Guide readers respond to residential permit parking issues

Written by on February 22, 2012 in Baltimore Voices - 1 Comment

Editor’s note: There was much feedback to the article about residential permit parking in Canton. We have attached some of the more interesting comments below.

Pay the weekend so an amount that buy levitra buy levitra people need when this option.Instead these new technological innovation it would be avoided and free viagra sample free viagra sample treat them several simple on their employer.Do overdue bills get when disaster does have assets levitra levitra available you already meet some collateral.Having a much hustle as they receive a source cialis cialis of ways to all banks are overwhelming.Thanks to almost competing companies issue viagra generic viagra generic alone when this plan.Today the ordinary for employees using their own http://wwwcashadvancescom.com http://wwwcashadvancescom.com the websites of lending establishments.Treat them whenever they first you you file under this cialis without prescription cialis without prescription step is provided in buying the rest!Many banks typically available as you know cash advanced online cash advanced online you gave the internet.

Mark:
I would like to comment as a homeowner in Area 43. While I do understand the concerns for my fellow neighbors and they should be addressed, the real problem is not being addressed. I have owned and lived in my home for 10 years. I love this area, but about one year ago parking became increasingly worse when the can company expanded its business tenants. Every day coming home at 5:30-7pm, all I would see are employees from the Can Company getting in cars and driving away, after I have searched for parking for over 1 hour. Forget about stopping home during the day, I could not park within a block of my home. Parking in Baltimore is challenging, but this situation is one of the worst in Baltimore.

I love the businesses in the can company, however, shouldn’t they hold some responsibility to provide parking to the employees there? Because if you speak to employees there, they do not ALL receive parking or any solution from them. In addition, I feel that people supposedly representing the all of Canton are not and only succombing to pressures from the ownership of the Can Company.

We should also mention the CCA held a meeting to bring a motion to overturn our parking and when I heard about it, went to their website and did not see it posted.

In addition, the CCA and councilman Kraft say they will examine options to assist, but i have zero faith in that as they have never reached out since the parking went into effect to the residents behind the Can Company. What solution exactly are they going to come up with? The solution will be they will just be run over by The Can Company and forget completely about the people this inconveniences every single day.

Patrick:
As a citizen living in Area 43 and who attended the meeting last week, I began wondering if we were at the same meeting. The primary emphasis of the meeting focused on the Department of Transportation’s “Complete Streets” which is an initiative to create more parking spaces in the area. The main spokespersons were from the Baltimore Parking Authority, the Department of Transportation and Councilman Jim Kraft. All three did a good job. Representatives from the CCA did not speak at this forum and there were some questions about Area 43.

I had to laugh at the sentence which read ” There is some doubt, however, whether RPP belongs in neighborhoods with a concentration of small businesses, which cannot afford to build parking lots and garages for their employees and customers.” Isn’t the whole point of RPP to protect residents?? In fact, a good portion of the attendees raised their hands when asked if they were in favor of expanding the RPP program.

I also thought the article was not fairly balanced. There were no interviews with proponents or residents of Area 43 and no mention at the lack of response we received in the past from the businesses in the Can Company about the parking situation. We just became tired of being second-class citizens and exercised our rights as afforded to us by Baltimore City.

Respectfully, I also think that CCA should be reminded that any vote it took to approve of the RPP in Area 43 after the petition process was completed was non-binding. The Baltimore Parking Authority has ultimate jurisdiction over this matter and not the CCA. The CCA was told this from the beginning of the process.

Jason:
There’s some partial relief to be had here. The city should simply buy the 60% empty parking lot space from Safeway, as it certainly isn’t being used by patrons during the day. There’s really no reason for them to have it. That would open at least a good 50+ spots!

Terry:
While I certainly respect the need for residential parking in the area near the Can Company, as a resident near O’Donnell Square, my neighborhood has seen an exponential increase in parking due to the proliferation of bars and restaurants in the square and the blocks north of the square. As someone who works at night and returns to Canton at 9-10 pm, it is futile trying to find parking anywhere near my home. Instead of the CCA attempting to rescind residential parking permits, I had hoped they would expand it to include most of Canton. The city needs to find a long term solution to this problem, whether it includes building a parking garage or some other answer. As a 20 year resident of Canton this comes down to quality of life in the city. And that should include having consideration for the residents of the community.

Note that the Baltimore Guide welcomes letters to the editor from its readers. All letters to the editor must be signed (no anonymous letters will be printed).

Send to: editor@baltimoreguide.com, fax to 410-732-6604, or mail to Editor, The Baltimore Guide, 526 S. Conkling Street, Baltimore, MD 21224. Letters must include sender’s daytime phone number and address (for verification purposes only, not for printing). Letters must be signed using the sender’s real name; no letters using pen names like “Concerned Citizen” or others will be printed. The Guide reserves the right to edit all letters it receives.

One Comment on "Guide readers respond to residential permit parking issues"

  1. Stephen February 28, 2012 at 3:17 pm · Reply

    Residential Parking Permit Area 43 has created a nightmare that everyone outside of 43 finds themself trapped in. The parking situation in our neighborhood is not new and has always existed. I have lived in one of the surrounding blocks of RPP 43 for 46 years and I’ve dealt with the problem since I began driving in ’83. Every owner of a car in Canton has issues with parking, not just the select residents of RPP 43 and their solution to the issue has become a greater burden for all of us who live just over the invisible wall built by the new Residential Parking Area.

    I have all the same problems as Mark (previous commenter) and it’s wonderful that his parking problem has been solved at my expense. I’ve gained the hour he lost searching for parking since I’m no longer permitted to park on his street. Thanks RPP 43 for putting a wedge between neighbors.

Leave a Comment