I read with some interest Doby Fleeman’s op-ed today on downtown parking, in which he writes, “In an opinion piece last week, the communities of San Luis Obispo and Boulder, Colo., were shown as shining examples of how paid parking can be a positive means to ensure at least one free spot per block while providing ongoing revenue for transportation-related initiatives.”
Mr. Fleeman continues, “Comparison with these cities is useful, framing a larger discussion in our community about two issues: 1) an understanding of Davis’ role in the regional economic structure and 2) our ability to finance municipal services and essential infrastructure.”
However, I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Fleeman when it comes to his next point. He writes, “San Luis Obispo and Boulder (and to a lesser degree, Chico) are communities that by virtue of their location have become regional destination economic hubs. Each of these communities is the ‘big town’ in their region. The magnet effect of such regional hubs results in significantly increased per capita retail sales, and sales tax. Such cities have the ability to impose policies like paid parking without fearing a drop in customers.”
He adds, “We are not a regional hub. Our nearest neighboring communities are close – 10 to 20 miles – far closer than the 35-mile drive from San Luis Obispo to Santa Maria, or the 45 minutes from Boulder to Denver, or the 85 miles from Chico to Sacramento.”
I will argue with respect to San Luis Obispo, which I am very familiar with, having grown up there and having gone to Cal Poly for undergraduate school. Mr. Fleeman does not understand San Luis Obispo properly when he characterizes it as a regional hub.
San Luis Obispo may have been the largest population center in its county. However, over the years, there have been two other population centers in the northern part of the county and the southern part of the county, that became their own population basis by dint of the proximity of a number of smaller communities to each other.
In fact, probably only in the last ten years has San Luis Obispo developed national chains of stores that rivaled the other areas. So when I was growing up or even in college, to go to Target you had to go to the north or south, to go to Costco we would drive to Santa Maria, and I even remember growing up having to buy a suit in Santa Barbara where there were large national chains like Macy’s.
The bottom line is that the northern and southern parts of the county were actually quite a bit more like Dixon and Woodland than they might appear. The idea that San Luis Obispo was some sort of regional hub, in that sense, is flawed and inaccurate.
So why did San Luis Obispo’s downtown survive? The same basic reasons that Davis has a much stronger downtown than its neighbors. People go there for restaurants, entertainment, Farmer’s Market, and the fact that it is a college town much like Davis and therefore has a captive audience.
San Luis Obispo’s downtown survived because of its combination of food and entertainment, along with its collection of solid locally-owned businesses, and that is how Davis’ downtown survives as well.
People are not flocking to San Luis Obispo’s downtown for the retail experience – they can go to their Targets and Costcos and other big national chains in their own towns. They go there for the things that their own towns don’t have, and the same is true of Davis.
Mr. Fleeman continues, “Just as important is the benefit of tourism in a town’s economy. For a college town, tourism would drive visitors with money to spend into town during the summer months; the benefit would be profound.”
He writes, “In terms of paid parking, much of the burden is paid directly by such visitors.”
We are not talking about paying $20 for a few hours of parking in a big city, we’re talking about a few dollars to produce a more reliable means to find parking in the downtown.
Mr. Fleeman writes, “Davis has built its reputation as an important destination for arts, entertainment and dining, but we have more to do before we achieve ‘must visit’ destination status for summer travelers. Notable downtowns like La Jolla, Carmel, Napa, Sonoma and Healdsburg – all known as tourist destinations – have thus far shunned paid parking, in part because none of them is an isolated, regional destination hub like San Luis Obispo or Boulder.”
I cannot speak to the particulars of those situations. What I can speak to is that Davis has reasons to come to its downtown, and people are not going to be shy about paying a few dollars to park. People are used to paying to park in many areas.
Mr. Fleeman writes, “Building on UC Davis’ drawing power, we’ve made great strides in terms of positioning downtown Davis and the Davis Farmers Market as regionally recognized destinations for recreation, family entertainment, the arts and a destination dining experience unrivaled in the region. Davis is a vibrant, thriving model of what a downtown should be, so it’s understandable that we’ve exceeded the limits of available parking.”
I think, on the one hand, he is largely correct about the attractiveness of the downtown. Not everyone agrees, of course, that it’s a model of what a downtown should be. Some have noted that retail has fallen off.
But the bottom line is if people are paying a quarter for 15 minutes of street parking or have free parking with a further walk, is that going to really undermine the strengths of the downtown? I don’t think so.
