Bulfinch Triangle Infill & Small Projects

In related news, local SUV drivers reinforce the stereotype about them. Film at 11.
 
I can't think of anything more obnoxious than this.

The lot owner is price-discriminating against certain customer types for reasons that have nothing to do with the lot's particular business. If big cars were just a bit more PC, I'm sure the Justice Dept would be all over the lot owner.

As it is, Dinosaur's own stupidity will probably put it out of business: Not only is the pricing discriminatory, but the highest-cost customers (the ones using the free electric-charging stations) pay the least -- meaning they'll get lots of them, incur high costs, and their most-profitable customers (the big cars) will stay away as much as possible.

In other words, Dinosaur's pricing and cost structure is based not on what will allow the business to cover its costs or stay afloat, but on the owner's "likes" and "dislikes" -- sort of like a restaurant that doesn't let fat people in or charges them double for purely discriminatory reasons, even if they incur the restaurant no extra costs. Only the restaurant at least may gain in popularity from the svelte jerks who don't like the overweight; a parking lot can't really aspire to have a snob factor.

In a word, these people are atrocious businesspeople (in addition to discriminatory and petty in character), and if I were to bet on any parking lot in the city going bankrupt, it'd be this one.
 
I don't want to get into the whole car, discrimination environment debate. The real lot is that they are building a parking lot. I'd don't care if you put cars that have rainbows for exhaust, I'd much rather some infill.
 
It's a parking lot...in boston...it'll do just fine. Also whats with the anger/outrage? Without actually looking at the business plan I don't think you can doom it to failure already. I'll put more faith into the people making the $1.5 mil. investment than a counter-top economic argument. Also, it is exactly this surcharge fee structure that makes the large cars the most profitable, if not they would just be paying the same...so I'm not sure where you're going with that...

On another note private companies are free to discriminate in this manner as of right...unless you're going to claim that "gas guzzler" owner's are somehow a constitutionally protected class...
 
choo said:
I don't want to get into the whole car, discrimination environment debate. The real lot is that they are building a parking lot. I'd don't care if you put cars that have rainbows for exhaust, I'd much rather some infill.
Click to expand...
I agree this is a prime development spot,another parking lot is the last thing I'd like to see here!
 
Although I don't drive an SUV, I feel similar to the fatties in their Jeep Liberty's (no that's not a real SUV). I'm still pissed at Massport (logan central parking) for giving me a ticket for being in a (poorly marked) "hybrid only" spot, while their lazy asses had the top floor of the garage closed. So since they don't want to pay to have the roof deck open, which means 15% of spots are already not available. They have discriminatory hybrid only spots on top of the federally mandated ADA spots..... I on the other hand have a 6:00am flight, which means I have not alotted myself additional time to drive around this flippin garage looking for spots. And, how do they know my car isn't a hybrid? And, who the hell i Massport to write me a ticket anyways!!??!!

Just felt like the right place to vent. Carry on.
 
I'm with Seamus and Itchy. The entire concept of preferential parking treatment for low emissions vehicles is just another goodie for the the elite. Think not of the obnoxious Humvee driver, but of the average Joe who can't afford a new car, let alone a hybrid. The hybrids really tick me off -- tax advantage, parking advantage, often restricted lane advantage, and yet they are beyond the reach of most consumers. And top it all off with the toxicity of the batteries.

For the record, not all SUV use is wasteful. I have one, mainly because my family is large. When I drive it, it's filled with people, getting a better per person efficiency than a Prius with only a driver. I'm an environmentalist, and on board with a lot of prescriptions for cutting emissions, but this kind of knee-jerk BS is getting old.
 
HenryAlan said:
For the record, not all SUV use is wasteful. I have one, mainly because my family is large. When I drive it, it's filled with people, getting a better per person efficiency than a Prius with only a driver. I'm an environmentalist, and on board with a lot of prescriptions for cutting emissions, but this kind of knee-jerk BS is getting old.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point and one which is never brought up in these conversations - SUVs are fine if they're used as "Utility Vehicles" - it's in the name. Does the gas guzzler tax in this case apply to any car that "guzzles gas" (e.g. has fuel efficiency in the bottom 20% of it's class, say) or even to vehicles with fuel efficiency less than a set number, like 20 mpg? It certainly sounds like this tax is being applied to cars based on size, which is a horrible measure.

