Hillary spotted this plastic covered bit of chutzpah in the city parking lot on Centre Street across from the Curley School in Jamaica Plain.
Walked from Forest Hills to Seavern today, and every few feet, I saw a "No Parking--Snow Clearance" (or something like that) sign. There seems to be no street parking on Centre from the monument to the post office. While I don't have to worry about parking myself, I think I'd blow a gasket if I saw this.
They did this on Belgrade last week. They came by around 3 AM and cleared snow. The next day they took the signs down and there was more room for cars to park. So hopefully the spots will be back (and wider) tomorrow.
I mean it's not like you own either of them.
Someone shoveled that for 40 hours so they're just as entitled to the property.
No, that lot is cleared by the city.
In theory it is. In practice, it's a lot that fills up whenever there's a snow storm, because it's inexplicably not marked as "No Parking During Snow Emergencies." So then when the plows try to come through, they just get the corridor down the middle. Which apparently leads self-entitled narcissists like this one to think that they have some sort of magic claim on a GODDAMN PARKING PLACE IN A MUNICIPAL LOT.
It is designated a snow emergency lot. Just like the one I park in. It helps to get cars off the streets so the DPW can do its job. This lot and the one I frequent are in shopping districts thus there is (and should be) a lot of turnover during the day.
Typically cars are dug out the next day or thereafter. If spots are clear at night, the company with the cleaning/ plowing contract comes through and further opens up those empty spots. At least that's how it works at my municipal lot.
This guy? This guy's a dick and that chair should be tossed.
That's a designated snow emergency parking lot.
I SHOVELED THIS SPOT YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE MY CHAIR IS THERE!!!1!1!!!
I'm hoping this is a joke (the "40 hours" was a tipoff) but Poe's Law is kicking in and I think I need to go lie down.
Space savers in parking garages? Space savers in other people's driveways? Where will it end?
I needed a space saver in my own driveway yesterday, apparently. Someone parked in my driveway while I was at work.
We all want to hear the full version of this story now.
If I found a car parked in my driveway, blocking my garage, the wrecker that I call to remove it will be pulling it away on 4 flats.
But I'd love love love to hear your story.
It was some people doing work at the house next door. At least they had left a note on their windshield with their phone number. My partner works at home and saw the car, so he called the number and got them out before I got home. They had also blocked the sidewalk, pulling in between two large snowbanks. They took 20 minutes to move after the call. Whatever, I wasn't there yet.
We've had this problem before, even in other seasons. Foe some reason, people unfamiliar with our street seem to think that the driveway goes with the neighbor's house. When the house was being renovated, a construction crew stacked lumber in our driveway, and they had to be told to move it out. One time, a worker was trying to park there and wouldn't believe that it wasn't okay. Fortunately, there was a Boston cop on a detail nearby who straightened him out.
Parking spots on Mission Hill as well. But really, what is the difference between these space savers and saving parking spaces in front of your house? They are both ridiculous practices of trying to make public land private based on who stakes a claim. So crazy!! I blame the (one term) mayor for not stopping this insane behavior
Are you really going to make me once again point out the mayor who started all of this and note how many terms he served?
I didn't say Walsh started this practice, I said he missed his opportunity to stop this behavior.
As I've been noting, the train started under (four term) White, built up steam under (reelected twice) Flynn, and really got going under (20 years, 5 terms) Menino.
People have been calling space saving a tradition. It's not. It's a part of the culture. You can't change culture in 13 months. Menino tried the 48 hour thing, which was more myth than reality.
But, yeah, something that is growing in acceptance throughout the city will be the thing that does Walsh in. Keep believing that.
You can change culture. Change the law. Make it clear that they will not be tolerated. Enforce the law by sending around muni trucks to collect the trash.
Walsh is the ONLY one who can do this. If he's really as powerless as you are insisting, maybe he should step down and let someone else do the job.
If so, heroin addiction would be done and the murder rate would be zero.
18% of Massachusetts residents smoke. Even smokers know that smoking is bad. People who save spaces don't think it is bad. Good luck changing the culture, though.
Well, that's completely irrelevant. Most heroin use is done in private and is notoriously difficult to stop even if you know exactly who is doing it and where. Murders happen in a second or two and then the perp disappears.
By contrast, space savers -- BY THEIR VERY NATURE -- sit out on a public street in plain view for hours or days at a time. All that's required to stop the practice is to send garbage trucks around to pick them up.
Heroin is sold and consumed on Boston Common. Most shootings take place outdoors. Unlike space saving, society as a whole agrees that these are bad things, yet somehow we are powerful to stop it.
I did take that to an insane end. I apologize for that. How about something smaller, along the lines of space saving, yet surprisingly more controversial. How come the city allows dogs off leash at parks where dogs are supposed to be leashed? The city could spend money on park rangers to patrol parks, but after they are gone, so would be the leashes. Same thing with lawn chairs on the street.
Everyone knows that Walsh didn't start the practice. How many times will you need to have this pointed out before you stop belaboring the point? Everyone knows that he can't magically stop the practice of space saving with the stroke of a pen. He hasn't even tried, that's the point. He has not done one thing to stop or curb the practice; rather the opposite, he's given carte blanche. Please stop defending his lack of action.
Yet people keep on at it.
Look, there's a crowd here who think that space saving is horrible. I disagree, but I get the arguments. Some people have been going too far (the equivalent of Jim Crow? Really?) but for some reason each time people say that space savers, not the Olympics, not the slow pace of snow removal overall (which I will defend, though it pisses me off, too), but space savers is the thing that makes Walsh a horrible Mayor just gets me. So I reply.
