Is Paid Parking Dead?

According to this morning's paper, the Mayor is now down to five confirmed yes, a crucial drop from the six she said she had on Friday.

So, what councilors are going to vote for the parking plan? I have no blinking idea.

I'd be shocked if Ed Cameron didn't, and I certainly hope he does since he's my councilor.

As I stated previously, I believe we do need paid parking in this town and I'm confident it won't impact downtown businesses at all. Unfortunately, this parking plan is far from perfect since it only charges for the lots and not street parking. I suspect this will lead to increased traffic problems as visitors trawl for spaces.

I don't really know how the rest will fall. But here's the guess and offerings from our local "experts" - ie. the anonymous posters on the Daily News site.

Councilors Connell, O'Brien and  Earls as likely supporters. Those sound like legitimate picks, although Earls' Ward 2 voters will be directly impacted by the parking changes. I don't know how that will weigh in his decision but seems like a yes.

I'd say Katie Ives is a yes. I haven't talked with her but her progressive street cred would seem to put her in the yes category. Likewise, Steve Hutcheson is probably a negative as I see him more in the conservative/Republican camp.

So this leaves us with Ward 1 Councilor Allison Heartquist. I never met her, and don't know her. But my gut puts her in the yes category. No real reason why other than she works for Mayor Kezer in Amesbury and she strikes me as one would be open to a parking plans.

If she does vote yes, this leaves us with Councilor Ari Herzog as the swing vote. In fact, in the aformentioned Daily News forum, he declared himself to be on the fence.

And I'm guessing he'll vote no.

A no vote would seem to be consistent with the rationale he put forth for opposing the meal tax earlier last month. Read his post.  (By the way, I commend those councilors like Herzog who maintain blogs and use these forums to explain their decisions. As a voter, it's nice to know the extent of the thought that goes into these decisions.)

In his post, Herzog cited the fact that "nearly 40% of the city's households are living in poverty" as his primary reason for opposing the meals and lodging tax.

"I voted the way I did to improve their lifestyles."

I didn't completely see the logic in his point. I understadn that he didn't want to require those 40% to pay more even the slightest bit more (7.5 cents on a $10 meal) than they already do. (By the way, the stat comes from Pennies for Poverty. I have no reason to doubt it although it does sound high. But the troubling food stamp news in today's Daily News certainly supports the statement.)

But I'm guessing people living below the poverty line might not eat out as frequently as those who can afford to do so (or at least think they can afford to so.) In fact, I'd be willing to bet nearly all of the new taxes paid out would come from the 60% above the poverty line. And that doesn't take into consideration the dollars paid by out-of-town visitors, well to do or not. thought that was one of the more attractive elements of the tax, but as I stated in a previous post, I do understand those who are vehemently opposed to any new taxes.

Yet, that 40% will see the benefits of the tax increase: better sidewalks upon which to walk; better schools to send their children and a city that's less dependent on real estate taxes, which would ease the burden on their tax bills or the tax bills of their landlords, which I hope would make their rent more affordable.

So I could envision a scenario where people below the poverty line might have seen benefits from a tax they could mostly avoid.

I suppose the same might be said about parking. People could choose not to park downtown.

But someone who works downtown will be forced to fork over a portion of their income to a parking meter or a parking pass if they want to hold onto their jobs. Or their employer will pay for a permit, taking money away from potential pay hikes.

I do think this fee/tax is potentially more onerous than whatever might have been collected through a meals tax.

So if he's to be consistent, I can't see how Ari Herzog will support it...or any future tax/fee hike for that matter, but there are complexities to every issue.

So parking might be done? We shall see.