|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new ordinance that will slash parking minimums for new buildings, including apartments, passed a final City Council vote on Thursday night.
The body voted 8-3 to send the ordinance to the mayor’s desk to be signed into law. Councilors Derek Baptiste, Leo Choquette, and Brian Gomes voted against the ordinance, saying it would cause cars from new housing developments to overflow into surrounding neighborhoods.
Current zoning requires developers of new buildings to set aside at least two off-street parking spaces per housing unit, a standard that most existing multifamily buildings don’t meet — a triple-decker built today would need a driveway or garage with six spots. The Planning Board often grants exceptions to this rule, though it’s a costly and time-consuming approval process for developers.
The ordinance the City Council passed would reduce the minimum to one space per unit for apartments with fewer than three bedrooms. The two-space minimum will stay in place for larger apartments, single-family homes, and duplexes. The ordinance also reduces and clarifies parking minimums for many types of businesses.
City planners say they wrote the ordinance based on a data-driven analysis of current conditions in the city. Census data shows that about half of tenant households in New Bedford have only one car, while about a quarter don’t own a car.
Councilor Shane Burgo, the council’s most progressive voice on housing, said the city needed to lower parking minimums to address its severe housing shortage.
“Parking is a concern — it is something that we haven’t seen in the past, where homes have a whole fleet of vehicles,” he said. “But at the same time, too, we cannot just cater to these individuals that have a fleet of vehicles and say to those people sleeping on the street, ‘Sorry, continue sleeping on the street, because I need these people to have a parking space.’”
Gomes pushed back on that. He said the developments currently being built in New Bedford weren’t going to house the city’s homeless or improve the quality of life in neighborhoods.
“This is not for the less fortunate,” he said. “We keep B.S.-ing that and I can’t stand it.” He also said he thought the ordinance would allow developers to keep “shortchanging” the city.
Baptiste, Choquette, and Gomes say the ordinance is unrealistic because they think apartment-dwellers will bring more cars than city planners expect.
Choquette, who represents the suburban Ward 1, said he supports growing the city’s tax base with new development, but said it would have been more reasonable to start by lowering the minimum to 1.5 spaces per unit instead of just one.
“Yes, we want to make this developer-friendly and commercial business-friendly, but at what cost and what speed?” he said.
A senior housing development in Ward 1 with 48 apartments and 42 parking spots has caused headaches for his constituents, he said. Some Ward 1 residents have strongly opposed preliminary plans for a three-story development at the empty New York Chinese Buffet on Ashley Boulevard.
Residents of Ward 4 have raised concerns about a nine-unit development in that part of the city. Baptiste, the Ward 4 councilor, said it’s already hard for residents to find parking spots and “you gotta be crazy” to think that tenant households will only have one car.
Choquette has been outspoken about his opposition to the ordinance for months, but Baptiste and Gomes’ comments came late in the council process. They had not spoken against the proposal in the three previous meetings where the council heard feedback on it from the public and voted to advance it.
The parking proposal first came before the ordinance committee, of which all councilors are members, in December. Fifteen people spoke at the hearing, all urging the council to adopt the proposal. They said it would help to address rising rents by building more housing and lower property taxes by growing the tax base. Several councilors said they agreed.
The council took the rare step of holding another special hearing in January after residents of Ward 1 came forward to oppose the proposal and said they hadn’t known about the December committee hearing. Residents at the January meeting echoed Choquette’s concerns about parking overflows.
Gomes and Baptiste did not attend hearings on the proposal held in December and January. At a council meeting on Jan. 8, both backed Choquette in a failed motion to send the proposal back to committee for more public feedback after the Ward 1 residents came forward. The council then took its first vote on whether to advance the proposal. The motion succeeded on a voice vote rather than a roll call, so individual councilors’ positions weren’t recorded.
Email Grace Ferguson at gferguson@newbedfordlight.org.
