Reject the Princeton permit parking plan
To the Editor:
One of the major responsibilities of local government is to listen to residents and respond to their concerns. A fine example of this is the action that Princeton Council recently took to regulate gas leaf blowers. Council members listened to residents and responded with a ban on gas leaf blowers in the summer and winter and on Sundays and holidays. This ban will greatly improve the quality of life in Princeton.
Now Princeton Council needs to apply this same excellent responsiveness to another quality-of-life issue. The Permit Parking Task Force has developed a plan to park all of the employees of Princeton businesses on residential streets. A petition opposing employee parking on the streets near the high school has been signed by 189 residents of that neighborhood and has been sent to Council. Instead of paying attention to this public outcry, a Council member announced triumphantly at a Princeton Council meeting that he had talked to 2 residents of that neighborhood who supported the parking plan. My response is that one can easily find 2 people who will agree to something. It is rare that one finds 189 people in one neighborhood who all agree on something.
The Permit Parking Task Force and Princeton Council need to be responsive to Princeton’s residents. They should not even consider imposing something that residents clearly do not want. The Task Force’s plan should be rejected, at least for neighborhoods that object to it.
If you live within one half mile of a Princeton business, your street is in the plan. Employees would have permits to park all day long on your street. If you object to this, be sure to attend the virtual community meeting at noon on Saturday, November 20, and speak out against the plan. Watch for more details on how to join the meeting.
Phyllis Teitelbaum
Hawthorne Avenue
Submit your photos, news, blog post, news tip, document, request for coverage or letter to the editor to editor @ planetprinceton.com. Please include your contact information. Letters should be between 200 and 750 words. Add events to our community calendar by following the "add event" link on our navigation menu. Thank you for reading and contributing to Planet Princeton.
Employees already park all day, for free, on local streets, just not yours. Spruce St, Moran Ave, Linden Lane and most of Maple Street have free all day parking for anyone, and many of those spaces are taken up (especially on weekdays, from early morning to late afternoon) by people who work in town and at the university. There is a lot of competition for these spaces and most of these spaces remain occupied all day, typically from well before 9am during university semesters. Residents of those streets who don’t have driveways have to buy permits to park overnight on the street, and just one vehicle per household is allowed a permit. So the current situation is that residents must pay to park outside their own house overnight, and are limited to just one vehicle, but anyone else can (and do) block that space from 6am to 2am for free, often stopping residents from parking on their own street or even on nearby streets. The proposed daytime parking scheme would alleviate this situation by allowing residents to buy permits to park all-day on-street during the day, while limiting the number of other people able to park for more than 3 hours. This will make it much easier for residents and their visitors to park on their own street, while also increasing turnover of spaces for visitors to downtown. It also means that people who park all day on these streets will pay for the privilege, non-residents as well as residents (who are currently the only ones who have to pay). And people who work at the university will not be able to get permits to park all day unless they are also residents without driveways on the street concerned. Why should town subsidize parking for business employees and the university at the expense of residents, which is currently the situation in several of the Tree Streets? Why should residents have to pay to park at night when non-residents can park for 20 hours a day, blocking residents from using the space, and pay nothing? The proposed scheme is not perfect, but it will spread the burden of employees parking on local roads more fairly than is presently the case, because only a limited number of all-day permits will be allowed per street. If you don’t support the current parking plan what do you propose to un-jam the parking spaces on the Tree Streets to make life more bearable for the residents there, particularly for those without driveways?
Couldnt agree more. This is what happens when most of these people are allowed to run for office unopposed.
(Didn’t seem to post first time so am trying again)
Employees already park all day, for free, on local streets, just not yours. Spruce St, Moran Ave, Linden Lane and most of Maple Street have free all day parking for anyone, and many of those spaces are taken up (especially on weekdays, from early morning to late afternoon) by people who work in town and at the university. There is a lot of competition for these spaces and most of these spaces remain occupied all day, typically from well before 9am during university semesters. Residents of those streets who don’t have driveways have to buy permits to park overnight on the street, and just one vehicle per household is allowed a permit. So the current situation is that residents must pay to park outside their own house overnight, and are limited to just one vehicle, but anyone else can (and do) block that space from 6am to 2am for free, often stopping residents from parking on their own street or even on nearby streets. The proposed daytime parking scheme would alleviate this situation by allowing residents to buy permits to park all-day on-street during the day, while limiting the number of other people able to park for more than 3 hours. This will make it much easier for residents and their visitors to park on their own street, while also increasing turnover of spaces for visitors to downtown. It also means that people who park all day on these streets will pay for the privilege, non-residents as well as residents (who are currently the only ones who have to pay). And people who work at the university will not be able to get permits to park all day unless they are also residents without driveways on the street concerned. Why should town subsidize parking for business employees and the university at the expense of residents, which is currently the situation in several of the Tree Streets? Why should residents have to pay to park at night when non-residents can park for 20 hours a day, blocking residents from using the space, and pay nothing? The proposed scheme is not perfect, but it will spread the burden of employees parking on local roads more fairly than is presently the case, because only a limited number of all-day permits will be allowed per street. If you don’t support the current parking plan what do you propose to un-jam the parking spaces on the Tree Streets to make life more bearable for the residents there, particularly for those without driveways?
