-t ... ing-spots-in-murray-hill/

I emailed our councilwomen. She was very responsive and already had the issue on her radar. But, because the USPS is federal agency the courts throw out tickets when we have written them. They've tried writing the post master general and even reached out to a town in Colorado that was suing their post office for similar infractions and unwillingness to resolve to see what lessons they learned.

Until we get some responses, the best angle we have is photos of them blocking ADA crosswalks. If anyone happens to see a post truck doing this, please snap a picture and email it to our council lady in Ward E or post the picture here.

Not to discount your grievance, but it is very interesting/telling that most of the JCLIST threads can be reduced to some local bemoaning the lack of free parking on public roads.

The building recently built on York (Warren at York) has a garage (and, so does The Gotham) so none of their residents are able to get resident parking permits. As such, they shouldn't be taking up street parking spots.

The USPS has "immunity" from local ordinances and ticketing for very good historical reasons. Some places will actually ticket USPS trucks, but it is an exercise in futility, as the USPS will not pay the ticket, and they can not be forced to do so.

ChaChaWoo wrote:
I live across the street from the Washington Street Post Office. Recently, I?ve noticed that the mail trucks are taking up a significant amount of the parking spots outside.

Compound these missing parking spots with the fact that 2 new residential buildings (one very large) were recently constructed on York street leading up to Washington, we are now struggling to find any parking at all.

There is a story that mirrors what is going on here in NYC: http://nypost.com/2014/04/01/postal-t ... ing-spots-in-murray-hill/

I emailed our councilwomen. She was very responsive and already had the issue on her radar. But, because the USPS is federal agency the courts throw out tickets when we have written them. They've tried writing the post master general and even reached out to a town in Colorado that was suing their post office for similar infractions and unwillingness to resolve to see what lessons they learned.

Until we get some responses, the best angle we have is photos of them blocking ADA crosswalks. If anyone happens to see a post truck doing this, please snap a picture and email it to our council lady in Ward E or post the picture here.