Bottom line for me, and my purpose in responding, is that I do not believe Mr. Fleeman properly assessed the San Luis Obispo situation. And it is worth noting that San Luis Obispo’s downtown has continued to thrive even adding Target, Costco, Kohl’s and other big commercial enterprises on the periphery of town.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thank you for this article David, and thanks to Doby Fleeman for putting the issues of his OpEd into the local dialogue about parking. I firmly believe that Davis will make a solid decision about parking if we get all the key issues out on the table. Doby’s assessment of the alternatives that Davis shoppers have is an important piece of those “key issues.”
With that said, any article/editorial published in a print newspaper is constrained in size. As a result Doby does was able to address the fact that downtown shoppers in Chico, San Luis Obispo and Boulder are faced with many of the same choices that downtown shoppers in Davis are. Doby is correct that [i]”each of these communities is the “big town” in their region.”[/i] He is also correct that as for [u]the overall community[/u] “The magnet effect of such regional hubs results in significantly increased per capita retail sales, and sales tax.” and that [u]as an overall community[/u], [i]”Such cities have the ability to impose policies like paid parking without fearing a drop in customers.[/i]
However, Davis’ parking issue is not universal to the overall community. It is a downtown issue. And even though Davis is not a regional hub and competition from shopping alternatives in other communities is close by, the same reality exists for the downtowns of Chico, San Luis Obispo and Boulder. The only difference is that the close by shopping alternatives (Costco, Target, etc.) there happen to be in the same community rather than in a near-by community.
All of that brings be back full circle to my (besserwisser?) belief that amongst the key issues of Davis’ downtown parking problem, employees of the downtown businesses parking in street parking spaces rather than in peripheral parking lots is far and away the largest part of the problem. Getting business employees into the habit of parking in the 4th and G Street garage will be a major step in solving the downtown parking problem.
If implementing paid parking for street spaces is the best way to address that employee parking issue, then implementing the best solution is what we should be doing. If there is a better alternative, then that alternative needs to be put forward and vetted. We need to get to a “yes.” It is time to get to a “yes.” Our community deserves a “yes.”
For those of you who would like to read Doby’s full article it is as follows:
[i]”[b]Who pays for downtown parking?[/b]
By Doby Fleeman
Parking in Downtown Davis has become a challenge over the past decade. Planning for a new downtown parking structure has been in the works, but the ground rules changed when Davis lost its redevelopment agency nest egg in 2012. The focus had to change from “why” and “where” to “how” the city pays for the project. This is about how we solve the problem.
Some of the talk about paid parking is “Who pays for the construction and how?,” with revenues from parking fees being used as the primary source of repayment. In an opinion piece last week, the communities of San Luis Obispo and Boulder, Colo., were shown as shining examples of how paid parking can be a positive means to ensure at least one free spot per block while providing ongoing revenue for transportation-related initiatives.
Comparison with these cities is useful, framing a larger discussion in our community about two issues: 1) an understanding of Davis’ role in the regional economic structure and 2) our ability to finance municipal services and essential infrastructure.
Equally useful, it’s an opportunity to compare community planning processes, development standards and local enforcement policies and the role they play in long-term community strategies.
[b]Geography and hubs[/b]
San Luis Obispo and Boulder (and to a lesser degree, Chico) are communities that by virtue of their location have become regional destination economic hubs. Each of these communities is the “big town” in their region. The magnet effect of such regional hubs results in significantly increased per capita retail sales, and sales tax. Such cities have the ability to impose policies like paid parking without fearing a drop in customers.
We are not a regional hub. Our nearest neighboring communities are close — 10 to 20 miles — far closer than the 35-mile drive from San Luis Obispo to Santa Maria, or the 45 minutes from Boulder to Denver, or the 85 miles from Chico to Sacramento.
Just as important is the benefit of tourism in a town’s economy. For a college town, tourism would drive visitors with money to spend into town during the summer months; the benefit would be profound. And, in terms of paid parking, much of the burden is paid directly by such visitors.
Davis has built its reputation as an important destination for arts, entertainment and dining, but we have more to do before we achieve “must visit” destination status for summer travelers. Notable downtowns like La Jolla, Carmel, Napa, Sonoma and Healdsburg — all known as tourist destinations — have thus far shunned paid parking, in part because none of them is an isolated, regional destination hub like San Luis Obispo or Boulder.”[/i]
(continued)
[i][b]Policy and planning[/b]
For a meaningful comparison of economic development strategies, it would take a full study to understand the differences in approach between Davis, San Luis Obispo and Boulder. But it’s possible to make a quick comparison of how each of our communities has approached the issue of downtown development and reinvestment.
Building on UC Davis’ drawing power, we’ve made great strides in terms of positioning downtown Davis and the Davis Farmers Market as regionally recognized destinations for recreation, family entertainment, the arts and a destination dining experience unrivaled in the region. Davis is a vibrant, thriving model of what a downtown should be, so it’s understandable that we’ve exceeded the limits of available parking.