Under this system, the soccer mom (or Mrs. Obama) who drives a Ford Escape Hybrid (32mpg) would pay 10% more for parking than the corporate exec with a Mercedes Benz CL (14mpg) who could also park in a compact space. How is that encouraging environmentalism?
 
^^ Well said, Henry.

For the record, I haven't had a car myself in 12 years, so I like to think I'm arguing from a disinterested perspective.

In addition to large families that need a large car (or not-so-large families that are active, or who have kids with friends that need to be picked up from Little League practice, etc.), there are plenty of people who need a car with decent space to lug around their belongings.

One obvious such class is pretty much any independently employed contractor, plumber, carpenter, etc. Another one is people who have large items for recreational use (think not gravity bongs but bikes, kayaks, camping equipment) that you really can't tote about in a Civic. Another is people with a time-share or second home who need the space to effectively move house during the summer (or winter, or whenever).

My parents don't have any kids at home. They have one compact car, and one crossover because they're outdoors a lot and after 40 years of work like to be able to go away for weekends in the summer. The crossover can handle those trips, especially if any of their kids are along for the ride; the compact car can't.

If classist snobs (who own a parking lot?!) want to look down their nose at people with a few kids or those who want to live an active life, that's fine. But a faux-highbrow parking lot owner shouldn't be allowed to introduce discriminatory prices against them, just as they shouldn't use price-discrimination against any other group that doesn't incur the parking lot any additional cost because of the way those people look, what size their home is, etc.

EDIT: And, yes, if these parking-lot Solons are particularly worried about the environment, they should be building housing infill in Boston, not parking lots. I hate parking lots, but we must have one here, let's not have it be engaged in outright discrimination of certain customers.
 
But then again, if someone's only using an SUV for those limited purposes, then they won't mind paying more for the limited number of times they use a downtown parking garage.
 
underground said:
But then again, if someone's only using an SUV for those limited purposes, then they won't mind paying more for the limited number of times they use a downtown parking garage.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

Do you really think that anyone, regardless of how often they drive, wants to be told that they need to pay more than their neighbor for the same exact product, even though they incur absolutely no additional cost?

Sure, the degree of venality differs, but your logic is akin to saying, "Rosa Parks only rode the bus every other Saturday; why didn't she just deal with it?"
 
You're seriously comparing SUV drivers' right to park wherever they want with Rosa Park's right to sit wherever she wants? We're talking about a 10% surcharge. On a car you chose to drive. If you don't like the garage's charge, you've got a myriad of other options.
 
Last edited:
underground said:
But then again, if someone's only using an SUV for those limited purposes, then they won't mind paying more for the limited number of times they use a downtown parking garage.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. If I go out of my way to minimize emissions, it's quite a slap on the face to be told that I'm a polluter and charged more, just because somebody can't be bothered to understand my transportation patterns. I'll happily pay more to park my SUV when I start receiving credits for all the biking and T riding I do.
 
itchy said:
I can't think of anything more obnoxious than this.

The lot owner is price-discriminating against certain customer types for reasons that have nothing to do with the lot's particular business. If big cars were just a bit more PC, I'm sure the Justice Dept would be all over the lot owner.

As it is, Dinosaur's own stupidity will probably put it out of business: Not only is the pricing discriminatory, but the highest-cost customers (the ones using the free electric-charging stations) pay the least -- meaning they'll get lots of them, incur high costs, and their most-profitable customers (the big cars) will stay away as much as possible.

In other words, Dinosaur's pricing and cost structure is based not on what will allow the business to cover its costs or stay afloat, but on the owner's "likes" and "dislikes" -- sort of like a restaurant that doesn't let fat people in or charges them double for purely discriminatory reasons, even if they incur the restaurant no extra costs. Only the restaurant at least may gain in popularity from the svelte jerks who don't like the overweight; a parking lot can't really aspire to have a snob factor.

In a word, these people are atrocious businesspeople (in addition to discriminatory and petty in character), and if I were to bet on any parking lot in the city going bankrupt, it'd be this one.
Click to expand...

If you're fat, you have to buy two seats on an airplane.

What's your beef?

It's a private business and it's called capitalism. Let's see the SUV owners weep about that.
 
