One of the more critical votes in the last few weeks was council backtracking on the issue of paid parking. Without the paid parking component, it is difficult to see how the rest of the 19 recommendations are going to work to produce a greater supply of parking in the downtown.
As we argued this week, one of the things we have heard from the start is that the recommendations will not work in isolation. And the paid parking component is critical to at least three parts of the other recommendations.
First, if you believe part of the parking problem is that employees of downtown businesses are using street side parking and moving their cars every two hours, there is no effective way to get them away from that practice without paid parking.
Second, if you believe that the parking problem is a distribution rather than a supply problem, then you end up needing paid parking to encourage long-term parkers to move their cars to the garages rather than the street.
Finally, even if you believe that the problem is one of supply, without paid parking there is no funding mechanism for a new parking garage.
It was clear from the start of the discussion that there were three council votes that were not comfortable going forward with paid parking at this point in time.
Brett Lee pushed as hard as he possibly could. He noted numerous studies that actually show the hidden costs of unpaid parking. But he was unable to sway a third vote on this issue, despite his repeated urgings to support the 19 recommendations as a package.
Again, one of the things we have heard from the start is that the recommendations will not work in isolation, and that the paid parking component is critical to at least three parts of the other recommendations.
Brett Lee was willing to be cautious. He argued that this item was quite different from the POU issue where the council did not have a study of the impacts. Here he cited numerous studies and even offered a block-by-block roll out in which the city would be able to study the impacts along the way, and that would create a validation program that would allow money to be generated for businesses.
No dice.
So you have Lucas Frerichs arguing that paid parking would have adverse impacts, Dan Wolk who believed that the parking problem is the result of something positive, and Rochelle Swanson stating that she needed more information.
Given all of that, perhaps the council should have delayed the vote to look at this more because, while Councilmember Frerichs would argue that a lot of the recommendations could be done in short order, it is not clear how helpful any would be without the stick approach to compel people to change their parking behavior.
Once it was clear that paid parking lacked the votes, Mayor Joe Krovoza stated that, in the interest of time, he would be willing to support the rest of the proposals and, indeed, ultimately Councilmember Lee went there as well.
For reasons that still baffle observers, the council is rarely willing to take a 3-2 vote. What would be wrong with Major Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee dissenting here and voting no?
From our vantage point this consensus process creates the illusion of consensus but buries important policy differences. Early in the council, as the council wanted to establish rapport and signal changes from their previous councils, okay, we get it. But now when two council members are duking it out for an Assembly seat?
The truth is that this council has shown a strange willingness to buck both the expertise of city staff as well as the hard work done by citizen groups, and it is unclear why they have chosen to do so.
From our standpoint, if the council majority were unsure about paid parking, then they needed to wait here. What they have put forward, without an incentive mechanism to push people to off-street parking and without a funding mechanism to build new parking, does little to solve the parking problem.
The Chamber PAC forum pushed Rochelle Swanson to explain her vote. She stated, “The reason why I called for a pause for a return of those items in phasing in, is because nobody at the staff table nor from the parking task force could identify the actually funding stream for $1.45 million, I just think that’s too large of an expenditure without some direct funding source.”
The $1.45 million was the cost of implementing the parking meter infrastructure.
She said they were moved aside, “They weren’t dismissed out of hand.” She said that while she respected the process, they came together in the end, she also felt it was important “that we further clarify and truly support the positions in how we were going forward. I think it was important to make sure that we can have success.”
Candidate John Munn, in a rebuttal, argued, “I oppose parking meters because parking is a service to customers that’s provided by the businesses that they support. In return the businesses provide financial support to the city in the form of tax revenues, rate payments and fees. I’m also not convinced that having meters is not going to drive shoppers elsewhere.”
He added, “Shoppers have many options to go places other than downtown Davis to do their shopping. Make them pay for parking after they drive all of those stoplights to get there, they are liable to take their business elsewhere.”
But what we have not seen so far is anyone explaining how the other recommendations work without the stick of paid parking.
Rich Rifkin reached a similar conclusion.
He writes, “City staff and the Downtown Parking Task Force put together a tour de force presentation in favor of a package of 19 recommendations. Their ideas rested on a plan to install ‘smart’ parking meters in the section of our core area where demand often exceeds supply.”