It’s important to understand how the parking situation was allowed to deteriorate over the past 10 years and why Davis has been unable to coalesce around a strategy to deliver this critically important piece of downtown infrastructure.
Basic economics: Demand for downtown property, even in today’s recovering market, is insufficient to support the cost of developer-furnished parking. As the result, for most of the past 10 years, Davis has offered a “fee holiday” on traditional in-lieu parking assessments. In lieu-fees are required of developers when they don’t meet prescribed on-site municipal parking standards. Such in-lieu fees are collected to help offset the future construction costs of structured public parking.
In the 1990s, Davis established an in-lieu fee at $8,000 per space for new construction. Then the amount was reduced to $4,000. For several years now, this charge has been waived entirely, and when an office space is converted to a restaurant — which typically generates much higher parking demand — the city has never assessed a fee.
What’s the point? San Luis Obispo currently imposes and enforces an in-lieu one-time fee of $18,641 per space. Its cost is 40 percent of the estimated per-space construction cost (excluding land) for structured parking. In the case of restaurants, outdoor dining areas (Bistro 33, for example) are included in calculations of required parking demand. In the case of “changes in use,” San Luis Obispo imposes an impact fee of $4,660 for any increase in demand created by the new use.
To see the potential differential demand created by different user groups, a study by Stein Engineering for Metro Downtown Portland calculated minimum parking requirements for office space as 2.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet while restaurant use was computed at 15.3 per 1,000 GSF — more than a five-fold increase in demand when changing from office to restaurant.”[/i]
(continued)
[i][b]Summary[/b]
In fairness to the Davis Parking Task Force members, this type of information and scope of analysis was neither recommended by staff nor requested by the City Council. Perhaps it was deemed overly broad for the scope of its review. But it’s difficult to make parking planning decisions without this information.
Three facts: 1) You can only give away free stuff for so long, until the supply runs out; 2) we don’t exactly have developers lining up to build new buildings with commensurate assessments for new parking impact fees; and 3) downtown property owners are not keen on new, self-imposed assessment taxes to fund new parking structures — primarily because of the impact these new taxes would have on the rents their tenants would be required to absorb.
So, we’re in a different era today than existed in the go-go era of the 1960s and ’70s, when local business owners and the City Council encouraged the downtown auto dealers to make a strategic relocation to Chiles Road, opening up the existing downtown surface lots.
Led by downtown business leaders who recognized the link between convenient, free customer parking and the ability to attract new retail businesses along with the new construction and reinvestment it would bring, today’s surface lots were acquired through assessment fees charged to downtown property owners.
Today’s situation is significantly more complex. In the 1960s, the new hot ticket was automobiles and tomato soup. Then the growth of the university and its associated housing boom propelled the Davis economy throughout the 1980s and ’90s.
Today, however, what’s the “next big thing” for this community? That’s the question we should be asking. How do we prepare to adapt to that future? How do we ensure that we continue to face the future on our own terms — not beholden to forces beyond our influence?
Investors’ willingness to invest is based on their assessment of the risks involved as measured against the anticipated opportunity and demand for their products. Investor confidence is key.
Are today’s business owners prepared to reinvest what it might take to finance a new parking structure? Are tomorrow’s real estate developers prepared to pay for their project’s fair share of any new parking infrastructure to be built? Are new tenants willing to pay increased rent in order to cover these additional landlord costs — in addition to higher water bills and increased general fund expenditures to fund long-overdue roadway maintenance costs?
Perhaps we should ask today’s developers and business owners directly: What would it take for you to invest in downtown Davis? What would it take to provide up front the costs of new parking infrastructure and still feel confident that your tenants could absorb the additional carrying costs?
Sure, the easy choice is “let’s adopt paid parking in downtown Davis,” but does that really move us along as a community on the much larger issues that will affect both our generation and generations to come?”
— Doby Fleeman is co-owner of Davis Ace in downtown Davis.”[/i]
Matt: Doby’s article was already linked, we cannot just copy and paste because that is a copyright violation.
Part of the reason why downtown San Luis Obispo has thrived is the community, including property owners, has significantly re-invested in the physical infrastructure. They’ve constructed parking structures, renovated storefronts, and developed attractive, high quality retail space. Not only does it have “solid locally-owned businesses” it has it’s fair share of national and regional retailers such as an Apple Store and a Victoria’s Secret.
Unfortunately, the Davis downtown parking debate all too often is framed too narrowly as a transportation issue. Sure, parking spaces provide an opportunity to park a car. But much like developing a harbor or an airport, both of which are also examples of transportation infrastructure, developing parking capacity is intended to spur commercial activity and development (or redevelopment in the downtown Davis case). It’s not just about transportation.