HenryAlan said:
I'll happily pay more to park my SUV when I start receiving credits for all the biking and T riding I do.
Click to expand...

That's cool, but it's a completely unrelated issue. Whether or not you get credits is not up to the owner of this garage.
 
underground said:
You're seriously comparing SUV drivers' right to park wherever they want with Rosa Park's right to site wherever she wants? We're talking about a 10% surcharge. On a car you chose to drive. If you don't like the garage's charge, you've got a myriad of other options.
Click to expand...

A case could be made to that effect. Clearly, since they didn't take the time to learn the actual range of fuel efficiencies of different types of vehicles, this isn't actually about cutting down on emissions. Rather, its about sending a message that "those people" who drive SUVs should expect to pay more to use our "enlightened" garage.

It's the same thing as if Legacy Place or the Natick Mall started charging a 10% surcharge for cars that looked old or beaten up (if either were to charge for parking in the first place), on the assumption that they don't want the kind of people who drive them to be seen in the high-end stores at that mall. Discrimination doesn't have to be about race.

SUVs are unpopular and their drivers are OK to hate in society these days, regardless of the fact that there are many good reasons to have SUVs. By the way, by your logic, it would have been fine for the bus company to force Rosa Parks to sit in the back if there were other bus companies with mixed seating. Or, for that matter, if she owned a bike or could walk to her destination. If she didn't like the racism, she could simply choose not to take the bus.
 
itchy said:
Are you kidding me?

Do you really think that anyone, regardless of how often they drive, wants to be told that they need to pay more than their neighbor for the same exact product, even though they incur absolutely no additional cost?

Sure, the degree of venality differs, but your logic is akin to saying, "Rosa Parks only rode the bus every other Saturday; why didn't she just deal with it?"
Click to expand...

Itch -- like all Gov't knows best -- the answer they find and then require everyone to comply with -- is usually for the wrong question

I bought an old Lincoln Continental in order to dry with my belongings in relative comfort from MIT to the University of Texas -- while it certainly guzzled gas -- I was a soon to be poorly paid graduate student who just needed a big, comfortable car -- and could have used a subsidy on gasoline

A year later, after the car had mostly sat parked in front of my residence just off the UT campus -- i sold the Lincoln and bought a used VW bug which was my primary motor vehicle for the next few years until I graduated, was hired by the lab at UT and bought my first new car

Many years later -- my brother has just moved from Oxford in the UK where he was car-less and a renter to working at Google in Pittsburgh where he now has bought a new Prius and a house. He says that he daily appreciates the preferential parking spaces and in some cases rates, and other special favors enhancing his Goggle lifestyle and paid for by the lesser-well compensated in Pittsburgh who can't afford a Prius. If he was to solar-panelize his house -- he would also be the beneficiary of the contributions from a lot of people who couldn't afford to be subsidized in that way.

As to the parking lot for EV's -- I'm betting that the developer is either being compensated through some government program or thinks such a program is likely -- in the generally provide a downtown parking space and it will be filled ethos -- no one would spend extra on the lot
 
Equilibria said:
By the way, by your logic, it would have been fine for the bus company to force Rosa Parks to sit in the back if there were other bus companies with mixed seating. Or, for that matter, if she owned a bike or could walk to her destination. If she didn't like the racism, she could simply choose not to take the bus.
Click to expand...

Okay, so basically we've identified a new kind of Godwin Law, but anyhow...

SUV drivers are not a protected class. African American's are. There is a good reason for this distinction, and absolutely no comparisons between them.

whighlander said:
Itch -- like all Gov't knows best -- the answer they find and then require everyone to comply with -- is usually for the wrong question
Click to expand...

And ironically enough, this is a private garage.
 
shmessy said:
If you're fat, you have to buy two seats on an airplane.

What's your beef?

It's a private business and it's called capitalism. Let's see the SUV owners weep about that.
Click to expand...

There's a business reason for that: A person of a certain weight cannot physically sit in one seat. A plane sells space by the seat. If you take up more space than one seat, you have to pay for it.

Here's there's no business reason, and it is going to impact perfectly innocent people who don't have the luxury of agreeing with the consensus of the upper classes that you must be "erring" if you didn't buy a Prius or Volt. You can like SUVs or not, but this is pure and raw discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top