BOSTON — No parking for thee. Uber for me.

Durkan does not park. She Ubers.

She also wants to take your parking.

The public hearing is Thursday, June 4. The hearing is chaired by Durkan herself. The committee judging the merits of her own proposal is the committee she runs.

A chef's kiss.

On WCVB, Durkan called Boston's existing parking regulations “very nonsensical.”

“In places where parking makes sense, parking will be built,” she said. “What we're allowing for is a different typology of housing.”

Elsewhere she has called parking minimums “a sad relic of the 1950s.” Council President Liz Breadon backed the framing, citing the developer cost of underground garage spaces — $75,000 to $100,000 each.

Not mentioned: the councilor with 800-plus Uber rides is the one auditing what is and is not “nonsensical.” She will be the one judging where, in a city she does not drive in, parking still “makes sense.”

The most withering pushback so far has not come from Republicans. It has come from inside her own caucus.

Councilor John FitzGerald (Dorchester) called the proposal what it actually is in a city of single-car commuters: “flushing people out of our city.” Councilor Julia Mejia warned that lower-income West End residents she has spoken with “can't really afford their ‘affordable' housing if they have to pay several hundred dollars a month for parking.”

The sharpest critique landed on equity grounds: rich, white Back Bay residents don't really need cars, the argument went; poorer Black residents a few miles away in Roxbury do. The poorer you are, the more you need a car.

Back Bay is Durkan's district. Roxbury is not.

District 8 — Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill, Fenway, Kenmore, West End — is some of the densest, most parking-starved real estate in the city. Resident parking permits are already over-subscribed. Existing off-street parking minimums on new buildings have been one of the few mechanisms forcing developers to add to the supply rather than draw from the on-street resident pool.

Strip the minimums and the on-street pool absorbs the difference.

For a councilor who Ubers from the door to the corner, the trade-off is theoretical. For the constituents she represents — the ones who actually own cars, pay for resident permits, and circle the block looking for an open spot — it is not.

She will not be circling the block. She will be in the backseat of someone else's car, on Boston taxpayers' eventual bill, telling them they don't need parking.

Asked whether the Council should even consider rejecting Wu's budget, Durkan said the question is “not one that we should have.”

None of which made the WCVB segment. There she was the urbanist visionary, gracefully telling Bostonians their parking was a 1950s relic.

The Planning, Development and Transportation Committee — chaired by Durkan — hears public testimony Thursday on whether to strip Boston of its residential parking minimums citywide. If the Committee moves the order, it returns to the full Council for a vote.

The councilor who can't be bothered to drive herself will be running the hearing on whether you — the constituent who actually owns a car — get to keep your spot.