Can you get a copy of the planning dept’s “data driven analysis” so that we can form opinions based on data instead of gut reactions. We should see if the data set is legitimate. Was it shared with the council, or did they expect the council to take their word for it? With current rents, it would seem that two working people are needed to able to afford even most 1 BRs. Working people usually have a car to get to work. That’s two cars for a one bedroom, never mind 2. I think Gomes has his finger on the pulse of the neighborhoods and has been dealing with parking issues in the city for a long time. The others may see all development as good development.
According to citywide census data, 60% of households have either one car or zero cars. In the West End the same stat is 85% and downtown it’s 95%, with about 50% of households not owning a car.
I hear you on the parking challenges in some neighborhoods. Every block is different, so some flexibility is needed. Which is why one-size-fits all government mandates that dictate how much parking someone needs to build don’t work well in a city. Reducing minimums doesn’t mean that developers won’t add additional parking. It just means the city isn’t dictating that they build more off-street parking than tenants need.
Large developers have always had the time/$$/wherewithal to get variances on parking requirements. Reducing minimums levels the playing field for smaller, local developers who want to create things like infill housing in their neighborhoods. Most people agree that the city needs more housing. Some of the best people to build that housing (and build wealth in the process) are local developers who have roots here and a long-term stake in the community.
Challenges with parking in particular neighborhoods aren’t going to be solved by blocking new housing (or making it prohibitively expensive). They can only be addressed by effective curb management. In most neighborhoods in NB, the current curb management policy is “anyone from anywhere can park as many vehicles as they want here for free for as long as they want.” Giving a scarce resource away for free like that creates a tragedy of the commons.
In the future this will come back to impact all city neighborhoods. The 2026 City Council in such a short time has already become a complete joke, putting the interests of developers before city residents (the Mayor gets his way again). This should be a great argument for a recall petition to be put in place (again overcrowding our city neighborhoods and streets will clearly become a major safety issue in the future).
Gomes, Abreu and Roy were the top vote getters so I think the degrowther caucus are electoral losers as well as losers on this vote – the folks who voted for more growth and more prosperity were electoral winners last time around.
Less red tape and more building is good for the city.
If Choquette, Baptiste and Gomes had their way the whole city would look like what they want to preserve: tattered, empty commercial buildings and empty lots.
Enough with the gibberish, when a councilor is elected they take an oath to serve and protect the citizens of New Bedford whether at large or a ward councilor (they vote for the whole city).
A tenant / housing project is the only type of project that could become a problem in any neighborhood due to safety issues (introducing a large volume of vehicles causes overcrowding and is problem for emergency vehicles getting through) common sense says this type of project should have been excluded from the the parking ordinance.
On the financial side the majority of tenant / housing projects receive tax credits where the city will not see a dime of revenue for years.
The vacant former nursing home in North End will be turned into 65 new rental units. The Owner / Developer will receive a $2.5 Million Dollar state grant, the city provides 10 years of tax credits (the city does not see a dime for ten years) while the owner collects 10 years of rent from 65 Units (what a great deal for the developer).
There is a lot more to this story than flipping a parking switch and thinking your going to hit a home run and take care New Bedford’s Tax Problems. THE SAFETY OF NEW BEDFORD RESIDENTS SHOULD NEVER BE COMPROMISED. Again it’s time to start a recall petition and get on the next ballot for all elected offices, 100% the city needs new leadership.
Enough with the gibberish, when a councilor is elected they take an oath to serve and protect the citizens of New Bedford whether at large or a ward councilor (they vote for the whole city).
A tenant / housing project is the only type of project that could become a problem in any neighborhood creating safety issues due to more vehicles and overcrowding (especially for emergency vehicles) common sense says this type of project should have been excluded from the parking ordinance.
The financial upside is years away for the majority of tenant / housing projects due to receiving tax credits that will not provide a dime of revenue for years. Example the vacant former nursing home in North End will be turned into 65 new rental units. The Owner / Developer will receive a $2.5 Million Dollar state grant and the city will provide 10 years of tax credits (the city does not see a dime for ten years) while the owner collects 10 years of rent from 65 Units (not a bad deal).
