A policy order that would triple the cost of an annual parking pass for the majority of car owners drew consternation by public commenters at Monday’s Cambridge City Council meeting and was ultimately not voted.
The proposal would raise the fee from $25, where it has been since 2013, to $75 starting next year. Residents could continue to pay $25 if they say they are low-income, live in affordable housing or are on welfare programs such as SNAP. It also proposed that senior citizens no longer be exempt. The proposal would also cut the number of cars a single resident can obtain a pass for from four to two.
The rationale for the change, according to Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, is to make the parking permit program start paying for itself. In 2024, Cambridge Department of Transportation said running the parking permit program costs at least $75 per vehicle.
With somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 vehicles registered each year, those costs add up. According to Councillor Marc McGovern, a co-sponsor of the policy order, program runs at a $2 million deficit.
Sobrinho-Wheeler also said the current program means wealthy seniors like Harvard University President Alan Garber pay nothing. He also said it was “not fair” to non-drivers.
“Everyone is paying the cost of maintaining those parking spots through their tax dollars, whether or not they have a car,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said. “That’s not economic justice.”
Most residents who spoke during public comment opposed the order as currently written. Some called it an example of “nickel and diming” resident amidst rising costs of living. But the most complaints were lodged against the removal of the fee exemption for seniors.
“To take away something from senior citizens at a time like this, with the way things are and people are trying to survive – it’s disgusting,” said Michele Malvesti, also noting that Cambridge seniors already struggle with inflation and cuts to social services.
Councillor Patty Nolan acknowledged the financial hardship some people are facing, but said the proposed fee was not excessive. “The proposal is to keep the amount for low-income [residents] at $25. For low-income seniors that would be an increase of $2 a month,” Nolan said. “My sense is that we should not subsidize any car owner fully, and that if you own a car, $2 a month is a reasonable amount to pay for an annual permit if you are low-income.”
While no councillors spoke against the fee increase, Councillor E. Denise Simmons advocated strongly for keeping the senior exemption. She expressed concern that a fee increase could hurt seniors on fixed incomes, for whom “$75 dollars might be a heating bill, it might be a week of groceries, it might be a co-pay that they have been putting off.”
Simmons proposed an amendment to the policy order keeping the senior exemption but allowing seniors to pay if they wanted to. The amendment, along with the policy order itself did not receive a vote on Monday’s meeting, and the agenda item was tabled for a later meeting.
McGovern said he’d had conversations suggesting there is still appetite for making high-income seniors pay more. “I talked to a bunch of seniors who testified tonight outside,” McGovern said. “They all said, ‘Yeah, seniors who make a million dollars should pay more money.’ So, I just think there’s a lot of confusion around this.”
Later in the week, McGovern told Cambridge Day via email he has been working on new language for the PO. It is unclear whether a vote will happen at this coming Monday’s council meeting. McGovern said he won’t introduce it, but “that doesn’t mean someone else won’t.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
$50 would go over a lot better.
We need to know why it costs the city in excess of $75 for every parking pass, as stated in the article. If we begin means testing, what is the real cost of collecting information? We need to rein in the costs of the program! Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler seems to misunderstand the concept of collective responsibility when he stated that it was “not fair” to non-car owners to pay for the permit parking program. Non-car owners do benefit from the program by receivIng guest permits. But that is not the point. We all pay for programs such as schools, bike lanes, universal pre-school, libraries etc. no matter whether or not we have children, bikes or if we take out books. That is shared collective responsibility. Regarding how costs are shared, a wealthy family in Cambridge with children in pre-k, at a cost or more than $30,000 for each child, pays nothing. That is a collective responsibility we all share. Is that “fair”? Cambridge needs to do more, not less, when it comes to food, housing, health care, education and transportation etc. as a collective responsibility, but it must be done in a cost effective manner. That is our challenge as a community.
Wealthy seniors should have to pay full price $75. That’s easy. Poor seniors can go by the rules for other poor people: continue to pay $25 if they [sign a statement that – (my edit)] they are low-income, live in affordable housing or are on welfare programs such as SNAP.
In other words, eliminate the “senior” category.