fragments

Policies don’t work in fragments. When considering the impact of a bill, it’s important to take all its aspects into account, not just the appealing pieces. More than that, we have to be honest about the contents and intended purpose of a bill, rather than relying on side-effects to achieve our goals.

A good recent example I’ve been tackling lately is Newton’s winter overnight parking ban—a seemingly innocuous parking ban with far wider implications than one might originally expect. Parking bans like Newton’s exist in hundreds of New England towns, and they reveal how legacy laws can linger long after their necessity fades.

Local context

I’ve written a few posts about the effort to overturn Newton’s overnight winter parking ban, both from the renters’ perspective and in response to its advocates. Recently, I came across a Newton Beacon opinion article written from the voice of a supporter of the ban.

As with the pamphlet, I find that each argument hinges on the reader not remembering the full text of the ban. For example:

Supporters of repeal argue that the 90-year-old law is obsolete, citing reduced snowfall, its limited hours, and the law’s disrespect for residents. This is misleading.

This is misleading:

  • Repealing the bill would still have provisions for snow emergencies; snowfall has little to do with overturning the ban.
  • The ban’s limited hours are part of why many of the arguments in favor fall flat.
  • Supporting laws for their side effects rather than their stated purpose shows disregard for residents’ understanding. Support transparent, purposeful laws, and if the residents don’t agree with you, respect them.

The early-morning commute—when children walk to school or bus stops and when people head to work—occurs in darkness or soon after sunrise, when visibility is limited. Cars parked on narrow streets at those hours create blind spots and amplify the dangers of ice and snow-narrowed lanes.

This is noble, but a stretch:

  • Cars don’t disappear at 6:01am; this ban handles this situation poorly.
  • Many commuters are moving their cars during these hours, i.e. off the street.
  • There hasn’t been any effort to measure or quantify the bill’s impact on public safety. This argument is rhetorical, not practical.

The ban has evolved to serve as one of the most powerful and low-cost secondary tools against unsustainable development. Repealing the ban instantly removes the city’s most effective incentive for requiring new developments to include adequate off-street parking.

This is a key weakness of this argument: advocates support the side-effects of the bill, rather than advocating for legislation that actually serves this purpose. And if residents wouldn’t support the legislation that actually tackles this problem, then it ought not exist.

If the ballot question to repeal the parking ban is approved, it takes effect, almost immediately, creating a dangerous policy vacuum across Newton’s 320 miles of streets.

Cities routinely change parking laws without descending into anarchy and chaos. The “policy vacuum” is massively overstated here for effect.

To address the resulting problems, the city will have to engage in a slow, tedious, street-by-street re-regulation process

Maintaining a ban because overturning it incurs a one-time cost to recalibrate is a poor argument in favor of the ban. Laws should be based on what is best for the population, not what’s convenient for local government.

In winter, its availability for essential operations and emergency access must come first along with the safety of pedestrians and students in morning hours.

Cambridge uses a permit-based system triggered by storm declarations; it protects emergency access without punishing renters year-round.

Policy over placebo

The Newton overnight parking ban is an inflexible rule serving as a safety placebo and poor substitute for comprehensive parking management. If the city wants to manage congestion and development responsibly, it should modernize zoning, use storm-triggered bans, and implement neighborhood permit systems the way most cities do, not cling to a 90-year-old blanket ban to avoid change.

When considering a law, we can’t just selectively pick the parts that look like other ideas we like. A policy such as this is enforced in full when put into practice, and as residents, we deal with its full effects, not just the parts we like.