So there is a lot more to this story than flipping a parking switch and thinking the city is going to hit a home run and take care of New Bedford’s Tax Problems. Again it’s time to start a recall petition and get on the next ballot for all elected offices, 100% the city needs new leadership.
“ overcrowding our city neighborhoods and streets will clearly become a major safety issue in the future”
What a funny crystal ball you have that only shows you terrible outcomes. Cannot you imagine anything good coming from this? Less space used for asphalt and more for housing?
People making choices that are based on their parking spot?
Developers investing in walkable, mixed use neighborhoods – like we already have on Acushnet Ave, downtown, county st and Goulart square?
Higher ridership and more profits for public transit?
Like one of the dozen people told the council in the hearing, changing these requirements makes it easier to build more of what NB has already. How many triple deckers have SIX off street parking spaces? I’ve lived in this city my whole life and I’ve never had an off-street parking space! It’s fine. And if you want an off-street, there’s a TON of them you can buy with your house, rent, or lease from a parking lot.
Developers can still build as many spaces as space allows. There’s no parking maximums.
Reducing parking minimums doesn’t prevent developers from building as many parking spaces as they want. We should address parking maximums next to prevent that.
I am begging carbrained council members (my own being one, how embarrassing) to ride the SRTA as part of their duty and responsibility to their constituents. Public transportation is a very good alternative to owning a car, is currently free in New Bedford, but lack of attention by our government has left it needing work.
We don’t need more car culture. We don’t need to preserve space for cars. We need investments and improvements on our great bus network, which it seems is consistently whittled away.
Why not issue parking sticker permits for certain areas like the MAYORS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS……
AND ENFORCE THEM LIKE THE MAYORS NEIGHBORHOOD DOES
Makes sense to me!
Any group of residents can petition the traffic commission and get this. My grandma in the south end has it off Brock Ave to keep all those evil beach goers from parking in front of her single family home (with a driveway).
There is a lot of discussion here but I haven’t seen any comments regarding the developers cost and the end result, the housing. First the developers cost, as it was stated earlier in reference to the project in the north end at the former Chinese restaurant, an ordinance such as this is a benefit to the developer by reducing costs of the project. Second, I haven’t heard a serious discussion of affordable housing. There is nothing here, or anywhere I have read where this project on Ashley Blvd. will provide affordable housing, therefore, this will all be market rents further inflating the cost of housing. I have also not seen any discussion regarding this location that is not far from the MBTA station. Why is this relevant, because developers are not stupid, they will build nice housing then advertise this up north to communities like Boston introducing the availability of the transit and try to lure people from other communities and get higher prices which would be a bargain to what they pay up north. Also, the lack of affordable housing does not reduce the homeless factor where people sleeping and living in their cars will never afford this new housing, and as Councilor Gomes has stated, this has no impact on the homeless population. Yes we need housing, we need affordable housing for our citizens, not high rent housing. I have been around the block on this issue many times regarding affordable housing, financing, development planning up north and around the Commonwealth, now retired. The change to this ordinance will become a disaster, especially with the giveaways, (that again do not include affordable low income housing). The developers won the city and the working people lost. PS, was there any discussion to ensure local labor would benefit, or does the developer use the age old excuse, “we need talented skill labor and this will have to recruited and brought in”. I have heard this many times also. Y’all have a great day.
While it’s certainly not a silver bullet, it stands to reason that reducing the cost of building housing can bring down the cost of housing over time.
Regarding affordability, the more we remove barriers for people to build homes of all types, the more housing supply there will be in the future. Again, not a silver bullet, but makes it more likely that rents will go down as landlords compete for tenants.
Regarding the MBTA and “luring” more taxpaying, working people to the area, that’s an interesting point. I know some businesses and others who might welcome more people into the local economy.
And, if people are moving to this area from other places (it’s a city after all), wouldn’t we rather they move into whatever shiny new building gets built than compete with current residents for scarce housing?