He continues, “They clearly made the case that, if the council wanted to solve the problem, it needed to understand that the task force’s ideas all worked as one. Their logic was not impromptu. They had been working on this for months.”
“The anti-meter side,” he writes, “showed up at the City Council last week. All of their arguments against paid parking fell short on logic and originality. They failed to offer any realistic solution.”
He adds, “Importantly, they did not comprehend how smart meters offer the chance to help downtown merchants by freeing up prime spots near their businesses for paying customers.”
“The best suggestion they accepted is to try to get some downtown workers to park in underutilized off-street garages. That won’t solve the problem. But it might help a wee bit,” he writes. “What anyone who understands introductory economics can tell you is that if you have a scarce resource and you don’t allow the price to rise when demand exceeds supply, you will have a shortage.”
And that is the primary problem we face with parking. The solutions to that are to produce enough supply so that the demand no longer exceeds supply. Absent redevelopment, that is not going to happen any time soon.
The paid parking is a temporary solution that re-organizes the distribution of parking so that people are incentivized to park further away and walk.
Those who believe that paid parking will deter customers are thinking uni-dimensionally. They are not considering that the current lack of parking is presently acting as a deterrent to would-be customers. Being able to readily find parking in the downtown or predictably locate that parking will actually help business.
That’s why the Chamber and Davis Downtown both supported paid parking.
—David M. Greenwald
Another way to look at parking meters to raise money for other improvements is as a tax. Asking people to raise taxes before an election is unusual and politically unwise. Especially when there is a lack of consensus in the community. Of course David since you have a private parking space in a lot in the same area where the meters are proposed you may have a different view than the rest of us geriatric proles.
“Another way to look at parking meters to raise money for other improvements is as a tax.”
If you want to raise money to have, say, a new parking lot or a parking garage, you’re going to have to raise a tax. What tax could be more appropriate for that than charging people to park during those times when demand exceeds supply?
I feel the exact same way with freeways where we have regular traffic jams due to insufficient infrastructure. What would make sense to regulate demand would be to charge a toll* when demand exceeds supply and use the revenues you raise to increase the supply–either more lanes or a new roadway.
*One of the odd things we do in the U.S.–particularly for bridge tolls–is we cause back-ups in order to employ toll-takers. Many countries use a modern scanner system, where every car (not just ones who buy a monthly pass) which passes through has its “smart tag” scanned, and the owners are then billed if at the time they crossed the toll point there was a charge in place. I’ve gone through these in London and in Stockholm. I have not been to Portugal (for a long time), but I know they have the same system there. I think Hong Kong, too, has this kind of collection for toll roads.
… Another bizarre thing we do–again with bridge tolls–is charge the same amount regardless of time of day. When there is no traffic at 3AM, the toll should be free. When there is excessive demand, say at 5 PM, the toll should be set so that it discourages marginal users. You can do that easily with a smart tag system, and you can vary the toll for say commercial trucks vs. motorcycles or civilian cars.
“Another way to look at parking meters to raise money for other improvements is as a tax.”
That certainly is one way of looking at it. There are others.
My comment may not apply to you directly, but it seems that some commenters oppose what they see as “government give aways” of their hard earned dollars. Looked at in a different light, free parking is a major “give away” transferring publicly owned value (usage of the street) to a given class of individuals (people who want to park their cars within a certain distance of a shop and the shop owner) without providing any value to those who do not want to use the street in this fashion.
So unlike what the opponents of “free parking” would have you believe, “free parking” is not free. It is a choice of how to use a commonly held resource for the benefit of a defined group. As an advancing “geriatric prole” myself, I do not begrudge anyone downtown their designated parking space, which I am also sure that they do not
consider “free” but rather a benefit of other economic choices they have made such as where to purchase property or rent space.
Tia wrote:
> My comment may not apply to you directly, but it seems that some
> commenters oppose what they see as “government give aways” of
> their hard earned dollars. Looked at in a different light, free parking
> is a major “give away” transferring publicly owned value (usage of
> the street) to a given class of individuals
So would allowing people to walk down the street without paying a toll be another “government give away”?
