Bulfinch Triangle Infill & Small Projects

Equilibria said:
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.
Click to expand...

Equilib -- no its more like the hypothetical situation if the Wrentham Village Outlet Mall charged women who were a bit dowdy looking a premium to enter the shops -- the intent was to catch the dowdy-uber rich little old ladies -- but it would just as easily nail a poor or middle class woman who just wasn't au-courante
 
underground said:
SUV drivers are not a protected class. African American's are. There is a good reason for this distinction.
Click to expand...

The only practical difference I can think of is that one is a choice and the other isn't (although again, a case can be made that driving an SUV is not a choice for some people). I think the more relevant difference between these groups is that one is a traditional "oppressed" people under liberal ideology, while the other has been identified by those same people as "the enemy".

I realize it sounds petty, but I don't think this is really about SUVs - I think this is about a business trying to restrict the type of people who feel comfortable using their services in a very heavy-handed way. I realize that many businesses do this - airlines do it all the time by making planes business class only or banning children, but this seems culturally motivated, not a matter of the comfort of other customers. The owners of the parking lot have made a value judgement on the worth of people based on a vapid and shallow observation. That's why its objectionable.
 
underground said:
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.

And ironically enough, this is a private garage.
Click to expand...

I realize the Civil Rights Act doesn't cover grounds other than race. But what normal business discriminates against classes of people for reasons that have nothing to do with its business? This happens -- rarely -- with clubs whose raison d'etre is exclusivity (e.g., Augusta, which has just come under a hailstorm of criticism by the media and president).

Other than nightclubs or golf clubs, what business implements outwardly discriminatory policies as part of its value proposition? This seems unlikely to lead to anything other than indignation and resentment by plenty of people who are on the receiving end of this discrimination ... and it's pretty fair to find it morally reprehensible, even if it is legal.
 
@equilibrium, How does slavery and Jim Crow only count as oppression under "liberal ideology"? And how do you even begin to equate them with a garage charging 10% extra on an SUV?

Wait, don't answer that . I'm sorry I even had to ask.

@Itchy, the idea that you're putting "SUV," "Discrimination," and "morally reprehensible" in the same breath is just about the definition of "only in America."
 
underground said:
@equilibrium, How does slavery and Jim Crow only count as oppression under "liberal ideology"? And how do you even begin to equate them with a garage charging 10% extra on an SUV?

Wait, don't answer that . I'm sorry I even had to ask.
Click to expand...

I considered whether to put those quotes and I also realize that "liberal ideology" as a term can be used in a crazy way in this city. Obviously I'm not trying to downplay racial injustice, I was merely trying to contrast the way that people view groups of different people. My whole point is that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of anything, whether that's race (an easy question) or political and lifestyle preference.

I actually think the reference above to nightclubs is pretty apt. A nightclub is free to reject customers who don't match the look of the people they want in the club. It's a business decision for them, just as this lot feels it can make more money off the publicity it's getting from this than it will lose by losing the business of SUV owners. It's a free economy, and they're allowed to do it. I just think that the SUV owners have a legit moral complaint that this is obnoxious.

Now, if the rationale was that SUVs take up more room in the lot (as is the case when an airline charges an overweight passenger for an extra seat), it would be more reasonable.
 
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...

Capitalism does not entitle one to openly discriminate.

White man - Sir, how much are the eggs?
Capitalist vendor - Those eggs are 2 dollars a dozen.
White man - I'll take a dozen.
Black man - I'll take a dozen too.
Capitalist vendor - Ok, 3 bucks.
Black man - Hey, why are they a dollar more for me?
Capitalist vendor - Because I set the prices how I see fit as the vendor.

Same product - different price - based on discrimination.

10x15 parking spot is a 10x15 parking spot.

Are the spots different sizes such as compact car spaces? Are they charging per square foot instead of per space? Do they have a carbon footprint matrix that is driving the cost difference?

As stated above. You can get a hybrid Escape you can get a hybrid Yukon? Is there a discount for them?

In a private business, you must be much more sneaky about your discrimination than this.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Capitalism does not entitle one to openly discriminate.

White man - Sir, how much are the eggs?
Capitalist vendor - Those eggs are 2 dollars a dozen.
White man - I'll take a dozen.
Black man - I'll take a dozen too.
Capitalist vendor - Ok, 3 bucks.
Black man - Hey, why are they a dollar more for me?
Capitalist vendor - Because I set the prices how I see fit as the vendor.

Same product - different price - based on discrimination.

10x15 parking spot is a 10x15 parking spot.

Are the spots different sizes such as compact car spaces? Are they charging per square foot instead of per space? Do they have a carbon footprint matrix that is driving the cost difference?

As stated above. You can get a hybrid Escape you can get a hybrid Yukon? Is there a discount for them?

In a private business, you must be much more sneaky about your discrimination than this.
Click to expand...

Seamus -- the whole premise of the discrimination of parking spaces by kind of vehicle is flawed -- as long as it fits in a space and OK perhaps is not excessively massive -- then you should be able to park for the same rate

Just because someone has a particular type of car -- you have no way of knowing anything about the associated "Carbon Matrix" -- whateverthehell that a CarbonMatrix is anyway -- the only way you can know what the particular vehicles "environmental impact' has been is to somehow integrate all of the vehicles activity over some period of time -- this is useless academic exercise -- totally of no value to anyone except a professor looking for a grant

I might drive the SUV 1 day out of the week for 4 miles round trip from my condominium parking space in the Back Bay while you drive your Prius at a high speed for 4 hours each day from your organic farm in Southern Maine -- whose impact is bigger? -- who should we subsidize -- if any?
 
