This is great. I will finally be find a spot near my home in the middle of the day!!!!

I have not voted because none of these three choices is in agreement with my view: those of us who, because we live in a mass-transit rich area do not own cars, will find it impossible to park our occasional rental cars on our own streets, and it will be impossible for people who drive to visit us. This is yet another privilege, even if there is a fee involved, afforded car-owners who, if they want a guarantee of a spot, should be renting a garage space and not expecting to park nearby on city property.

I'd assume that certain number of spaces would be for the public so the argument about people who don't live here not being able to park probably isn't justified. I've lived in Park Slope forever and parking has been and always will be the biggest negative to living here. Having residential permits would totally enhance the experience of being in this neighborhood. I don't know how it will work, will they charge residents a tax? A fee for the space? No doubt, since the city would never give up that revenue of tickets, especially in the Slope! But it's a great idea, it just needs to be fair for everyone ...

People should get rid of their cars and if they want to park someplace let them do so on private property. Why should the public domain be used - free of charge - by people to store their personal property?

And if people are having visitors in town, there should be a way to pay for an overnight pass. Many other cities do this. It would help all sides, allowing for visitors, but ending the ridiculous practice of giving away city real estate to people for storing private property.

If they do this it should be all neighborhood not select ones. Also what is going to stop someone from parking in an area designated for permit parking only. Most of these venues are from 7pm and on, even if they will be issued tickets for parking in permit areas how many traffic agents do u see out after 7pm issuing tickets...

What "privater property"? I can count on one hand the number of private driveway/garages there are in the Slope and other brownstone neighborhoods. Get rid of our cars? It would be one space per household, and that's a restriction. It's worked in other high congestion areas, it could definitely work here.

Parking spaces should go to the people who own property and pay taxes, water and sewer bills in the area if it comes to this.

This has worked in Hoboken for years without a problem. My cousins lived there and we would visit (without a resident permit) and my father always found a spot even if it might have taken a while. I think this is a much needed permit for the communities that we are talking about here.

I wonder what would happen if a residence decided to go away for the week with their car. Is that person's personal parking space just not going to be occupied for a week?

I lived in San Francisco where the parking situation was just as bad. Here is what they are doing to resolve the problem for residents and this works just fine. http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pperm/13442.html

Any discussion of residential parking permits must include a discussion of how & why is it that Houses of Worship (HOW) have posted traffic signs that permanently ban parking in front of these buildings 24/7? This perk is unfair & deprives residents of much needed parking space. Removing this unfair perk could free up one hundred or more parking spaces in Green Hill.

The streets are indeed public property owned by the whole of New York City. Our city government can decide who gets to use those streets. The recent ruling would give priority to residents over commuters and visitors. There will likely be some option for temporary passes for visitors to residential addresses within the zone. There should also be some accommodation for local ZipCars and the like since we typically have to load and unload from the streets.

I don't think the city should allow car owners to park their private property on our public city streets for free. However, I do agree that priority should be given to those residents that pay property taxes in the vicinity. (Renters are included in this through their rents.)

This system doesn't let them park for free. Residents have to purchase passes. The money from the passes goes to the MTA. (I would prefer for it to go to NYC Transit and not the wasteful MTA general fund.) Fines from violations go to the City's general fund (like all other parking violations.)

The city should specifically target enforcement during game times. I would much rather have the city "tax" Nets fans than fire more teachers.

-Chris

More money, more taxes, more tickets.... IS EVERYONE CRAZY!!
It's difficult enough being a car owner and we pay, pay, pay- more regulation-less money in our pockets- I ASSURE YOU.
Those in the Barkley can park their car in the huge ATLANTIC LOT next to the facility.

Julianne, I can assure you that everyone without a car is subsidizing those with one since everyone's taxes go to road upkeep. (Last I checked, I was unable to find the box on my IRS forms that say, "Check here if you do not own a car and want a smaller percentage of your tax dollars to go towards roads and bridge repair.)

Gas taxes and registration fees have been shown to hardly cover half of all the expenses associated with driving. In fact, if you had to pay the full cost of driving, you probably wouldn't be able to afford it.

Public streets are public places - one should not have the right to store private property there. You should no more be able to store your $15,000 (or $5,000 or $50,000, or whatever) car on the street for free then I should be able to store my couch and boxes of books out there for free, even if I agree to move everyone once in a while so the street can be cleaned.