“Looked at in a different light, free parking is a major “give away” transferring publicly owned value ( usage of the street ) to a given class of individuals ( people who want to park their cars within a certain distance of a shop and the shop owner ) without providing any value to those who do not want to use the street in this fashion.”
So tell us Tia Will what value is added to the rest of us by the cyclists who want to park their bikes on public property within a certain distance of a shop? What value is added to the rest of us by people who chose to walk on the public owned sidewalks by people who chose to walk to their preferred shops? Also as far as transferring publicly owned value to a given class have not that those given classes helped pay for that publicly owned value?
“So tell us Tia Will what value is added to the rest of us by the cyclists who want to park their bikes on public property within a certain distance of a shop?”
The added value to all of us is subtle, but real. When a person chooses to ride their bike or walk, they are not contributing to air pollution which affects all of us even if we remain unaware that it is occurring. Further, they are putting less wear and tear on our streets than are the users of automobiles. One is seldom aware of these effects when choosing to use one’s automobile instead of another means of transportation, however, as someone who lived under a literally yellow sky in Pomona for two years, the aggregate effect should not be ignored. A third subtle effect. People who choose to walk or bike are choosing a less sedentary, more healthful means of living and over the period of many years will have less total impact on our limited health care resources.
Having said that, in all fairness, I would not be opposed to a nominal fee for bike parking if anyone felt that a parking fee was “unfair” to car users.
“have not that those given classes helped pay for that publicly owned value?”
Yes, they have helped. But so has everyone else. So why should they benefit disproportionately ?
Actually, more disproportionately than you think… the bulk of downtown properties have not had OWNERSHIP (as opposed to tenants), changes in a long time. Therefore, they pay significantly less than others in the community in property tax, yet they charge their tenants based on the current market rate value of the property. Having cake and eating it too, particularly looking at what they expect from city services, demanding discounts on impact fees when the new use makes more of a strain on city services.
Yeah, the private sector is pure and holy. How dare we challenge their denigration of the public sector, or their demands for greater service at a lesser cost?
How about those that walk or bike on the bike paths, if I don’t use those paths but I have helped pay for them why should the people that use them benefit disproportionately? Tia Will, my point is that gate swings both ways. You can’t cherrypick who benefits and who doesn’t from different services because we all use some things that others don’t and vice versa.
Barack Palin
“we all use some things that others don’t and vice versa.”
I agree with this portion of your statement. However, it is not true that all uses have identical outcomes on our environment, health and well being. Some choices are much more costly than others. I am quite sure that I am doing less environmental and road damage when I choose to walk than when I choose to drive as one example. My choosing to walk or bike will never worsen someone else’s asthma. Again, as a single individual, there is not much impact. These kind of choices in aggregate have a huge impact.
Tia wrote:
> I am quite sure that I am doing less environmental and road
> damage when I choose to walk than when I choose to drive
> as one example.
How about if you drive an electric car that you made from recycled materials and charge with solar panels?
South of Davis
Wow ! I wish I knew how to do that. That sounds like a worthy innovation. Perhaps you can draw up a model and help getting started with Davis Roots !
You ask a very interesting question BP. The actuarial analyses done many times over in many different communities tell us that people convey considerable financial/fiscal value to all taxpayers in the community when they choose to ride their bicycles to a destination rather than drive their cars. The studies explain that the deterioration of street pavement is a function of the application of “foot pounds” to the pavement. When a 150 pound person travels along a street in a car, for each foot they travel they are applying the combined pounds of the person plus the vehicle. That means approximately 4150 pounds for a “representative” Davis vehicle (4,000 for the vehicle and 150 for the driver) and approximately 200 pounds for a “representative” Davis bicycle. So the contribution to street deterioration and the resultant cost of street maintenance is significant. Add to that the fact that bicycles don’t have to circle the block in search of a parking space and not only are the foot pounds 20 times less, the number of feet are substantially reduced.
Walkers add even more value.
Following the dictates of the Fremontia Rule, I need to declare that I own both a bicycle and a car. The bicycle hangs from a hook in my garage with two flat tires and my car needs to be washed.
Matt wrote:
> The studies explain that the deterioration of street pavement is a
> function of the application of “foot pounds” to the pavement.
