Land value taxes would effect this without too much micro-management. They base taxation on the value of the land rather than the value of the developments, disincentivizing unproductive parking lots in critical areas (among other uses)

Wise family there

https://www.checkbook.org/boston-area/supermarkets/

I’m sure the actual report (https://www.checkbook.org/boston-area/supermarkets/) is more thorough. The news article can’t ethically reproduce the entire thing, since Consumer’s Checkbook‘s (non-profit) business model is selling subscriptions to its reports.

Go write to Consumer’s Checkbook about their criteria if you’d like to see it changed. The report is at https://www.checkbook.org/boston-area/supermarkets/ (paywall)

In regards to global warming specifically, my understanding is that what one chooses to eat is much more important than where it came from. That is, locally sourced beef emissions >>> imported produce emissions. Here’s an explainer: https://youtu.be/F1Hq8eVOMHs?t=226. I mention this only to highlight that this aspect of sustainability is complicated and occasionally counterintuitive.

There's a nice check-list for registration here: https://www.mass.gov/how-to/apply-for-a-registration-and-title-for-a-vehicle-purchased-from-an-individual

Insure first. Then make payment and sign over title. Then register and title the vehicle to yourself (in person at the RMV). Finally, you'll have plates and can drive it. Inspect within 7 days.

Bruh. The bus #’s in their u/

I believe this is correct. As I recall, exactly zero national insurers operated in the state prior to deregulation, which began in 2007. The regulation was really extraordinarily strict. Pricing was fully specified by the state, including the points model for moving violations etc. Discounts could be offered to affinity groups, but only to the extent that they were actually profitable.

Here's a 2009 AG report on deregulation: https://www.mass.gov/doc/autoinsuranceexecsummarypdf/download

? Username doesn't check out.

🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌🚌

Agreed; it's only one step forward.

As a policy, it'll probably seem relatively non-eventful in retrospect for all parties. Spaces/unit won't go to zero suddenly, even for new development. The existing housing stock won't change character. It'll be difficult to see the impact on overall rent inflation. Nobody will complain when 80% vacant parking lots under 100% deed-restricted buildings aren't built. Nor will people building ADUs or other infill projects complain about that one piece of red tape that they didn't have to comply with; plenty remain.

I do think it's a big deal politically. This and the bike safety ordinance reflect a Council acting assertively on a strong mandate from their electorate to rebuke post-war housing, transportation, and land use policies.

Yep!

Won't renters decide what they're willing to pay for a given listing? I imagine the market will tend to pay less for listings without parking, just as it does for ones without dishwashers, in-unit laundry, or nice views.