-Michael Bisch
Why do we view free parking as an entitlement?
Requiring free parking to match peak demand simply increases the costs for all goods and services and requires all customers (and non-customers) to pay for the cost of parking whether they use it or not. With paid on street parking customers only pay for their own parking use, not for everyone else’s as well.
“The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements”
Donald C. Shoup
[url]http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf[/url]
As a doc, I guess I can’t help making a pitch for primary prevention instead of settling for management or cure of a chronic disease.
We know that use of private automobiles is costly and unhealthy in many ways. And yet we are sitting here debating the best way to get more automobiles into and out of our downtown as efficiently as possible.
However, unless you are discussing drive throughs (also for the most part unhealthy) it is people on foot, not people in their car who are making purchases. So what we really need to make convenient is a way to easily get to our destination hopefully walking past at least a few other attractive, inviting businesses enroute. Just because we, the older individuals in our community remain in love with our cars does not mean that this is the heritage we need to leave for our children. If we teach them that the right approach to limited parking is to squeeze in more spaces for cars that is what they will want. If we as a community were to be truly progressive in this area, we would lead by example and teach them that the best way to cut down on automobile congestion downtown is to not use your automobile in that area. People who go to big box stores or malls are used to walking long distances to their shop of choice and browsing at other shops, and sometimes making additional purchases along the way. Why we are still talking about how to pack more cars into downtown as opposed to making a safer and more enjoyable environment for on pedestrians and folks on bikes is beyond me.
Ironic to see this topic put forward in the same week as an article questioning Davis as a “progressive”community.
medwoman, the overwhelming majority of big box store and mall shoppers arrive by car and then walk. The same is true of our downtown. You can repeat your comments until you’re blue in the face, but it will not change this reality. You will not change this behavior with your advocacy, you will only change the location of where shoppers chose to shop. Furthermore, your advocacy will not lead to further downtown redevelopment. Quite the contrary.
Maybe I’m missing something? Please explain in detail how your advocacy realistically leads to a more vibrant downtown, with more shopping choices, increased commercial activity, more private property improvements, and redevelopment/densification.
-Michael Bisch
“4 Reasons Retailers Don’t Need Free Parking to Thrive”
ERIC JAFFE [url]http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/11/4-reasons-retailers-dont-need-free-parking-thrive/3978/[/url]
I’m pretty sure land use policies and infrastructure improvements that spur the development of jobs, housing, recreating, and transportation hubs in close proximity with one another is progressive, as opposed to policies and projects that spur suburban sprawl forcing residents to jump in their cars to do everything and anything.
-Michael Bisch
Policies that lead people to get out of their cars and use alternative modes of transportation are the most progressive. That’s followed by policies that reduce distance and frequency of car trips.
Here’s some other reasons that Downtown SLO has succeeded:
– Excellent strategic plan
– Well funded organization – $703,000 budget
– Well staffed organization that gets things done
– Involvement with police and city staff to work on issues such as homelessness, parking issues, etc.
– Practices the Main Street Four Point Approach to downtown revitalization
– Great American Main Street Award Winner n 1999 by the National Trust For Historic Preservation. Since 1995, this esteemed award has been presented to five US Cities each year, recognizing them for their successful [b]preservation-based[/b] downtown revival
Here’s the link to some of those documents –
http://www.downtownslo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:stateofthedowntown&catid=1:about&Itemid=18
greeneyes, it helps when you have incredibly beautiful late 1800s architecure, with appealing storefronts, built from quality building materials, to preserve.
DG, policies are often adopted that do not lead to the desired outcomes. People frequently do not behave as policymakers dictate. Quite the contrary.
-Michael Bisch
Why should the cost of peak parking demand be paid by developers and property owners (which Doby seems to be advocating)? Is not that additional cost just another disincentive to bringing [re]development projects on line?
The true cost of our ‘free’ parking paradigm is a stagnant downtown.
greeneyes post has spurred me to think about downtown policies some more. I propose we adopt the SLO policies that have proven to work, while retaining the Davis policies that have proven to work.
1. Implement policies and public improvements that spur development of architecture worth preserving.
2. Increase parking capacity, in convenient locations that shopper/diners/visitors are likely to use, to spur the developments under #1 while doing a better job of managing the existing parking supply.
3. Implement policies and invest in public improvements that spur significantly greater economic downtown acitivity that enable commercial tenants to afford double the current commercial rents (i.e. SLO rates).
4. Encourage the development of 1 or 2 additional downtown malls.
5. Double, perhaps triple downtown density to SLO levels.
6. Improve the pedestrian experience, as Chuck Roe has long argued, by discouraging/prohibiting surface parking and driveways that disrupt the pedestrian experience.