As someone who does not have a bike on “hook in my garage with two flat tires” I can tell you that other things (like roots and water getting in to cracks) do more to destroy pavement than the “application of foot pounds”. I had the trailer on my bike yesterday and it bounced around so much on the crappy Davis bike paths that I cracked a jar of pickles on the way back from the store.
My issue with this topic is that once again the CC (at the eleventh hour) rejected their own appointed task force’s recommendations which included specifically a strong recommendation to approve all 19 points. This has happened a number of times before more often with previous councils and I think it is not good policy. Sure CC’s should not approve 100% of recommendations but should carefully consider long, hard work by volunteers hopefully who were appointed because of expertise!
My understanding is that paid parking was recommended mainly as a management tool not a source of revenue. The intention is to make more parking spots available for people who are coming downtown to spend money.
From personal experience I can say that the stores adjacent to the E Street plaza have received a disproportionate amount of my business since that lot switched to paid parking, which I believe happened around 5 years ago. Until that time I had stopped coming downtown after about noon, with my toddler and preschooler because I didn’t want to deal with trying to find a parking spot.
Instead of go downtown I would go one of the shopping centers mall for my coffee, bagels, and frozen yogurt etc. NOT because parking was free, but because I could actually find a place to park.
When the E Street Plaza converted to paid I was thrilled, it felt like a gift. I started coming downtown again because I knew I would be able to easily find a place to park near my destination.
“When the E Street Plaza converted to paid I was thrilled, it felt like a gift. I started coming downtown again because I knew I would be able to easily find a place to park near my destination.”
So what’s the problem now? It sounds like the E Street paid parking lot solved your dilemma as you’re now easily able to find a parking spot. Why make more paid parking downtown if the problem is solved in your view?
This isn’t about solving my problem. It is about addressing the parking situation downtown, and making policy decisions that positively impact our downtown business.
Lack of available parking is hurting our downtown businesses. People avoid downtown because they don’t want to deal with trying to find a spot near their destination and they don’t want to deal with the congestion, (most of which is caused by people driving around looking for a spot within eyesight of their destination).
Converting some spots to paid will increase turnover of these spots, making them more available more often.
I don’t understand, you stated that the centrally located E Street paid lot made it easy for you to now park so you’re now going downtown again. Why couldn’t the same be said for others who can also park in that same lot that is fairly close to everything that you stated made you thrilled?
In my post I stated that business adjacent to the E Street Plaza receive a disproportionate amount of my business, because I can rely on finding a parking spot with in eyesight of them (apparently this is an important factor when people are deciding where to park). I believe other business in downtown, not adjacent to this lot, could also benefit from having available parking near their location.
Well for me if that $3 cup of coffee that I like to have while reading the newspaper at the downtown Starbucks is going to now cost me $4 because of a parking fee I can just as easily go to Pete’s at the pig market or Common Grounds where that $3 coffee will stay at $3. Also if an $8.50 movie is now going to cost me $10.50 I’ll certainly be seeing less movies. And that goes down the line on many other types of purchases too.
The recommendation is to convert a limited number of spots to paid parking. Free parking would still be available to those who do not want to pay a dollar an hour for the convenience of parking within eyesight of their destination.
or maybe what happens is you end up going to starbucks in north davis rather than spending an extra quarter to park in the downtown and then it serves the purpose of freeing up the space. or maybe you just park in the 20 minute zone.
maybe instead of parking on the street in front of the g and 4th theater, you park in the garage where the parking is free. or the same with the f street theater.
you’re really making the argument that you can’t walk around the corner?
And when I go to North Davis or South Davis it also hurts the downtown business owners.
Given that all three movie theaters have a multi-story parking garage within one block (two of the three in the same physical structure) and that parking in those structures is free, there is no reason why cost of your $8.50 movie will increase even a penny.
If the paid parking forces people to go to the free garages as is the plan then free parking is going to be much harder to come by. That’s the plan isn’t it? Another thing, as we know with all taxes once the city gets their foot in the door the $1/hour parking is just the beginning, the rates will just go up from there.
Matt wrote:
> Given that all three movie theaters have a
> multi-story parking garage within one block
The last three times I have been at the F Street theater the parking structure above it has been full…
As were the streets. No parking spaces there either. Where did you park?
Matt wrote:
> Where did you park?
