Hey, there! Log in / Register
Past and present tenants of Navy Yard building sue over parking requirements; say they weren't told up front they'd have to prove they were paying for spaces elsewhere
Support Universal Hub
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.
Comments
Sounds reasonable.
Sounds reasonable. Regardless of what side of the parking debate you fall on, this is a case about a landlord having their tenants sign a lease with one set of requirements and then going back and changing those, and also threatening the tenants with illegal eviction if they don't comply. Big landlords shouldn't be allowed to try and throw their weight around to bully tenants.
Agreed
Super shady regardless of how big or small of a landlord you are.
why does they city approve
why does they city approve more housing without enough parking? this restriction is crazy.
not everyone wants or needs a car
Not everyone wants or needs a car. Those who do want one can pay for a spot in a private lot or fight with their fellow residents for the taxpayer subsidized street spots.
Parking or Housing?
Would you rather have more housing or more parking? You can't have both.
Is this even a lawful
Is this even a lawful requirement? I mean what happened to the old refuse to give them neighborhood parking stickers? Developers will literally say anything to neighborhood associations to get approval.
Of course it is
The city has the power to restrict who can park on city streets.
The motivation for this suit is that restriction, using the lease as the vector for attack is all they really have.
https://www.change.org/p/save-charlestown-residents-from-out-of-state-de...
https://www.wcvb.com/article/charlestown-residents-say-apartment-develop...
But they have to enforce
But they have to enforce parking equally. This is very selective. It also seems like they also denied them Charlestown neighborhood parking.
It is equal
Anyone that lives in that building can't get a sticker. As it should be.
but why can't they have a sticker?
Why can community groups stop new housing because of parking? That isn't equal
charlestown is too wealthy for residential stickers
They should only have parking reserved for the projects.
While they're at it
While they're at it, Walsh, Sharpe, et al. should sue the City for denying them access to park on the street. It is a public right of way, isn't it? Why isn't access available to all members of the public? It seems that access to a residential parking permit is a privilege only available to those who lived there prior to a certain point in time, or who live in a building constructed prior to a certain point in time. It's been documented that some people use Boston streets to park three, four, or five cars at no cost, but we're denying other people access to park one car because they live in a newer building, I guess as some sort of way of placating people when new housing is being built.
It doesn't matter what you think of the parking requirement
The parking requirement isn't the issue. The issue is unilaterally changing a lease before its term has ended and threatening eviction if the tenants don't sign on to the change. It's a breach of contract plus making unlawful threats.
Yep, they’re giving us landlords a bad name
I hope the tenants put the landlord through the wringer.