Parking on Prospect

SEE CORRECTION*

Last night the City approved eliminating all parking on Prospect between Atlantic & Essex (vote was 4 to 1). This is despite the fact that the City has made no provisions for handicapped parking for the residents of the apartments and that they have not finalized the arrangements for resident parking. Are residents who live in those apartments going to have to pay to park at their own homes?

The reason given for this decision was "safety issues", although nobody presented a single shred of evidence as to what those safety issues might be - even when asked. And the council was asked many questions, for about an hour, and did not come up with satisfactory answers and sometimes the only response was just blank stares.

What was not said by the Mayor or City Manager is that last night they were merely putting a rubber stamp on the decision that was made over a year and half ago to eliminate the parking upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center parking garage. It is in the Developer's Agreement that was signed in February 2008.

Further, there are going to be turn restrictions at the garage - right turn only. So the residents on Prospect will have to come from First or Second to turn into the garage. I believe, since the wording in the agreement is "provide for ingress and egress to the Parking Garage by right turn only" that all traffic leaving the garage will then be funnelled out onto Prospect. Yup, that's going to relieve traffic on that street.

It appears that all of this is only going to make it more difficult for the residents of those apartments. Why are they doing this?

This could be why. Also in the Developer's Agreement (page 3, paragraph 5 and page 4, paragraph 6) is wording that clearly states the City's intention to acquire 64 Prospect "(i)n order to accomplish the improvements at and in the vicinity of the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Atlantic Street". Basically it says that HUMC will try to acquire this property on its own. If it cannot do that, "the City agrees to issue an offer letter pursuant to the Eminent Domain Act and thereafter to utilize its power to acquire". At paragraph 6 it states "If the parcel is acquired by HUMC without the need for condemnation, the parcel shall be conveyed to the City for nominal consideration"
* CORRECTION - ONLY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS COVETED BY THE CITY, BUT WHICH PART? AGREEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY.

Clearly, the reason for eliminating the parking is not as simple as a "safety issue". I guess it could be stretched to make that argument because all of the development by the hospital has created an unsafe residential environment. The real reason seems to be because the City entered into this agreement with HUMC and must abide by it - tenants be damned. Since the City provided no proof of any other reason, the wording of the Developer's Agreement is all I have to go on.

The fact that neither the Mayor nor City Manager (the only 2 permitted to speak according to Mayor's rules) mentioned this agreement as the reason for the ordinance makes me wonder if they even know this. If they do know it and did not state that when asked about it, well, in my opinion, that would be a lie of omission. Shame on you, Mr. Mayor & City Manager.

This is going to make it difficult for people who live there to find free parking and, as of right now, there is no provision for handicapped parking. But that seems to be the least of their problems because now the bigger question is, are the residents of 64 Prospect going to be forced out of their homes?