[Summit] Overnight Parking

[Andrew Nosal]

Paul,

One of your opinions is the only thing I wish to trash.  Please do 
not take it more personally than necessary.

If you can explain how the city's failure to enforce any law 
regarding noise, litter, occupancy limits, or whatever at 105 Fourth 
Street is a good reason Mr. and Mrs. Luxmoore should lose 
opportunities to rent to nice middle class couples who happen to own 
two cars, then I will take everything back.

Respectfully,

Andrew Nosal

At 11:41 AM 9/28/07, you wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>Almost every time I've expressed an opinion you've trashed me by 
>name. I don't appreciate it. Free expression does not only apply if 
>you agree with the speaker.
>
>Please drive by the rear of 105 Fourth Street late or early and see 
>all of the cars jammed in there. If on-street parking were allowed, 
>more students and their friends would be there, overflowing onto the street.
>
>Please don't oppose my views by trashing me. Offfer a reasoned and 
>civil response.
>
>---- Andrew Nosal <andy at mapcenter.com> wrote:
> >  >"free, on-street automobile storage for residents."
> >
> > Outrageous!  What will be next?  Free on-street driving privileges
> > for everybody?
> >
> >  >"So when there is a parking ban, for whatever reason, where do those
> > cars go?"
> >
> > A snowstorm related parking ban only needs to apply to designated
> > streets that carry significant traffic.  My street never gets plowed
> > "curb to curb" yet daytime parkers and everyone else has been managing.
> >
> >  >"I understand how alternate side of the street parking works, if
> > that's what we're talking about.  It's not real convenient."
> >
> > We are comparing the inconvenience of alternate side parking to the
> > inconvenience of no on-street parking at all.  Assuming that your
> > parking arrangements are and will continue to be satisfactory to
> > yourself, I can not fathom how the argument is affected by your
> > tender concern for the inconvenience that alternate side parking may
> > inflict upon others.
> >
> >  >"Everyone moves their cars at the same time each day.  Is that what
> > parking ban opponents want?
> > Is that what we're talking about?"
> >
> > Almost. Moving to the alternate side one night per week would allow
> > for about 25 times more street sweeping than we presently enjoy.
> >
> >  >"Limited parking limits occupancy."
> >
> > Expecting the parking ban to achieve what is properly the goal of a
> > law that directly addresses overoccupancy is inexcusably poor public
> > policy.  For every prospective over-the-limit roommate foiled by lack
> > of parking, 10 law abiding people are being non-prospectively
> > inconvenienced.  The fact that Paul Aceto, not among the 10, is
> > unbothered by such an unwarranted impact on his unoffending neighbors
> > does not make the parking ban a good law.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/