In a story that probably surprised almost nobody, the Globe reports that Boston City Councillors are able to get parking tickets fixed if they promise that they were on “official business” while they parked in that loading zone, or in that resident-only parking spot, or other places where we mere mortals park at our peril (only handicap spots, fire hydrants, and sidewalks are non-waivable). And a whole bunch of other city employees have the same perk. This, by the way, follows close on the heels of the gloriously hackish report of Councillor Stephen Murphy hiring disgraced former clerk magistrate Robert Powers onto his City Hall staff because, well, “I’m hiring my friends.” (Don’t miss Yvonne Abraham’s superb column on that topic.)
The focus of the parking story seems to be on whether the Councillors in question were, indeed, on “official business” when the tickets were issued. For instance, regarding Councillor Josh Zakim, who in his brief year and a half on the Council has had 14 tickets fixed:
The Globe reviewed dismissed parking tickets and cross-referenced dates and times with councilors’ private schedules obtained under the open records law. After the Globe asked Zakim about his dismissed tickets, he said he could prove he was working even when nothing was on his schedule.
Since taking office, Zakim has been ticketed 21 times, with 14 of those violations dismissed. He tried unsuccessfully to have three others dismissed, according to city records, although his staff disputed that.
“I absolutely only use this for city business,” Zakim said. “The ones that you pointed out, I can tell you with absolute confidence that all the ones in 2015, I was on city business.”
But to me, that begs the question, which really is whether this program of dismissing tickets issued to city employees on “official business” should exist at all. After all, the point of designating a particular area a “loading zone” is, presumably, to allow trucks and other commercial vehicles to use that spot to load and unload, which helps prevent them from having to double-park while doing so. And the point of designating certain spots “resident only” is so that people who, you know, live in the area can find parking near their homes. If anyone who doesn’t meet those criteria, including City Councillors, is permitted to park there because it’s more convenient than, say, taking a cab or the T, or finding a legal parking spot, or parking in a garage, which is what the rest of us do while on business in the city, then why have the designations at all?
Also, it is apparently quite possible to do the job without using this “perk.”
Five councilors did not have any tickets dismissed under the program: Mark Ciommo, Michael F. Flaherty Jr., Matt O’Malley, Ayanna Pressley, and Michelle Wu, records show.
Lots of people are doing important things all day in the city of Boston. The vast majority of them have to abide by parking restrictions or pay when they are caught not doing so. Does it really make sense that a City Councillor who is having lunch with a constituent should be able to dismiss a parking ticket, whereas, for instance, a doctor making an urgent visit to a sick patient can’t?
I frankly find it impossible to justify this program at all, regardless of whether the Councillors and other city employees who are using it are abiding by its terms. “Programs” like this one are a significant part of why people lose confidence in their elected officials. It should be eliminated.
stomv says
A police officer, responding to a call, certainly doesn’t have to find legal parking. A DPW crane might well be parked in the middle of a lane of traffic while on “official business” fixing a burnt out bulb. A building inspector might well park in a metered spot to inspect a building — but as he’s on city business, putting quarters in the meter and then filling out an expense report for said quarters makes little sense. A health inspector might be checking the compliance of rental apartments in a neighborhood with 100% residential parking — where exactly should that inspector park?
That isn’t to say that every employee should be able to park anywhere, just that it’s not a black and white problem. Hydrants, handicap, and sidewalks are off limits, and in my opinion bike lanes should be added to that list, as should any other parking that isn’t in a physical space designed for parking.
Remember, if the city Councillor is on city business, then his employer (the city) should pay his travel costs. Does it make more sense for Boston to pay for a taxi or $10/hr for parking, or does it make sense for the city to use its public parking spaces to reduce its expenditures?
It’s just not obvious is all I’m getting at…
David says
is the most interesting one. But I think the answer to it is: not in a residents-only space. There are lots of other options: cabs, T, Uber, parking garages, bikes, parking in legal parking and walking a couple of blocks. Because it’s so easy to start teasing out hypotheticals where we can justifiably say, well obviously, that person should be allowed to park in a residents-only spot, and pretty soon the whole purpose of residential parking has been lost.