[Summit] In exchange for overnight parking

[Greg Gerritt]

I would most definitely support returning green space to the neighborhood.
I would support that if anyone asking for a permit has paved over too much
yard, that it be upaved.  My guess is that most people seeking a permit
would not be in that position.  Greg Gerritt


on 9/27/07 5:10 PM, Bob Trudeau at bobtrudeau at cox.net wrote:

> Neighbors:
> 
> As someone cool to the idea of overnight parking on the street, I've
> been watching the various messages lately, including Greg Gerritt's
> recent post about yet a second pilot program, this one in Mt.
> Pleasant.  Alas, it may be that the time has come to bite this bullet
> -- we have relatives living in Boston who so far have not had
> shootouts over shoveled parking spaces in the winter, so maybe it
> will work.
> 
> One of the arguments I see a lot is the idea of green space -- we can
> avoid paved yards and wall to wall parking if we have on-street
> overnight parking.
> 
> Fine.  But we ALREADY have paved yards, often illegally so.  So, if
> on-street parking is to be by permit only -- a good idea, just get a
> guest pass for your guests -- then the awarding of the permit for the
> vehicles residing at any property should be contingent on that
> property being restored to the legal limits of non-green space: paved
> front yards turned back to green, driveways reworked to meet the
> ordinance limits if they don't already, etc.
> 
> That seems fair, and I'm sure the proponents of on street parking who
> use the green space argument will not have too much of a problem with
> this.  We not only preserve our existing green spaces on our small
> lots, we regain some of what we've lost.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob Trudeau
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/