I got lucky one time and saw someone backing out in front of the building where Carousel Stationery used to be, the other two times I parked in the train station lot and jogged back to F Street…
Wow… first off, revenues from “paid parking” needs to go towards the capital cost to install equipment, maintain and eventually replace the equpment (a highly restricted ‘sinking fund’), enforcement (including salaries, benefits, retitement, post retirement, cost of acquiring, maintaining, operating, and eventually replacing) vehicles , full cost recovery for citations, etc. In my view, not one cent of the revenues should be used for pet projects of the businesses, etc., until the rate is set to be revenue neutral to the city gen fund. The streets and parking structues (generally) are not private assets. Any positve cash fow flow, should go to the city gf.
A couple of folks have mention sidewalks. Weird thing(s): sidewalks are in the public right of way, and by state law the construction, maintenance, repair, replacement (and liability) are the responsibility of the abutting property owner, yet the city has chosen to act on there behalf (sustainable?). In downtown, many businesses assert their “right” to use the sidewalks for business purposes, yet take no responsibility for the public asset they wish to use for their private purposes. A lot of hypocrisy from the private sector.
You lost me, hpierce. What you state in the first paragraph is exactly what was proposed by the task force. Regrettably, the CC has done the exact opposite. Instead of implementing a plan with a self-contained revenue source to fund the plan, they have implemented a plan that will suck money out of the GF. Because there is no money in the GF, it is unlikely that the City will implement the CC-approved plan.
Your 2nd paragraph is only partially true. Plenty of downtown property owners grind down up-heaved sidewalks, replace the sidewalks in front of their abutting properties, power wash sidewalks, etc. Are there property owners that do none of the above? You betcha.
-Michael Bisch
Don’t think I lost you on the first paragraph… I am in agreement if that was indeed the recommendation… I know that as recently when the E St paid parking was instituted, many business and staff members wanted to have the City “suck up” all costs, and feed the revenues to the downtown. If that has changed, fine.
As to the second paragraph, the only property owners that I’m aware of who did ANY sidewalk improvements were conditioned to by a discretionary approval, the property owners had the tenants “suck up those costs”, and the tenants pressured the city to do grinding (when a replacement was justified), and the rest of my second paragraph remains.
I’m aware of your reputation, which is very good.
If you are interested in sharing our perspectives “off-line” please feel free to contact me @ hortensepierce@yahoo.com. We may be a lot closer in perspectives than you think, but not sure we share the same knowledge base. I’m only a “newbie”, though, having only been in the community since 1972.
David, at the PAC forum, Swanson said she would have supported limited paid parking had staff identified the source of the $1.4 million internal borrowing. There’s the 3rd vote for a comprehensive parking plan. What’s stopping staff from returning to the CC in a couple of weeks identifying which enterprise fund they intended to borrow the $1.4 million from?
-Michael Bisch
I don’t know what’s stopping staff, but I don’t have a lot faith that’s going to happen, do you?
Also I’m not exactly sure the nexus between parking and the enterprise fund. Clearly with regards to the POU, the savings of the water project and wastewater on electricity can justify that expenditure.
David, it’s a loan. It’s paid back through the parking revenue.
-Michael Bisch
As Pinkerton explained to me, there still has to be a connection between the enterprise fund and the usage. So for the POU, the fact that the city would save on electricity for the water project and wastewater was enough to justify a loan. Here, I don’t see the justification.
And, if a POU is NOT a reality, it is a “sunk cost”, and will hopefully be repaid by other sources, which I think means GF. Even if it is a ‘loan’ it will come from the GF, and unless there are true savings to the GF, perhaps we can just require City staff to take incrementally greater concessions to make it pencil out.
Well, in theory yes. In practice, at a pay back rate of $66,000, there is probably enough fudge factor on revenues to cover those costs. It’s the equivalent for the city to someone paying an extra $120 a year who makes $80,000, yes it comes out of the bottom line but in the scheme of things you can cover it.
You are correct, but a “loan” has to be repaid to enterprise funds. To do otherwise is not legal, but the fact is that it might be “overlooked”… so much for your advocacy of ‘transparency’… unless what you meant by ‘fudge factor on revenues’ was related to the GF.