7. Encourage downtown investment, don’t punish it.
8. Continuously invest in downtown to keep up with with ongoing peripheral development.
9. Improve public transit to downtown.
10. Encourage downtown destination ped, bike, and vehicular traffice instead of encouraging through traffic.
Just a few suggestions for fellow posters to chew on.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]The true cost of our ‘free’ parking paradigm is a stagnant downtown.
[/quote]
If it were stagnant, we wouldn’t have a parking problem.
“Davis is a vibrant, thriving model of what a downtown should be…”
Doby Fleeman – Davis Enterprise 18 Aug 2013
If our business leaders truly believe this statement, there is no hope for Michael’s grand plan ever being implemented. In order to improve, you first have to make an honest assessment of what exists. Free parking on City owned lots adjacent to his business is what benefits Doby Fleeman, but it is not a model that benefits the development of a vibrant Downtown as a whole.
Michael, do you have any idea what fees downtown businesses are paying right now to sustain the current parking?
Currently, none. Until last year, some of the property-owning, downtown businesses were paying parking assessments directly and some of the downtown businesses on triple net leases were paying the parking assessments indirectly. A motion was passed by the DPTF to create either a PBID and/or a parking district that would have a significantly greater number of businesses directly or indirectly paying for an increase in parking supply. We’ll have to wait a bit longer to see where that proposal goes.
Separately, businesses purchase X and D permits. I’m not sure whether those fees go into the general fund or are earmarked for parking management and supply development.
-Michael Bisch
Michael Bisch: “Until last year, some of the property-owning, downtown businesses were paying parking assessments directly and some of the downtown businesses on triple net leases were paying the parking assessments indirectly.”
Micheal, when they were in use, how were these parking assessments calculated? By parcel, by square foot of the building (or business) or some other means? Was there any difference in the assessment between a professional office, a restaurant or retail establishment based on the expected parking demand? If so, how was that relative demand determined?
[quote]10. Encourage downtown destination ped, bike, and vehicular traffice instead of encouraging through traffic. [/quote]
Along this line, has making streets one-way been considered?
[quote]6. Improve the pedestrian experience, as Chuck Roe has long argued, by discouraging/prohibiting surface parking and driveways that disrupt the pedestrian experience.[/quote]
As a parent of young children, driveways and alley’s create increased safety concerns as my kid don’t easily recognize these as places they need to watch for cars.
4. Encourage the development of 1 or 2 additional downtown malls
Opp’s hit add comment to soon…
[quote][quote]4. Encourage the development of 1 or 2 additional downtown malls[/quote][/quote]
I would love to see pedestrian malls downtown. Places where I can walk around with my kids without worrying about traffic or bikes.
[quote]Why we are still talking about how to pack more cars into downtown as opposed to making a safer and more enjoyable environment for on pedestrians and folks on bikes is beyond me. [/quote]
I feel like this a chicken and the egg argument. I don’t feel safe walking or biking downtown with my kids, so I and others who feel the same way drive, which contributes to the parking problem, leads to congestion, and unsafe walking and biking conditions….
DT
[quote]You will not change this behavior with your advocacy[/quote]
Much behavior change can and is accomplished through advocacy. I was told that consistently advocating to stop cigarette smoking would not help. But with many health care professionals and others advocating, as well as government actions including public education and law suits, this highly destructive practice has been steadily decreased until a recent slight up tick in teen smoking.
Another refractory issue, teen pregnancy has been decreased through a combination of education in the schools and health care professional advocacy for long acting highly effective contraception.
I simply do not believe that it is true that advocacy cannot change behavior. And I think that green eyes and you subsequently came up with some very reasonable suggestions. Also I think that B Nice is also advocating for a higher emphasis on walking downtown as opposed to driving for safety as well as enjoyment factors.
agree with medwoman. what doesn’t work is throwing your hands up in the air and conceding bad practices. and planning for bad practices is not progressive.
Matt is right, the best thing we could do is put in a lot for people who work downtown and then shuttle them in. Until we address, in a meaningful way, the workers moving their cars downtown when parking control ends its hard for me to believe the other problems are critical.
[quote]Along this line, has making streets one-way been considered?
[/quote]
They tried that briefly a number of years ago. It didn’t work.
and if you charge them to park, then they won’t do that anymore.
one thing I don’t get don is how we try all of these things that work in other cities, and they don’t work here. makes me skeptical.
DP
Help clarify for me. Makes you skeptical about the success in other cities, or makes you skeptical about our approach or sincerity or means of implementation here ?
[url]http://www.realtor.org/articles/how-millennials-move-the-car-less-trends[/url]
One article illustrating what I have posted with regard to the transportation attitudes of my children and their friends. I really think that some of our downtown business people may be relying too much on an old paradigm rather than looking to the future of what will be best for their businesses and for out downtown as a whole.
medwoman: the latter.