The only people who are crazy are drivers, who expect to be able to get New York City real estate for free! Want to put your steel box on streets we all use? Pay for it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but this would cut down on people who live in the neighborhood but are committing insurance fraud by registering their car to an address not in Brooklyn. There are quite a few cars with out of state plates that are parked year round on the same block. I suspect that some of these people probably would forgo owning a car if they had to pay the full price of car insurance.

if a parking space in the neighborhood costs say $250 a month (i really have no idea.) then that's $3,000 per year. considering that street spots are outside, subject to weather and storm damage, potential vandalism, accidents, etc. and that they're not guaranteed, a much lower price would be reasonable.

further considering that the city might want to provide more "affordable" parking for our residents that /need/ (can't do italics in the comment section.) to drive for various reasons, a rate of $200 is very reasonable for the city to charge to store private property on the streets.

i think the city should pay special attention to car sharing programs and other situations where people only use a car periodically--such as borrowing a friend's car. it would be great to be able to buy a temporary pass for X number of days where one writes in the date and displays the permit on the dashboard. traffic cops would just have to check that the date has been marked.

-chris

Chris, a parking permit in Hoboken is $15 per year. In Boston, it's free. In DC, I believe it's between $35 and $50 per year.

You can park in a garage for $250 - $400 a month and even outdoor private lots can charge as much, showing you just how undervalued on street parking is.

I think businesses, such as the auto body shops that leave wrecked cars on the street forever, ought to pay market rate for parking.

Count me in as absolutely for residential parking permits. You'd be surprised at how quickly your tune changes as to parking several blocks away (or even using your car versus taking the train) when you become a parent. The Slope should continue to serve as a model for family-friendly neighborhoods, and giving priority to its residents with parking should be part of that.

The main benefit of RPP's is that they have been proven to reduce the amount of vehicles driving around looking for free parking. Since NYPD is unwilling/underfunded/incapable of enforcing moving violations in our city, and the streets are basically lawless, this reduction in vehicle volume will make us all more safe.

I applaud anyone opting NOT to own a car in the city; but don't condemn those who do either. Business needs, family needs and just transportation to get out on the weekend are reasons to own a car. It is sheer TORTURE finding a space near your home in the Slope. It severely impacts quality of life here. Ask anyone what is the major beef with this neighborhood and I guarantee most will say the parking. Is it so unreasonable that people who live here get a permit to park here? Don't forget the 30 minutes driving around looking for a space on a day when it's tight uses up fuel and impacts the environment.
And, if you don't OWN a car, why do you care??

There sure are a lot of have-nots parking their cars in all the public housing projects everywhere around the five boroughs. Talk about free parking, free rent, free gas and electric. What a turn around in society. If you have something, it must be because you are an elitist and you are taking from society. If people want to come into the area either by public transportation or by private car I think that's wonderful. Fifth Ave used to be a waste land. It's great that people want to come into the area. More people more business, better safety, better neighborhoods. Some in this x-generation seem to be worried about their own privileges above all others.

The auto industry employs countless numbers of people all across the USA. Most have- nots would love to become haves. Education and a work ethic sure helps. In Europe bike riders have licenses plates and follow the rules of the road. To be fair, just leave the system as it should be, first come, first park. Do your really want more government regulation??

I do have a logistical question ... how would this work? Are there enough spaces to accomodate homeowners with cars and tenants with cars? Would it be a battle to find a space on your own block even with a sticker? I live off the park and in the summer, the battle for spaces is ridiculous. Just wondering ...

I have a question for you Michael Brownie. Why do you reply to my post with something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said? You reply to my post talking about auctioning off permits when I'm talking about people on here who condemn those that choose to own cars. One has nothing to do with the other. Stop trying to be too smart for your own good.

Car drivers must stay in their own damn car lanes. I see far too many of them parking on sidewalks, in no standing zones, in bike lanes, in hydrant spaces...they need to earn the respect they say they want if they want privileges.

You are still not guarenteed a parking spot on the street you live on with the permits. Its going to be an 80 20 split on parking and since most of the people in the slope leave their cars home and take the train parking is still going to be scarce.

It's a math game. The average lot in Park Slope is about 1.25 car lengths long, but most buildings have multiple apartments in them. My building is one old brownstone carved up into eight apartments. It's simply not possible for every person who owns a car to find parking on his block or even in his immediate neighborhood.

Drivers are in for a rude awakening if they think that residential permits will somehow guarantee them a parking space.

If parking is scarce, we should do what we do with other limited resources...charge for it! I really need to eat, but I don't expect free food. Why does anyone expect free parking, other than because it's been free in the past?