Published on February 10, 2024
Once again, Anne Hidalgo has turned two good ideas into a resounding failure. Parisians have long expressed their wish to be heard by their elected officials on local issues during the long six-year municipal term. This is particularly true for issues of densification and mobility, which are at the heart of a dynamic city as noted by Alain Bertaud, a world-renowned urbanist and research director at New York University. It was not absurd to seek the opinions of Parisians on these subjects.
However, the consultation on the cost of heavy vehicle parking was a flop with 78,000 votes out of 1.3 million registered, representing 30% fewer votes than the scooter consultation. 42,415 votes in favor of the proposal is almost twice as many votes as Anne Hidalgo received in the presidential election. Nevertheless, this number of votes remains ridiculous for a city the size of Paris. Every vote in the ballot box cost the Parisian taxpayer more than five euros in this 400,000 euro election.
It is worth remembering that this idea of consultation came amid the Tahiti Gate scandal. Despite the tragedy on October 7th releasing a frightening wave of anti-Semitic acts in Paris, the mayor of Paris left for Africa, and then secretly to the other side of the world, for nearly four weeks (from October 11 to November 6). Her PR team tried to cover up her absence by reposting an old video on the banks of the Seine. They then put forward confusing justifications, changing their versions as revelations about this odyssey for six at a cost of 60,000 euros, which ended with a family vacation for the mayor. It is likely that the question was improvised in haste on a table to divert media attention.
The town hall obviously did not have time to conduct a prior impact study, or to think about a relevant and legally compliant proposal. They had to communicate loudly and quickly. The residents felt cheated by the absurdity of the question. The focus was on the weight of the vehicles (which seems illegal by the way) and not at all on CO2 emissions or just SUVs, as announced. The punitive surcharge was planned, up to 225 euros for six hours of parking, also targeting hybrid and electric vehicles. The debate, reduced to a few weeks of exchanges on social media and its share of misinformation, still revealed that the measure would hurt families with these vehicles with five, six, or seven seats, often heavy (minivans or SUVs).
The left hoped to reactivate class struggle by opposing the rich to the working classes, and also adding a punitive and divisive ecological dimension. It partially achieved its goal by highlighting the opposition between the majority opposition in western Paris, and the favorable east to this tripling of fees. But by only mobilizing 3% of registered voters in favor of its measure, the score of 54.5% is far from a landslide. Anne Hidalgo must admit that she was wrong.
After ignoring the result of her consultation from April 17 to May 28, 2023 on the closure of a section of the Paris ring road that revealed an 85% opposition, she once again ruins a beautiful tool of direct democracy. The issue of mobility deserved better than a gimmicky measure for a simple publicity stunt.
We are several people who are considering the establishment of an online voting tool to consult Parisians. Thus, clear questions concerning Paris and the districts could be addressed regularly to registered residents. Such a framework should allow sufficient time for debate between the question and the vote, so that everyone can listen to different arguments and explore the subject to form an opinion.
Switzerland could help us in setting up such a tool of direct democracy in addition to municipal representative democracy. The participation rate in Swiss referendums ranges from 40 to 60% depending on the interest of the issues submitted to the voters’ judgment.
This tool seems important to us to refine Parisian traffic policies that concern us so much. Many residents wish for a reduction in the space for cars, but all suffer from the inconveniences resulting from the chaos caused by the dogmatism of the Paris town hall and its infernal traffic plans. Contradictory aspirations become explosive due to widespread stress, and their consequences on the social and economic activity of the capital. Consultations will probably be necessary to untangle these contradictory injunctions and develop an overall mobility plan before implementing it according to the dominant requirements neighborhood by neighborhood. Circulating axes, protected neighborhoods, pedestrianized streets to preserve a food market or a school, surface parking linked to underground parking, many aspects need to be considered together.
In short, the issue of mobility cannot be reduced to gimmicky measures that are destined for rejection by the administrative courts, especially since dogmatism and improvisation do not mix well. The lack of an overall vision, evaluation, and consultation is leading the capital and its suburbs to disaster. The only hope is to change course in the next municipal elections in 2026.