DP: It isn’t clear to me why making any of the streets one-way would make the parking situation any better. My recollection is that some of the streets between 1st and 3rd (or so) were made one-way. It led to confusion, didn’t seem to solve any traffic flow or parking problems, and they were restored to two-way traffic. Why do you think it would make any difference?
medwoman, I never said all advocacy doesn’t work. And citing some examples of successful advocacy doesn’t prove that all advocacy works. I said your advocacy regarding walking and biking replacing auto transportation to downtown won’t work. At least not in my lifetime I don’t think. As I stated, a developer will not redevelop a downtown property based on your advocacy. They’re going to want to know where the parking capacity is to support their project. Their lenders will want to know the same thing as will their prospective tenants. None of them are going to proceed on the hypothesis that parking is no longer necessary because of your advocacy.
Some shoppers, diners, and visitors are willing to walk or bike to downtown, but it’s only around 12-15%. Maybe with a sustained, systematic effort over a generation you will be able to increase that to 25%, but that’s nowhere near enough to support downtown. You will not make a meaningful dent in the number of workers commuting to downtown for at least a couple generations, perhaps far, far longer. The reason therefore is the vast majority do not even live in Davis.
The vast majority of people will continue to drive autos, not necessarily those with internal combustion engines, for many generations. There is no data to support the notion that there will be a meaningful shift that I’m aware of. If I’m wrong about that, I ask you to share any data that would make it reasonable for a policymaker to base their decisionmaking upon your advocacy. I ask you to share it with the DPTF quickly as the task force is about to conclude its work.
-Michael Bisch
I really, really want the community to significantly increase its local spending and I will continue to advocate for such a behavior change. Therefore, I’m going to assume that shopping local will increase 4 fold as will sales tax revenue. And because I’m willing to base policy on a hope and a prayer, we don’t need to take any action on the city budget. We can go back to 4 firefighters on a truck. We don’t need to reform pensions and health costs. We don’t need to issue a bond to deal with deferred road maintenance or any other infrastructure costs. All is hunky dory.
-Michael Bisch
And thanks for the powerful argument against the plastic bag ban. There’s is no need for a mandated ban since there’s plenty of advocacy to go around.
-Michael Bisch
B. Nice, SLO has 2 architecturally appealing, multi-story, pedestrian malls in the downtown. Both are supported by public parking structures.
-Michael Bisch
DT
I also was not speaking in absolutes. However, one thing that I do know is that when there is support for a concept, it is much more likely to moved forward rather than if there is persistent opposition. The kind of change for which I advocate would of course have to be incremental. But that does not mean that folks could not realize that this would be a much healthier approach and could start putting in place some of the means to provide some limited automobile free space downtown. As people adapted, which of course the would, it could be built upon. I am not proposing a ban on all automobiles in Davis. I am proposing that we would all benefit by providing improved alternative means of transportation and start working on developing a mind set that is not centered around the automobile.
[quote]some limited automobile free space downtown[/quote]
Where did you have in mind? Any retailer who is presently on a street from which you plan to ban cars would probably suffer a severe loss of business.
[quote]Where did you have in mind? Any retailer who is presently on a street from which you plan to ban cars would probably suffer a severe loss of business.[/quote]
Well, I know that is the assumption. However, in response to Matt’s question, I looked up a number of videos on communities that have chosen to move towards more pedestrian dominant areas within cities. I did this by Googling and found clips on Transport Oriented Development and car free communities. I recognize that these communities are very different from ours and so different adaptations would doubtless be necessary. Obviously this is not my area of expertise and I have only scratched the most superficial surface, but one comment of one of the clips from Copenhagen stuck out in my mind. A city official was explaining that 10-15 years ago when they opted for a pedestrian and bicycle only street, these concerns were brought up by shop owners. Their fears did not come to pass, because as people used their cars less and less, there was more and more foot traffic and more direct exposure to the store fronts by pedestrians. I understand that there are major hurtles to over come, but I do not believe that we would do much better overall if we were to gradually start weaning ourselves away from our obsession with the private automobile. As for where would be best in town, I don’t know. But I honestly think that the model for this already exists. Most people once they have arrived by car at for instance Arden Fair Mall or the Galleria don’t walk into one store, then go back out to their car to get to their next destination, they walk through the mall. I honestly don’t see why a well planned attractive outdoor mall would be such a departure from what people already know.
Mark West wrote: “Free parking on City owned lots adjacent to his business is what benefits Doby Fleeman, but it is not a model that benefits the development of a vibrant Downtown as a whole.”
