Boston finds new way to extract revenue from JP residents

Starts fining residents for illegal driveways even if they've been in use for two decades.

|
Read more about:

Unbelieveable

By Will LaTulippe (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 1:49pm

Now the city's telling people who pay taxes on their properties how to use them? I read the article, and I fail to see what the problem is here.

won't someone think of the curbs?

By Brett | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 2:09pm

The city claims that people are hurting those poor granite curbs. Or something like that.

I think the city is pissed that people have been parking on their property for free, instead of dishing out $ each year for resident parking permits.

Too bad Menino doesn't feel like spending any money in JP on maintaining the roads, traffic signals, or road markings...we've had those cursed E-line tracks (which knock you off your bike, had it happen to me) for twenty three fucking years because the city can't be bothered to either pave over them, fill the channel in the track so they don't trap bike tires, or rip them up and fill in the hole. I bet dozens of bikers are injured every year- I saw an older woman take a really nasty fall last spring because of those fucking rails.

But hey, if the cobblestones up on Beacon Hill are a little loose, let's get some boys right over. Are their precious gas lantern mantles not up to snuff? Why, that's a city-wide emergency!

Stick to complaining about your own city..

By Wahooo (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 2:31pm

Sorry Brett, but resident permits for curb side parking in Boston are free with residency.

That is unless you count the hell and demons you encounter down in the dungeon called "City Hall"

I am

By Brett | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 3:05pm

...I thought it was $25ish a year for the permit. I was (gasp) wrong- shockingly, the city doesn't charge.

E-Line Tracks To Be Paved Over

By Arborway | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 3:38pm

Beginning sometime in the next few weeks. The process was supposed to start "mid-April", but has apparently been delayed for some reason.

like Curtis Hall?

By Brett | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 6:35pm

...which has been partially closed since last fall, and was supposed to be done by now, but will likely be closed through the entire summer, when the pool is most needed /desired?

The trolley tracks issue has

By Rob (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:08pm

The trolley tracks issue has been prolonged by the MBTA and JP activists who want the E-Line re-extended to Forest Hills. The city has been stuck in the middle of conflicting lawsuits and unable to do anything except leave them there.

The trolley tracks have

By DMC (not verified) | Sat, 05/03/2008 - 12:10pm

The trolley tracks have sections missing and the rest is substandard. No way it can be used without a total rebuild. Think,"Constant derailments."

Will they rebate all taxes?

By SwirlyGrrl | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 2:15pm

Having a driveway increases the valuation of your property when the assessors come around. If it isn't legal, and it shouldn't exist, it shouldn't add value to your property and you shouldn't have been taxed on it, right?

I wonder if anybody will file for an abatement on those grounds. It would be interesting to see if the city could be forced to pay out a lot of rebates.

Could also work the other

By Wahoo (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 2:33pm

Could also work the other way around.

My guess is that's why they have this ordnance.

I doubt you could get an

By Rob (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 11:38pm

I doubt you could get an abatement for having something illegal on your property, even if you had it there for 15 years or whatever. It still violates the ordinance, even if it's a bit ridiculous.

My suggestion would be to just grandfather in any of these existing driveways within the next 3 months with an expedited permitting process. Anything else after Date X will be a violation. It just ties up the ZBA to have these things coming down the pipeline like this, not to mention the inconvenience to residents of course.

Here's the problem

By cynical | Sun, 05/04/2008 - 10:32am

"Now the city's telling people who pay taxes on their properties how to use them? I read the article, and I fail to see what the problem is here."

What no one is saying here (or in the linked article) is that when someone creates an unofficial driveway, they keep others on the street from parking in legal on-street spaces because those legitimate spaces are in front of the bogus driveways. From my perspective, it's not so much that anyone shouldn't be able to use their yard the way they'd like, but that it actually takes away rights from the community to park on the street. What's really wrong about this is that it wasn't enforced years ago; because of that, I think the city has to grandfather in the existing driveways and start enforcing the rules from here on out.

I remember this subject

By Mark (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 2:56pm

I remember this subject being in the news back in the '80s when new owners started tearing up beautiful flower gardens and covering them with asphalt. The law is the law. When the government doesn't enforce the law for a while, the law doesn't go away. And "I didn't know" isn't an excuse. These people sound like teenage kids going down the standard excuse list. Being a home owner brings grownup responsibilities.

one way or another, the city of Boston will fine you eventually

By o_brien | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 4:06pm

If you knew it was illegal, than at least you got away with it for a while without being fined. I only feel sorry for those who unwittingly paid for an illegal parking space...

'In another case he described, condominium owners had been sold parking spaces along with their units, only to find upon receiving ISD tickets that the spaces were not permitted for parking.'

This is why you pay for a home inspection when buying a home

By durr (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 8:38pm

The home inspector should know that a parking spot without a curb cut is likely not up to code. Additionally, the potential buyer and/or his/her attorney can easily do the homework. First, look at the current deed on file at suffolkdeeds.com. If the property doesn't have a parking space, then you go to cityofboston.gov and you look to see whether a permit was granted to make one since the time the deed was recorded. If not, then this means that some jackass paved part of the yard and is trying to call it a parking space. If the seller *did* use a home inspector and/or an attorney, then s/he should go back to those people and ask to have the fees refunded.

Bottom line is, if you buy something with a code violation, it's still up to you, the owner, to have the place up to code at all times. It's just like buying a house with the front steps falling off and then complaining when you're ticketed "but I bought it that way!"

Not every homeowner is the

By o_brien | Sat, 05/03/2008 - 8:30am

Not every homeowner is the brightest bulb. If they were swindled by the seller or misled by an incompetent home inspector, then I do have a bit of sympathy.

Good for the City

By anon (not verified) | Sat, 05/03/2008 - 10:48am

Finally enforcing its laws. "Waaah, I cant park illegally on my yard anymore". Park on the street like others do, your yard is not your own personal parking lot. If you would like a driveway added, go through the zoning process like others have. If you are buying a property, take a few hours to go to ISD and research the property before you buy. If the city is going to start ignoring the zoning code, I'm gonna go build a nice big 15-story tower on a lot next to one of these people and see what they think of zoning codes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.