The conflict over North End outdoor dining (Boston: closing, taxi)

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Remember when I said m*******s have a penchant for arrogance and faux moral higher ground? This is example A.

Why are you singling out just one of your posts?

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Why are you singling out just one of your posts?

Why do you think?

[BostonBornMassMade]

....is 70 indoor restaurants on your block the same as having 70 restaurants with outdoor seating?

Not only are they on sidewalks and parking spots (infrastructure meant for pedestrians and automobiles) they are inviting far more diners than pre-pandemic into the neighborhood with all the extra seating.

Hundreds more people at any given moment.

[id77]

Originally Posted by GeePee

Yeah. I hate the water... so I don't move to the beach.

That's all well and good until someone decides to build a lake next to where you live.

The residents there accepted the existing limited parking when they signed up to move in, but suddenly cutting that supply significantly would be understandably frustrating. The neighborhood is small with restaurant density sufficiently high that giving even a quarter of the restaurants precious outdoor space is going to have an impact.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by id77

That's all well and good until someone decides to build a lake next to where you live.

The residents there accepted the existing limited parking when they signed up to move in, but suddenly cutting that supply significantly would be understandably frustrating. .

So rare that we agree on these issues.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by GeePee

how many of them do you know?

there's one who has been very vocal who I have already mentioned that I do know above and I posted a link to one of his homes.

Anyone who thinks any of the north end restaurant owners are struggling needs a reality check. If any of them are struggling it's because they havent managed money correctly.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by id77

The residents there accepted the existing limited parking when they signed up to move in, but suddenly cutting that supply significantly would be understandably frustrating. The neighborhood is small with restaurant density sufficiently high that giving even a quarter of the restaurants precious outdoor space is going to have an impact.

Frustration is one thing, but there's a pretty good deal of what feels like entitlement to street parking in the city. I actually think it's kind of wild that people in a neighborhood like the North End can essentially use city owned/maintained streets as free storage for their personal vehicles. Not only can they do it, but they feel as if they are entitled to do it. You can easily make the case that access to street parking is a necessity in a low/middle income neighborhood without decent transit or pedestrian access to the city's economic and service centers, but the North End is none of those things. It's a centrally located, fairly affluent, historic (pre-car) neighborhood that's essential to the city's service economy.

In the North End, I'd much rather see some of that space (still a relatively small percentage of the overall street parking in the neighborhood) be used to support tax revenue generating businesses. It's better financial return for the city, and that type of activation is benefits more people than just the handful hoping to park for free on the street. Of course, restaurants shouldn't feel entitled to the space either and they should be expected to contribute something (beyond just tax revenue from sales) in order to pay for the privilege of getting that additional square footage (I'm not sure the flat $7500 fee is it). But I'm having a really hard time empathizing with North End residents on this one.

[id77]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Frustration is one thing, but there's a pretty good deal of what feels like entitlement to street parking in the city. I actually think it's kind of wild that people in a neighborhood like the North End can essentially use city owned/maintained streets as free storage for their personal vehicles. Not only can they do it, but they feel as if they are entitled to do it. You can easily make the case that access to street parking is a necessity in a low/middle income neighborhood without decent transit or pedestrian access to the city's economic and service centers, but the North End is none of those things. It's a centrally located, fairly affluent, historic (pre-car) neighborhood that's essential to the city's service economy.

In the North End, I'd much rather see some of that space (still a relatively small percentage of the overall street parking in the neighborhood) be used to support tax revenue generating businesses. It's better financial return for the city, and that type of activation is benefits more people than just the handful hoping to park for free on the street. Of course, restaurants shouldn't feel entitled to the space either and they should be expected to contribute something (beyond just tax revenue from sales) in order to pay for the privilege of getting that additional square footage (I'm not sure the flat $7500 fee is it). But I'm having a really hard time empathizing with North End residents on this one.

Residents (or their landlords, as the case may be) in the North End pay property tax. While one can make a case that nobody (restaurant or resident) is entitled to public space, the fact they do pay local taxes gives them both some say at the table IMO.

The other factor is voting. Restaurants don't vote, but residents do. To dismiss a neighborhood's concerns because they're affluent and/or don't need the space is a bad political move and a good way to tick off that voting bloc.

Revenue efficiency doesn't seem to be Boston's bag. They could jack up both parking meter ($10/hour in Back Bay, anyone?) and ticket fines then get draconian on enforcement. Camp a BTD employee in front of every coffee shop and start slapping orange envelopes on every double parker. It would rake in a ton of money. Yet, they don't.

You're not alone with the empathy. I see the same general take with neighborhood problems in Boston's other affluent neighborhoods, too. It's almost like wealthy people aren't allowed to voice problems because if they do, others just whip out tiny violins.

[BostonBornMassMade]

From what I understand north end residents are already used to sometimes having to use parking garages to park in the summer due to tourists. That's an added expense and if its multiplied due to outdoor dining that's a 'fee' on those residents.

Another thing I don't understand is this.. all sympathy to restaurant owners- none to residents?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by id77

Residents (or their landlords, as the case may be) in the North End pay property tax. While one can make a case that nobody (restaurant or resident) is entitled to public space, the fact they do pay local taxes gives them both some say at the table IMO.

The other factor is voting. Restaurants don't vote, but residents do. To dismiss a neighborhood's concerns because they're affluent and/or don't need the space is a bad political move and a good way to tick off that voting bloc.

Revenue efficiency doesn't seem to be Boston's bag. They could jack up both parking meter ($10/hour in Back Bay, anyone?) and ticket fines then get draconian on enforcement. Camp a BTD employee in front of every coffee shop and start slapping orange envelopes on every double parker. It would rake in a ton of money. Yet, they don't.

You're not alone with the empathy. I see the same general take with neighborhood problems in Boston's other affluent neighborhoods, too. It's almost like wealthy people aren't allowed to voice problems because if they do, others just whip out tiny violins.

They absolutely deserve a say in matters that impact their neighborhood. And you're right about the politics of a debate like this (i.e. voters vs. non-voters). I've always been surprised at just how much money the city leaves on the table with ticketing and enforcement. The double parking is a plague. And around here, there's relatively poor enforcement of the "Resident Permit Parking Only" zones. Sometimes cars with out of state plates sit for days before getting ticketed and sometimes booted/towed. I'm 100% on board with variable meter rates depending on neighborhood/time of day.

I hear what you're saying about the wealthy not being able to voice problems and I agree that the automatic dismissal of anything an affluent person complains about in this city is a problem. To be clear, I'm not outright dismissing any of the complaints. I don't think it's fair to just "gift" restaurants free sidewalk space while eliminating parking. I think concerns about noise from 70+ outdoor patios that didn't exist before many/most residents lived there are extremely valid. Concerns about trash and rodents are very reasonable. It's just the gripe about lost street parking that I have a hard time taking too seriously considering the built environment, proximity to transit and the city center, the abundance of off-street parking nearby and the means of many residents to afford an alternative. I hope that the city can continue the outdoor dining program while mitigating most of those concerns. But I don't think some lost parking spaces on Hanover Street, Salem St. and North Square should be the deal breaker.