I feel dumber for having read this...of all the absurd political debates and tangents we've seen on this site, the Rosa Parks vs. SUVs has to be the most ridiculous...though I think a great movie idea has spawned: "Rosa Parks vs. SUVs" It will be X men, meets Eyes on the Prize, meets Transformers.
 
sidewalks said:
I feel dumber for having read this...of all the absurd political debates and tangents we've seen on this site, the Rosa Parks vs. SUVs has to be the most ridiculous...though I think a great movie idea has spawned: "Rosa Parks vs. SUVs" It will be X men, meets Eyes on the Prize, meets Transformers.
Click to expand...

Sidww -- that would be "X men, meets Eyes on the Prius or Turning a new Leaf"
 
Not to add more confusion but will hybrid SUV's have to pay the 10% or are they exempt.

I know minds exploding across the Archboston universe......
 
quinninin said:
Not to add more confusion but will hybrid SUV's have to pay the 10% or are they exempt.

I know minds exploding across the Archboston universe......
Click to expand...

Quin -- to be honest they should pay the SUV tax then get the Hybrid/EV discount
 
I like that they are encouraging cleaner alternatives, but the method they are utilizing is terrible.

Or at least the wording.

If anything they should have a base price for any car (gas-guzzling or whatnot) and a 10% discount for a hybrid/electric car. No 10% penalty fee levied against non-green cars.

Of course they could achieve the same thing they are putting out by raising the base price and giving a discount of 19.2% for green cars.

Price discrimination? I'm a little meh about that. It's hardly different from a special membership card one receive at starbucks for spending a certain amount of money there (and thus receiving discounted prices for any future purchases).
 
KentXie said:
I like that they are encouraging cleaner alternatives, but the method they are utilizing is terrible.

Or at least the wording.

If anything they should have a base price for any car (gas-guzzling or whatnot) and a 10% discount for a hybrid/electric car. No 10% penalty fee levied against non-green cars.

Of course they could achieve the same thing they are putting out by raising the base price and giving a discount of 19.2% for green cars.

Price discrimination? I'm a little meh about that. It's hardly different from a special membership card one receive at starbucks for spending a certain amount of money there (and thus receiving discounted prices for any future purchases).
Click to expand...

Kent -- if there wasn't the tax on all of our electric bills that goes into a slush fund for "Green" -- then it would be up to the developer to do as they pleased -- but unfortunately - -we do pour money into the fund and it gets redistributed to benefit people who have the wherewithal to take advantage of the special deals

I have a neighbor who in the pre-Google era made a lot of money as a early employee of Lycos -- he's very green -- Solar panels on the roof, Electric Vehicle in the garage, ground source heat-pump in deep hole on the corner of his lot. i'm guessing he's green to the tune of $100,000 in investment. Without the subsidies -- his investments would never pay back -- but all of us have been conscripted to help his green-ness benefit him.
 
You're right, KenXie. If they started the pricing at SUV's and gave everyone else a discount, people wouldn't be so up in arms. It'd be like if a business had a regular price and then a non-student additional charge added. It might not necessarily always be a good idea, but it's perfectly acceptable to do so. I don't hear anyone complaining about paying the non-Senior Citizen fare on the T.
 
This is a publicity stunt. So some Prius-driving weenie can make sure to park at this lot and then pat himself on the back (even if his 10% discount only gets him down to the market rate for parking in the area anyway). They could conceivably make the case that SUV's are more costly because they take longer to park or can't be parked in "Compact Only" spaces, but they didn't even make that argument.

They're just trying to appeal to the oblivious tree hugger who drives a hybrid to park within walking distance of a multimodal mass transit station and then has the audacity to think they're helping the environment.
 
SUVs weigh more. Did everyone but me miss that? While the owners of this lot are snobs, that was their reason, and it is a legitimate one.


Now can someone please, please enlighten me as to what special niche SUVs in the metro boston area fill, and why there is any need, whatsoever, for a vehicle that is large just to be large and then needs a massive gas guzzling engine to haul its weight around?

We have pickup trucks, station wagons, hatch backs, mini-vans and full size vans. All of which (except for the huge pickups) typically get better gas mileage AND fit more people than your typical SUV (out of all the SUVs out there how many actually have more than 5 seats?).

The only reason I can see is if you frequently need to pull something that requires the power of a full size truck and also need the space of a wagon at the exact same time. However I don't see many horse trailers or boats being pulled around Boston by the Suburbans or Navigators that I routinely have to pull over for because they are too wide for the streets they are driving on.

The snow argument is BS. I have passed myriad spun out SUVs in my beat-up VW with nothing more than a good pair of snow tires. If anything their top-heavy design is detrimental to handling of any kind, snow or dry.



For the record, I also despise hybrids. Their gas mileage is no where near what it is advertised as under most typical driving conditions, the batteries are an environmental hazard, and they are dangerously underpowered. Greenwashing has never had a stronger example than these pathetic excuses for environmental friendliness. They are nothing but a distraction from the real issue that we cant keep using gasoline as a fuel source, and the snobbiness they induce is inexcusable.

Now to be a snob myself, I will continue to drive my turbo-diesel with 60MPG until an adequate successor to gasoline presents itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top