With thanks to all those who might have commented, I would like to clarify one point. We are only able to offer “free” parking to Davis downtown visitors because we, as business and property owners, have – over the years paid for the purchase of these lots. As a business, we have contributed to parking assessment districts created to purchase all three parking districts that are responsible for all of the surface lots as well as 1st & F that you find today. Charges were levied based upon proximity to each lot. Yes, these lots nearest our business benefit our customers and our business accordingly, and in large measure their creation was a significant motivating factor in the decision to reinvest in these Downtown properties. Just as today’s power retail centers are anchored by convenient, adjacent parking – so, too, it was an important issue for Downtown Davis when Downtown Davis’ only real competitor was the Downtown Mall in Sacramento.
So much for the history of FREE parking lots. What, Mr. West do you propose as “a model that benefits the development of a vibrant Downtown as a whole”?
Doby Fleeman
medwoman, there is a serious disconnect in your comments. On the one hand, you advocate for pedestrian free malls and zones. Yet these malls and zones still provide space for visitors to store their cars so they can become pedestrians. Hello! Every pedestrian zone that I have ever lived near, and they were many, was rimmed by parking structures and/or lots.
I would be very surprised if there has been a greater, more persistent advocate for an E Street promenade, yet I never envisioned we’d deny the users of the promenade a place to store the cars. The result would be an empty, failed promenade.
-Michael Bisch
The Zeil, the miracle mile of German retail, is a pedestrian only street containing extremely successful retailers and restaurants. But it is still rimmed by parking structures (both above and below ground). I posted this previously. Germans aren’t entirely stupid. They realize that before someone can become a pedestrian, they have to find a place to park their car. If they aren’t provided a place to park their care, they will not come.
-Michael Bisch
Rothenburgi in Bavaria has a walled, medieval, pedestrian-only, city center. The vast majority of visitors arrive by car or charter buses. So what do these tricky Germans do? They provide space for the visitors to park their cars and then enjoy the pedestrian experience. There are thousands of such examples throughout Germany. Pedestrian-only experience, yes! Place to park your car, yes! No space to park car? No pedestrians!
-Michael Bisch
Rothenburgi in Bavaria has a walled, medieval, pedestrian-only, city center. The vast majority of visitors arrive by car or charter buses. So what do these tricky Germans do? They provide space for the visitors to park their cars and then enjoy the pedestrian experience. There are thousands of such examples throughout Germany. Pedestrian-only experience, yes! Place to park your car, yes! No space to park car? No pedestrians!
-Michael Bisch
[quote]B. Nice, SLO has 2 architecturally appealing, multi-story, pedestrian malls in the downtown. Both are supported by public parking structures.[/quote]
I’m not opposed to an additional parking structure, if it’s construction eased congestion, and made downtown more pedestrian friendly. I actually like the idea David’s mentioned, placing it on the south side of the railroad tracks near the the boy scout cabin, with a pedestrian over pass. This location allows easy pedestrian to the heart of downtown while keeping vehicles out.
[quote]some limited automobile free space downtown[/quote]
[quote]Where did you have in mind? Any retailer who is presently on a street from which you plan to ban cars would probably suffer a severe loss of business.[/quote]
Don, you are the business owner so I will trust your judgement on this, but on a personal level I would be more likely to gravitate toward a pedestrian free area. Davis Commons is a model I’d like to see emulated, parking in back and a pedestrian area in front.
I wonder if this could be pulled off in front of the stores that back up to E Street Plaza Parking Lot.
Probably obvious, but I didn’t mean automobile free area, not pedestrian free…
‘realchangz’ aka Doby Fleeman: “[i]We are only able to offer “free” parking to Davis downtown visitors because we, as business and property owners, have – over the years paid for the purchase of these lots.[/i]”
No, actually your customers and tenants paid for those lots through higher rents and higher cost of goods and service, something you point out indirectly in your op-ed. The City pays to maintain the lots using our tax dollars. You personally put no more money into those lots than I or any other citizen of Davis has, yet you have benefited far more from their existence than most of the rest of us.
“A[i]s a business, we have contributed to parking assessment districts created to purchase all …the surface lots as well as 1st & F that you find today. Charges were levied based upon proximity to each lot.[/i]”
Why proximity I wonder? In your op-ed you lobby for new business to be charged extra based on their estimated impact on peak demand (Interestingly, you selectively discuss offices vs. restaurants, while ignoring the much higher impact that retail establishments have in comparison to either). If proximity alone was the basis for the assessment, then it would seem that you were further subsidized by your non-retail neighbors. In your op-ed you further argue that new businesses (and land owners and developers) should pay for any increases peak demand they bring, but you say nothing about the continuing out sized impact of your own business on that demand.