$66,000 paid back by $120/year, is 550 years (without interest). Or, were you thinking all City employees making $80,000 per year or more, would take an additional $120/year cut for as many years as it takes to repay the enterprise funds?
The equivalent to the city paying $66K a year is $120 for a citizen who makes $80,000 a year.
David, Pinkerton stated at the CC meeting that the city had the wherewithal to borrow the $1.4 million from an enterprise fund. He went on to say that the city would identify which fund to tap into once council decided which of the 19 recommendations it wished to adopt (that of course would determine the borrowing amount). There was never a question of the ability to borrow, only which specific fund to borrow from. That’s all a moot point now because the CC failed to approve the funding mechanism to repay the loan. No repayment ability = no loan.
-Michael Bisch
Ok, I missed that. Thanks.
What’s ‘stopping staff’? How about a ~ 2 week lead time to get staff reports to the Council, plus the time to do the research, and what amounts to a reduced staffing, who also have to meet all the other demands of city functions, including making sure that various applications are timely reviewed/acted on, maintenance of City systems. Of course the City could ‘defer” those activities to meet two week timeline, but then again, there are real costs to ‘deferral’, as we all know.
What are you implying here, David? Are you saying you’re not prepared to take Swanson at her word?
-Michael Bisch
DT
“Plenty of downtown property owners grind down up-heaved sidewalks, replace the sidewalks in front of their abutting properties, power wash sidewalks, etc. Are there property owners that do none of the above? You betcha.”
This is a great local illustration of private/public responsibility and interaction. There are some who post here who believe that “government is the problem”. My feeling is that if everyone in the “private” and “public” sector always chose to act responsibly, there would be essentially no need for “government intervention”. What “government” is actually tasked with in many cases is taking up the slack for what the private sector will not or in fewer instances cannot do by itself.
This is actually a grey area. When we built our building, the city mandated that the sidewalk in front be widened, but we had to pay to do it. But it’s an easement containing public utilities, so when they tear it up for one reason or another (which has happened several times), the utility company replaces the concrete they damage. But when we get an ADA analysis, if there is any issue with the sidewalk it is our problem to fix. In liability situations I assume everyone would get sued.
As to parking costs, my understanding is that downtown businesses pay fees for provision of public parking. I don’t remember how those are set; Doby or Michael could answer that. The point has been made elsewhere that parking impacts are much higher from some types of businesses than others — dining/entertainment vs. retail — and that the ratio of those higher-impact businesses has increased over the last few years (more restaurants). Yet I don’t think there is any distinction in how the fees are set, nor has any adjustment been made to the fee structure overall due to this impact. As the number of restaurants increases, parking demand increases, but there has been little net increase in parking spaces as this has occurred. That is part of the problem affecting parking availability at certain times in certain parts of the downtown.
To be clear, Don my referent was to routine maintenance/replacement, etc. You are correct, actions by ‘third parties’ are THEIR responsibility. Just like a utility coming on to your property, they are responsible to alleviate any harm they do, unless the reason they did the work is due to your ‘screw-up’.
Your site was subject to a discretionary approval, and I cited that as an example when the owner is responsible.
I know of a number of DT businesses who triggered ADA improvements, and in most cases they convinced the City/RDA to cover their cost. My statement stands, as written.
Oh, as far as lawsuits… assume you are aware of the “deep pockets” approach? Most often, courts have let the owner off the hook, where the municipality had ‘assumed’ their basic responsibility, and the City of Davis theoretically has much greater assets to go after than you do. Guess who the attorneys will focus on.
DT
“What’s stopping staff from returning to the CC in a couple of weeks identifying which enterprise fund they intended to borrow the $1.4 million from?”
Now there is a splendid idea !
Tia,
It’s only a splendid idea if Swanson stands by her PAC forum comment.
-Michael Bisch
DT
That occurred to me immediately after I posted. In my view based on her statements from the dias, Ms.Swanson is in the habit of making decisions based on how many emails and letters she is receiving on each side of an issue.
I wonder how that means of decision making would play out on this issue.
And that, Tia, is precisely why we find ourselves in the current pickle. Instead of leaders leading, we have politicians tracking the email & letter count. And where is the transparency in an email & letter count? I don’t want a council member declaring 2+2=5 simply because they received 200 emails saying as much.
-Michael Bisch