I have worked in Princeton for 16 years and I have parked in the spring street parking garage . I wish my boss would help out a little bit. It is very expensive ! Over 50 dollars a week. I try not to park near residents homes . Do not want to disrespect!!
I can’t agree with you more. It is frustrating to hear people in neighborhoods near downtown where on street parking is not allowed get so upset about a small fraction of spaces on each block being permitted out to employees when the status quo is cramming them all into a few streets to the detriment of the residents there.
Points taken. Those of us who live right near the PHS and the WCC have had different issues some years ago (contending with parking, noise, trash, etc.) from students and visitors of these two institutions. Clearly each area has (or has had) their specific burden to bear. Bottom line: NO ONE who resides and pays property taxes should be restricted from parking on their own street, and they sure as hell shouldn’t have to pay for the honor of doing so. Period. End of story. Regardless of whatever else happens, changes or is instituted – the right of residents to park on resident area streets needs to be blanketly adopted and sacrosanct, town wide.
What’s more – the Parking Task Force once again attempting to push through their divisive and controversial plans (featuring saddling our streets with perpetual costly and intrusive “robocop technology”) while we’re still in pandemic-mode and just as we go into holiday season (while residents are decidedly overwhelmed and occupied with both) is beyond disingenuous – it’s laughably obvious.
The permit parking plan could be implemented for Spruce, Moran, Linden, and Maple if the residents of these streets want it. It should NOT be imposed on neighborhoods that oppose it, like the high school neighborhood.
The entitlement on display here is appalling–would these residents rather that the businesses that function less than a half a mile from their ivory towers have no employees to serve them? I’m sure once the silver spoon isn’t shoveled into their mouths everyday by actual hard workers they’ll be angry at the lack of servitude to them. Princeton is too expensive for anyone who works here to actually live. Rent prices skew toward NYC levels while wages stay just above the minimum–I’ll play a sonata on the worlds smallest violin for your travails while I walk almost two miles to my job in town.
These are the people who, through the worst of the pandemic, kept showing up for work. The streets were empty: plenty of parking then. Yet they risked personal safety and declined furloughs to keep providing essentials for the community, with curbside pickups, home deliveries, and in-store service. Not just material things, but a spark of life and hope as the death rate climbed and businesses shuttered their doors all over town, many of them forever. But now?—no. You don’t want “these people” parking in your town, not even when a solution respectful to all constituencies has been presented after years of work. A sad commentary on just how much is wrong in Princeton.
Unfortunately, the issue is that the proposal asks those living in the wealthier parts of Princeton, such as the Western part, to make the same sacrifice that those of us living on the tree streets have been making for years, in terms of sharing the burden of parking for the town’s workers. It’s sad to see how vehemently they are fighting this reasonable proposal.
Folks, looks like some of us forgot that it is the responsibility of *businesses* to create comfortable and attractive conditions for their employees. If parking is in fact a problem for businesses, then THEY should subsidise parking for their employees or pay those employees higher wages. The onus falls on THEM. How did Princeton residents end up holding the bag? Instead, the current proposal pushes the bill down hill to residents under the guise of “equity” and there’s a line of people coming out of the weeds who are angry at residents for being “entitled” and judging us. Excuse you. Does this lame drama theater still work on intelligent people? News flash: we are being asked to pay hundreds of $/year to park on our own streets and to deal with the ramifications of congestion, which always includes litter and safety issues. Employees work for businesses. Those business should solve parking issues for their employees – by subsidy, partnerships, whatnot – but demanding that residents pick up the tab is appalling and lazy. Instead of victimising residents, look at the root cause of the problem. Go to your employer and demand that they behave responsibly. THAT logic I will support and stand by you. Whereas “robbing Peter to pay Paul” I won’t support and nobody should!
Do you know who is on the Parking Task Force? Several merchants. Do you think it’s appropriate that a residential topic has merchants on the board?
To add insult to injury, instead of approaching this subject as a Princeton-wide town discussion, it’s being done by neighbourhood. Divide and conquer style. Not sneaky? If we don’t speak up, the historic western section, university/mercer street, and all other sections of town within 1/2-1 mile radius will be affected. Please show up and speak your mind:
https://www.princetonnj.gov/FAQ.aspx?TID=43
https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7687/Permit-Parking-Pilot-Program-Council-Presentation-May-24-2021-PDF
Nov 20th, at noon is the next meeting. Here are the zoom meeting details:
https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9094/Permit-Parking-Task-Force-Community-Meeting-Link-November-20-2021-PDF
The town has an agreement with Rider University to permit parking at Westminster.
Respectfully some people want more for you than you seem to want for yourself. Other towns and cities are protecting in-town residential neighborhoods from spillover parking and not turning them into parking lots. Since spillover parking has been problematic for you why would you want to impose it elsewhere in town? You may get the relief that you desire for a period of time, but with the predicted growth in Princeton it could be taken away – slowly but surely. A better idea is to immediately relieve your neighborhood from spillover parking by reconfiguring the plan and then developing a plan that protects and preserves all in-town neighborhoods from spillover parking well into the future. It can be done it just takes a different vision than has been exercised thus far.