“ [i]What, Mr. West do you propose as “a model that benefits the development of a vibrant Downtown as a whole”[/i]?
Davis may arguably need more parking downtown, but in the short term what we need more is better management of the parking resource that currently exists. Metered parking on streets and surface lots will take the cost of providing that parking away from the citizens and developers, and place it where it belongs, on the car owners. It will also increase the availability of parking spaces near shops as it helps to even out demand by pushing employees to peripheral lots and encouraging pedestrian and bike traffic. Your business will only suffer if you fail to provide reasonable prices and good service to your customers as it will cost far more to drive to your competitor than it will to pay the parking meter.
As for the surface lots, the citizens of town would be better served by selling the land for new business development to increase the variety of retail and entertainment options in the downtown. That increased business diversity and economic development is what will make Downtown a vibrant place for all.
“Davis may arguably need more parking downtown, but in the short term what we need more is better management of the parking resource that currently exists. Metered parking on streets and surface lots will take the cost of providing that parking away from the citizens and developers, and place it where it belongs, on the car owners. It will also increase the availability of parking spaces near shops as it helps to even out demand by pushing employees to peripheral lots and encouraging pedestrian and bike traffic. Your business will only suffer if you fail to provide reasonable prices and good service to your customers as it will cost far more to drive to your competitor than it will to pay the parking meter.”
i tend to agree with mark. your business needs to worry about its image and the perception that your prices are too high more than parking.
Reply to Mark West
To your point, all of us with Downtown businesses depend upon the good will of our customers and fellow residents. You are correct, in that sense, ultimately it is our customers who help pay for all of the city infrastructure and services supported by the sale tax and property taxes together we generate.
It does seem a distinction worth noting, however, that the existing surface lots were the result of Property Owners getting together for the purpose of buying and creating these lots. It’s not like these lots were some gift from the city.
To your assertion that “You personally put no more money into those lots than I or any other citizen of Davis has” – you may be interested to know that Davis Ace paid ½ of the cost to refurbish the parking lots on G Street. They had become broken down with potholes and trip hazards. We requested the City to improve them and were told there were NO funds available. We learned that when the property owners created the Parking Districts NO MONEY for maintenance was put aside or budgeted annually – ever. We stepped up without the aid of other property owners and paid ½ of the cost to improve them to today’s standard to the benefit of our neighbors and the taxpayers in general. It has been over 10 years – and nothing further has been done. We did not and do not toot our horn. It was the right thing to do.
Regarding your claim that retail uses have a “much higher impact” on peak parking demand than either commercial or restaurants, it would be very interesting to see the data. Citing data from Table 1 of the Shoup report http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf (to which you referred earlier in the days comments), they show parking demand rates for the hardware category of 2.4 spaces/1,000SF, Government office at 3.8 spaces/1,000SF and quality restaurant at 12.5 spaces/1,000SF. A more recent report by NelsonNygaard for Central Hercules, CA shows 1 space per 400SF of retail versus 1 space per 300SF of office – pretty much in keeping with Shoup’s table. We’re certainly no experts in developing these ratios, we’re merely reporting what we find in contemporary literature.
You may also be interested to know that the retail footprint of our business has not changed in the past 30 years. While the volume, and hence customer demand, has increased during that time – it has largely followed the growth in households. On that basis, the past decade has seen relatively modest growth. Wish we could say that we have been a major cause of the increase in parking demand since 2003, but it wouldn’t be quite accurate.
As you point out, Davis needs to develop a plan for better management of the parking resources we now have. There are many options available in the discussion – paid parking being but one. Your suggestion, however, that “Metered parking on streets and surface lots will take the cost of providing that parking away from the citizens and developers, and place it where it belongs, on the car owners” isn’t totally correct. Our citizens are also our shoppers (in our case our customer), and to the extent they need to use their cars and trucks in purchasing certain products – these citizens will now be forced pay an additional charge for the privilege of spending their money in Davis. The other class of citizen who would be impacted by your Paid Parking recommendation would be the large number of local employees who (for the most part)currently pay nothing. Alternatively, if we push employees further out of the Downtown, then these neighboring citizens will end up bearing the impact of increased parking and traffic in their neighborhoods. The developers may like your strategy, but it’s more difficult to make the case that paid parking presents no cost to the average citizen.
And, while we might disagree with your recommendation to eliminate existing surface lots in Downtown, we certainly commend your suggestions for new construction and new business development in Davis. Indeed the very point of the newspaper article was to highlight the question of why new development (as compared with earlier development and as compared with other peer college communities) can no longer afford to pay for the essential cost of associated new municipal infrastructure?
In our view, the issues goes far beyond the discussion of Paid Parking.
Doby Fleeman