At least as conceptualized as part of CP, RPP was low- or no-cost. I heard quite a bit of outrage from curbside parkers at the DoT’s RPP workshops at the notion that people mighte be required to “pay to park on our own streets.” RPP will only increase that sense of entitlement.

I’ll reiterate an idea I posted a while back. Meter most or all spaces, let those who register and insure their car at a NYC address purchase meter scrip at a discount. Monetize the benefit so it is transparent and explicit, then make the curbside parkers justify their subsidy to the rest of us.

No, we already have that class of people and my bet is that more than a third of them neither register their cars in the city nor pay city taxes. They are the entitled few who benefit from the curbside give-away at zero cost to themselves. Shame on them; and are you one of them Ian?

We need to curtail the Brodsky-esque commuters, those who illegally register cars (and themselves for that matter) outside the city. First dibs for curbside spaces should rightly go to law-abiding city residents.

Every other major city in the country (and some not so large ones) successfully implement RPP. Why do we listen to the NIMBY-types who refuse to accept that NY is not so different from the rest of our country that it can’t work here.

RPP now. Perhaps we will see fewer cars parking on the streets and higher tax revenues from “newly” registered citizens.

A very wise woman (to whom I’m married) once pointed out to me that every time “we” want to take a fresh perspective or change things for the better, we are confronted with those who feel entitled because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Of course, I want those people to go up to a family grieving after a pedestrian fatality and tell them that they should get over it because “that’s the way it’s always been.” And it’s funny that always doesn’t mean “always,” it means “from the time that I became entitled.”

Responding to Sue of the Boerum Hill Assn., sure those people circling around should have taken public transportation. But so the people eligible for a permit, who live within easy reach of the public transit network. Take for example… me. Why should I get privileged parking for my car when I live in one of the most transit-rich neighborhoods in the USA? Won’t that entitlement just encourage me to use my car more, not less? (It will, just like the $8 fee that I pay at the tunnel convinces me not to drive.)

And other kvelling.

Since paying for things is unpopular, I suggest that livable streets advocates have done their share of being grown ups for a while. Let, Brodsky, Fider and Weiner — the stand-up opponents — convince their gutless breathern to oppose alternate pain. They’ve promised after all. I plan on shutting up if I agree, but objecting if I do not.

In the meantime, the streets are free, the crossings are free, the parking is (for everyone in many places and selected people in all places) free. Some people are using more than their share. Let’s change that right now, and dare them to oppose it.

There will be other passovers.

Nope. To kvell is to show pleasure and pride (canonically, in the accomplishments of one’s children). You’re thinking of kvetching, which means whining and complaining persistently.

We should make a list of supporters in two groups, warm and tepid. Unfortunately, no real “champion” ever stepped forth for CP.

Ultimately the RPP support will break down a lot like the CP support, a function of community residential density. And, again unfortunately in my book, much of the CP support came from people opposed to density and development making further political coalitions problematic.

Can’t post a direct link because it uses javascript.

Scroll down to VAT. http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

*I’ll skip the long political/historical exegesis. Others can go wild with that.