I respect what is said, but rents didn’t go down in Worcester, Fitchburg, many northern communities of Boston, and Boston itself. Developers are greedy and unless there is input and safety nets built into the development what you say will not happen. As for the local builders, yes, the smaller projects, duplexes, single families, maybe a triplex, this could help. But I’m not going to the bank on large residential developments without stipulations. PS, this can also be achieved by the type of financing that is introduced.
Local labor will benefit when wages go up. Locals will be able to afford the ever increasing rents when wages go up.
Comments from “Let Locals Build”, shows they clearly do not understand the fragility of this city nor how the decades old need for cars has happened in the first place. Several factors contribute to this. It is one of the oldest in the country. We are a working, historical, seaport town. We were on the forefront of industry and bad environmental practices. We are trying to clean up, and move forward. While trying to recusitate our marine industry or create new industry, we are subjected to the same ebbs and flows as other post industry towns. I agree with need for reduction in parking, however, the need for more cars was partly work related. Sure SRTA is free, now, but it’s still not convenient for everyone. As for the train, it is great we have it. However, if it had been approved and built during the Romney era it could have possibly prevented the need to get a vehicle. If one lived here since the 80’s one would know that. One would also know that over the last 15 years at least there was a push to create activities, places, to entice people to want to stay and build. Unfortunately, if there was a current poll taken on how many people in New Bedford were able to purchase a home and or a condo to live here one maybe surprised. In fact if said poll focused on the number of people who live in New Bedford actually lived in the homes or developments they owned, I would not be surprised if it said 50% or less. I say that because constantly I hear local people who have loans to buy homes in New Bedford are being out priced by outside investors. Which brings me to the homeless conversation. As some have mentioned upcoming housing is not for the person making minimum wage. Unless, hypothetically speaking, of course, there are 4 people living in a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 cars working for $15 per hour and pulling their money together to get ahead. But that will bring us back to the car reduction issue and lack of industry and need to travel outside of the area for work and having a car is cheaper at the moment than getting on the train at the moment. In short, long, 1.5 cars seems like an off number for car reduction but a more feasible one for now. In addition, I agree with the suggestion of enforced residential permanent parking for the areas that will be affected the most if the mayor agrees to the drastic reduction. As for developers and others that constantly criticize New Bedford residents when they speak up for want they want in the city…why don’t developers consider buying empty lots and shuttle their tenants to their cars like Hartford. Even better how about developing necessity business where housing is to increase the walk ability appeal…i.e. an actual food store downtown (Whole Foods). As a former commuter, after 10-12 hour a day traveling days, a place that was right around the corner would be perfect. Or perhaps budgetting to build a parking garage to satisfy those who in this present time still need a car. And as time changes where there is less need for a car, expand housing by removing space from the parking garage like I have seen hospitals do in Boston with offices.
I was right there with you until you mentioned Whole Foods. A Whole Foods and a Starbucks downtown will be the final cherry on top of the gentrification of downtown that the Mitchell administration have been working on for over 10 years. If you think that will help address affordability anywhere in NB by having this store come downtown, you are going to get a lot of pushback for that.
Also, downtown NB already has a municipal garage and a lot of smart sounding people seem to always brush past that fact (Elm St.)
Dear Bill,
I thank you for your time to respond to my previous comments. Whole Foods was only an example but not an actual intent. Boutique Stop and Shops exist on the Vineyard and other places. The point was having an actual sustainable food store that supplied a variety of fresh foods and necessities. It could be a Shaws, Price Rite, Vicentes, Seabara’s, or any other store that can supply more options than just a “dollar” store.
As for “smart sounding people” brushing past the Elm Street garage, I am not sure about that. If one looks at developments now and the future, the Elm Street garage is having an uptick of “smart sounding people” utilizing it.
Again, I thank you for your time to respond to my previous comments. And I hope moving forward there is consideration that progress should not have to be a repeat of unhealthy historical practices.
During my time in construction management mostly every town and city throughout New England the developers were building podium style projects to help ease the burden with parking. Some others would split the lower level between parking and a retail store (a small grocery or c store). You will probably start to see new housing projects / tenant buildings start to build higher / more floors to be cost effective. The podium style type of build out might be the best way to go (to help with the parking burden).