So I'll say it. There is no way that Walsh can stop this bit of Boston culture. No way. If you want him to make a principle stand and expend city resources having DPW trucks out dealing with cones and lawn chairs on every street in the city to put an end to all of this instead of having the DPW deal with the mounds of snow throughout the city, fine. But know this, cracking down, not letting the tradition continue, would be what turns him into a one termer. That is something his predecessors knew.
So, to emphasize my subject line above, sigh.
Look, my replies are getting to me too, so I will stop after this:
You people who are blaming Walsh for a practice that has gone on for at least 3 decades are morons.
I think this is the flaw in your reasoning. Really, "You people"? I have no doubt that you've actually seen at least one instance of each of those things -- someone calling space saving "horrible", someone saying it was "the equivalent of Jim Crow", etc. I suspect it's possible that you've actually seen someone say, "It's space savers, and only space savers, NOT the slow pace of snow removal, NOT the Olympics, SPACE SAVERS MAKE WALSH A HORRIBLE MAYOR!". But I doubt it. And I'm sure enough to bet the ranch that there isn't any "you people" who possess this attitude as some kind of groupthink. I'm also sure that you're constructing a strawman when you all-bold "You people who are blaming Walsh for a practice that has gone on for at least 3 decades are morons." For god's sake, respond to what is actually being written and not to the argument you'd just love to get down in the mud and wrestle with. You're being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to acknowledge that no one blames Walsh for the space saver practice, no matter how many times people tell you so. You'd rather call nonexistent people morons than engage in reasonable argument. What's wrong with you?
"you people" represent the, what, 5 or 6 different people who have basically said that the space saving thing is on Walsh.
The caps was a nice touch. You might be surprised that I read what I wrote before I posted it, and I thought that sentence was a bit of a run on. And the Jim Crow thing was a reference to people who are comparing space saving to segregation, though Jim Crow was not mentioned. Honestly, my personal opinions aside, the Walsh thing and the hyperbole about space saving was my only issue. Yeah, it's a public space. I could argue the other side, but again my point is that Walsh cannot stop this.
How can you say that he can't stop it if he won't try? He's not making any effort. That's what people have a problem with. Why do you think he should not make any effort at all?
You want Walsh to be a one termer?
If he makes an unpopular move, that could backfire on him. If he does nothing, he won't face the blame for the status quo (see the others that will not be named.) Doing nothing won't hurt him as much as acting would, assuming he agrees with you.
The political calculus is there. Unless there is a movement beyond the Universal Hub, this would not be a winner. Other mayors knew this.
I consider the absolute lack of action on this issue to be worse than either prohibiting space savers and removing them OR making an official law and policy allowing them. We depend on government to implement laws and enforce them where there is disagreement.
As a Boston voter, there is nothing that will cause me to vote for the other guy faster than the current abdication of responsibility. So I'd say his calculus is wrong.
I will (hopefully) leave it with this question- when the mayor who came up with the 48 hour rule made that decision, did you stop voting for him after that? History says that few stopped voting for him.
And that's why I've spent as much time flogging this dead horse as I have spent shoveling. And you have to trust me, I don't want to keep on doing either.
And good luck finding that candidate with the "no space savers" platform.
Why should anyone care how many terms he has if he isn't doing the right thing?
If he makes an unpopular move, that could backfire on him
Yes, and of course that's the only thing that matters, isn't it?
The political calculus is there.
Of course it is, but what's your point? I understand his motivations; I just find them despicable and non-functional. And please don't get all worldly-cynical and say, "Well, you have to understand, that's just how things work." Just because something's shit is no reason to expect people to pretend it's a Hershey bar.
Most politicians want to get reelected. People think that is bad, but it is also a motivator to do what the people want. And in a democracy what the people as a whole want it kind of the motivator. Otherwise, it is a bit of a dictatorship.
Walsh has made some bold moves in his political career- see the gay marriage vote back when he was on Beacon Hill. The reality was that popular sentiment by the time he changed his vote was in favor of letting gays and lesbians marry. He didn't really expend his political capital on this compared to, say, Deval Patrick.
You see, political capital is when you spend time and effort on an issue. Obama in his first term had health care reform, as, interestingly, did Mitt Romney. There's a strong chance that Walsh's moves on the Olympics might be expending too much political capital in the wrong direction. Cones saving parking spaces, to keep on beating the decaying corpse I have been beating, was not worth expending political capital in the history of Boston, going back many mayors, including 48 Hour Guy. Sadly, were there a series of violent attacks, that might change. So, being a saver supporter, I hope the violence doesn't happen. And I hope that is a sentiment that we all support (the actual views on saving notwithstanding.)
City lots are there to encourage turnover so that area shops can attract shoppers who want to drive. This is different from a residential street where the parking is geared towards residents, guests, and commercial activities associated with the area residences. That's why the former tends to have parking limits of one to three hours while in the latter, cars can sit there for a long time (I know there is a limit, but it is days and is only enforced when a citizen complains about a particular car.)
Might help melt more of that "shoveled" snow.
It's not like the City owns these spots anymore than the streets where people claim spots.
Until the City REMOVES the snow from the streets like they do in Canada, space saving tradition will continue. Like a freight train, there's no stopping it.
You can't remove the snow until you remove the cars.
This is why the DPW needs Predator drones with Hellfire missiles.
So, I drive a chair.
I wish I had the time to sit in that chair until whoever put it there arrived. Just to see what that looks like in-person.
If not, take the chair away.
This lot (and another one in JP) does not have meters.
so ... no.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy