On Saturday, we ran a piece arguing for paid parking and citing the usage at the E Street parking lot as evidence for it.
As Don Shor noted in his comment, “I thought the issue of whether or not to implement paid parking had been resolved, and the issues were how, when, how much, and in what order with respect to other commission recommendations. So I kind of wondered why David was revisiting the basic question.”
But, he said, “Alzada (Knickerbocker), who was on the commission, is pushing back, and I see Dan (Urazandi) of Bizarro World is arguing against it in the Enterprise, and there is some informal group of downtown businesses at DowntownDavis.org running a petition against it.”
His view at this point: “I guess any consensus from the commission has pretty much evaporated.”
Personally, I believe there has never been true consensus on the issue. Council has made a decision to move forward with implementation, but there is certainly pushback.
(You can see all of the parking task force recommendations here.)
Dan Urazandi writes: “Amid myriad problems like raising rents, empty storefronts and homelessness the City Council has heaped another challenge on downtown Davis — paid parking meters on all the streets and public lots.
“This parking tax is supposedly a solution to the shortage of available parking in the core area, but it adds zero spaces and so doesn’t increase parking, just the cost of parking.”
He argues that with no new spaces being added, “the only way the tax will make it easier for those willing to pay to park will be by driving others away. And driving people away from downtown is the last thing the city should be doing as downtown is littered with empty storefronts from businesses that were themselves driven out.”
He believes that “the city’s scenario will certainly push drivers away from downtown to big box and mall stores, whose large private parking lots will remain free. The council may hope that this will 
‘create’ parking spaces downtown but driving away customers and driving stores out of business is no way to ‘fix’ a parking problem.”
The problem he sees right now in the downtown is that the downtown has already lost many shops “to a combination of tough economic factors.”
Unfortunately, he continues, “[u]nlike years past, their vacated spaces remain empty for months or years.
“Downtown is still vibrant, but it is fragile, too,” he writes. “The council should be protecting downtown as they promise to do every campaign. Instead, they want to tax us under the justification that paid parking is required to manage the increasingly scarce commodity of prime parking spaces, which is infuriating since they removed more than 100 spaces for frivolities and aesthetics like bulb-outs, ZipCars and bicycle parking in the street.”
Mr. Urazandi continues: “Apparently, parking spaces are only a scarce and valuable commodity when the city stands to make money off them. Council should make good on their promises to downtown, not make it harder to visit, shop and work there.
“The city has paid experts $1.5 million (!) to say that paid parking will help downtown, that people like paying taxes and getting tickets. But everyone I asked who will be paying for rather than paid by the system said no, and a smaller majority didn’t even know this was happening,” he continues.
Once again, this part is a bit baffling. Just as there was a long and drawn out discussion over the move to Community Choice Energy, there was actually more of a discussion on paid parking with a public task force, public meetings, and at times spirited debate over the issue that included front page headlines as well as back page debates.
At some point the public has to take responsibility for knowing what is happening in plain view, but that is a matter for another day.
Dan Urazandi continues.
He argues that “if the city forces this on an unsuspecting public there will be resentment. People will grumble, feel cheated and disenfranchised and, having no other recourse, many will not go downtown in a protest that doesn’t harm the decision-making council, but hurts the other victim, the downtown businessperson.
“The council hopes to minimize resistance by saying that not much money is being asked each time and they will reinvest some of it in downtown,” he writes. “But since they control the reinvestment and they consider paid parking a downtown improvement, they could just use the money to expand the meters to more streets and lots, raise rates, have longer enforcement, and generate more tickets and call that helping downtown.”
He writes: “The E Street lot went from free to paid in 2008. I witnessed firsthand that process, which can be taken as a crude microcosm of what will happen throughout downtown if meters come in. The first year of paid parking was terrible. The lot was virtually empty by day, and entirely full at night when parking control was off. After four years it averaged 50-percent full. Now it’s probably 80-percent used, 10 years later. That’s mismanagement of a lot that was consistently near capacity when free. Why expand a failed experiment?”
While Mr. Urazandi has a pretty good view of the paid parking lot, so have I. If it is 80 percent full – I have rarely seen it that empty. Certainly during peak hours, more often than not it is at capacity with cars circulating around. Perhaps I will have a chance to do some hourly photos this week to demonstrate it.
He concludes: “The city should find some other place to get their tax dollar. Downtown does not need another crisis. We have lots of parking downtown, despite all complaints to the contrary. The Fourth-and-G structure has hundreds of open spaces, even on a Friday night. These existing spots and others could be better managed to allay concern for the ‘parking problem’ downtown without all the damage from paid parking. Driving drivers away with a downtown parking tax is a solution far worse than the problem.”
Like Don Shor, I believed that this was a done deal, but evidently we are going to battle it out once again.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
This is the crux of the matter. If paid parking is supposed to be the Shangri-La and create more open spaces it’s only because less people will be going downtown because of the new tax. The proponents of this new tax can spin it all they want but that’s the bottom line.
The central idea is that there is sufficient parking with underutilized lots at G St and elsewhere. Paid parking will push employees to alternative transportation or to use x-permits rather than park on the street and move their cars every two hours. At that point, supply should be freed up simply through better management.
It looks like Keith is also forgetting about all the Seniors from the University Retirement Community (and others in Jeff’s West Davis neighborhood) that will start walking or riding their bikes in to downtown Davis after paid parking opening up even more spaces. If they started working with a personal trainer the average Bizaro World customer could easily get down to the JUMP bike maximum weight by next summer and start taking a JUMP bike rather than driving when they take a break from online gaming and studying and head out to buy more Mountain Dew, Comics & D&D stuff.
P.S. I stopped at the Downtown ACE looking to buy something (and install) this weekend (and saw a NO Paid Parking Sign) and as happens so often they didn’t have what I needed (so I bought it on Amazon). It is silly to think that less people might stop at a Downtown Davis retailer as they are passing through so see if they “might” have something since even if they don’t have it after paid parking the shoppers will get the warm feeling knowing that our local underfunded pensions have one more dollar…
Most of the seniors from URC are not going to the downtown right now, and probably won’t in the future either. Not sure of your point.
As usual, because he’s anonymous, Ken A was making a snide unsupported comment.
David, you’re correct that the parking meters will NOT push away customers, but rather push those who need to park long term into the available vacant spaces in the various garages. That will open up street parking for customers, and retail business might actually INCREASE as a result.
The city can raise the rates anytime and you can pretty much bet on it.
Once the foot is in the door…..
The BIG money comes from tickets, I read something not long ago that SF now makes over $100 MILLION a year in parking tickets.
My two second Google search found a link talking about $88 million/year three years ago (BEFORE raising rates)
https://sf.curbed.com/2017/9/21/16115438/sf-parking-violations-tickets-revenue
At least with all the parking charges and fines in SF (as David is sure will happen in Davis) “supply should be freed up” and there is plenty of open spaces in SF.
I’m sure paid parking has made it super easy to park in SF and I must just have rotten luck like the last time we tried to park near North Point and Hyde (or maybe SF just needs to raise parking rates and parking fines even more to make things better)…
That’s true, although I wonder if paid parking will be as lucrative as the current system that has a lot more uncertainty.
David, et al.
Paid parking is NOT about revenue generation… when all is said and done, looking at equipment, maintenance, enforcement, replacement of equipment, etc., it is likely to be ‘break even” when compared to current parking restrictions, fines, etc., that no one seems to have an issue with…
How much does SF expend to get the $100 mm revenue? Add court costs, etc.
This is about looking to change behaviors, and am not fully convinced it will… but calling it a “tax” and a “revenue generator” is not honest, at best…
It has been 40 years, but had a great discussion with the guy who had “boots on the ground” with San Mateo’s system… he had a great collection of foreign coins, ‘tokens’ etc. … from what I heard and saw, it was a close to a zero-sum game as to revenues vs. expenditures to acquire those revenues… the merchants wanted “turn-over” in spaces…
Too much BS here… said my piece…
As usual, because he’s anonymous, Keith O has made an unsupported statement. If he had done his research on the the Downtown Davis Plan before spouting opinions, he would have found a more detailed description with plans for using variable parking rates and returning the parking fees into downtown functionality.
Mr unanonymous Richard McCann, I stated that that the city can raise the parking rates in the future.
Is my statement false? Do you have proof that they won’t ever raise the rates?
Until he can provide proof that my statement is false I’ll have to believe that Richard McCann is just “spouting opinions”.
Your statement is not “false” per se, since it’s your opinion. Richard’s opinion is based on the description for variable parking rates and how those fees will be spent. Howard is correct that this is not a general revenue generating policy, so there is probably not the incentive to raise the rates in order to generate revenue.
Nice dodge David. Can the city raise the parking rates down the road?
It’s a simple yes or no.
crickets……
The city has the discretion to set the rates now and in the future. Are so you suggesting that you would support the policy of paid parking at the current rate, but not if the rates are raised?
Not at all. But as we all know when it comes to fees that the city will most likely raise the rates in the future, we can pretty much take that to the bank.
Hear that Richard McCann?
The paid parking at the E St lot has been there for ten years, have they raised the parking fees in that time?
I don’t know, you tell me. I never park there. But does that mean that they never will?
This issue (parking/traffic downtown) must be examined in the context of the “other” issue that some are pushing for – namely the “residentialization” of downtown. In fact, they go hand-in-hand.
Adding residents downtown will increase parking and traffic challenges. These folks will be traveling in-and-out of downtown, will have visitors, deliveries, etc. Some of the newly-generated residential need for parking (as well as ALL of the traffic impacts) will spill out onto the surrounding streets.
The only way that this won’t have a significant, net impact is if other residents (who don’t live downtown) stay away, as a result.
Adding residences to an already-challenging environment virtually guarantees that the city will need to implement paid parking.
My view is that in order to add residential they would have to provide internal parking for the residents
David: My comment had already accounted for that. (Hopefully, it’s more than “your view”, and would actually be required.)
Regardless, some of the additional parking needs (as well as ALL of the additional traffic) will spill out onto surrounding streets. This can include travel to/from the new residences (including to locations outside of downtown), guests/visitors, deliveries, etc.
What some are pushing for is essentially adding a new (residential) neighborhood to an existing (commercial) neighborhood. Of course this will have impacts on surrounding streets. It will also virtually guarantee the need to “manage” parking.
Of course, residents in areas outside of downtown might stay away as a result of the changes, which would mitigate some of the increased traffic and parking impacts. Not sure that downtown businesses would appreciate that, however.
There isn’t a project before us so it can only be my view st this time That said it would be my view that any project with residential in the core must have internally handle residential parking needs
You’re right – there isn’t an “individual” project. Instead, there’s a proposed/wholesale change to the entire downtown under consideration, which would result in many residential “projects” (and probably displacement of some existing businesses).
Even if parking is included in the proposed residential developments, some of the additional parking needs and all of the additional traffic will spill out onto surrounding streets.
Again, looking at proposed parking changes in “isolation” (without acknowledging the other changes to downtown that some are proposing) does not provide a complete picture.
Again, my preference would be to handle those impacts internally on the site rather than on the streets.
David: Take a look at any neighborhood, anywhere – and tell me if all of the parking needs are handled “internally” (e.g., in folks’ garages). (For residents, guests/visitors, deliveries, etc.) Some of which is accommodated in driveways (which won’t be possible downtown), and some of which is accommodated in streets.
Then, consider what will happen downtown, where the amount of internal parking might be less generous in the first place (in a location that’s already impacted, to serve businesses).
Only a complete fool (or a political blogger) would argue that this would have no impact on the parking situation, even if some amount of parking is handled internally by the proposed developments. Are we actually arguing about this?
Not to mention traffic.
Not to mention parking/traffic challenges created by “one-at-a-time” construction projects (for the next few decades), downtown. As well as the permanent need to accommodate more garbage truck pickups, etc.
It’s going to be quite a sight! (As with the massive construction projects near Olive/Richards, it might almost be worthwhile to try to find a parking spot, just to watch the show.)
But, probably less-amusing for some of the existing businesses, and customers who frequent them.
What this comment translates to in the real world is a desire to maintain parking minimums for downtown projects. If we look at the consultant’s comments during their presentations over the past year (and some of the Futures Forum speakers), one of the crucial steps for making redevelopment feasible is getting rid of parking minimums. This is especially important since most of the projects downtown will be relatively small given the parcel sizes and current ownership. Parking minimums result in lots of small, single-use and inefficient, private parking lots all over the downtown, which is what we currently have.
You can reasonably talk about effectively handling parking internal to a project when we start looking at projects that encompass significant portions of an entire city block and perhaps incorporate a City-owned surface lot as part of the project.
1. That’s why you design the internal parking to accommodate residents and guests.
2. I’m not arguing that there would be zero impact (nice cheap shot btw), I’m arguing for planning to address the impacts.
3. Trust me, well aware of the impact of construction on things downtown. Been dealing with the reconstruction of the alleyway since June. There’s no avoiding that.
4. Another point is that if done properly, these should be workforce housing, incentivized for live-work.
Agreed, but one thing to note is that each new “curb cut” to accommodate a driveway for new residences further reduces street parking. Although one response might be to require parking in a more centralized location (accommodating a lot of parked cars in a single area), it will need to be convenient enough for residents and guests to actually use it. (And hopefully, developers of these new residences will make an adequate enough contribution to cover the cost of parking construction and maintenance, and won’t try to shift those costs to the city, itself.)
Otherwise, we’ll end up with another under-used garage, with residents, guests, and delivery people parking on the street (and competing with customers, as is already alleged to be an issue now – with employees).
I go out of my way to avoid parking in the garage at 4th & G (next to the USDA building).
Ron, other than your unfounded speculation that you can’t support because you remain anonymous, what basis do you have for this?
The bottom line here… charging for use to force scarcity only works when there is an significant over-abundance of demand for the thing desired to be more scarce given the indirect adverse impacts that forced scarcity policy causes.
In other words, since forced scarcity policies cause secondary harm, the primary benefit must be substantial to provide a strong enough net benefit.
In this case the idea is that cars parking in the more convenient parking spaces is what we need to be more scarce. However, the problem is that there is not a significant over-abundance in demand for those spaces – the Davis downtown is not really a destination mecca like other areas in other cities where paid parking is necessary and works. In fact, the Davis downtown is in decline. There are many fewer retail shops. It is more a student coffee, pizza and bar entertainment area. Davis Ace is about the only retail drawing any adult shoppers, and there is generally enough parking for that (especially since Jennifer and Doby added some recently).
The problem I see is a hit to shopper convenience (it takes more time to pay for parking even though there may be more parking spaces near the store). And with paid parking won’t more people attempt to park in the private lots where Davis Ace shopper park today… thus making it less convenient for those shoppers?
I believe we need a different solution for the problem of downtown employees parking in the choice lots. For example, business owners can set a policy for their employees that designate where they can park.
If we are going to help the downtown, we need to make it more convenient for shoppers… especially in this day of Amazon one-click. Related to this, I paused for a couple of seconds while I was typing this and bought a book from Amazon.com.
I think the important question is will we make this decision based on data, or by succumbing to fear and anecdote? There are decades worth of data that show that paid parking works to improve access to local businesses and results in an increase in business and revenues, which is exactly opposite of what the fear mongers are pushing. Now it is of course, possible that the City implements the paid parking improperly, which in this town is a real concern, but if we follow best practices the data shows that the fears being expressed here will not come to pass.
We need to set aside the attitude of ‘protecting’ what we have (figuratively encasing everything in amber) and start allowing the City, and especially the downtown, to evolve for a more successful future. Modernizing our approach to parking policy is one important step in that process.
I get your position here, but consider the downtown competition for customers. With paid parking will it improve my interest to shop at Davis Ace or will I drive to Home Depot in Woodland?
From my perspective downtown paid parking works when there is an abundance of competitive advantage and the paid parking assists the flow of paying customers. I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Davis downtown as having an abundance of competitive advantage except for food service for students.
Does it make sense to create a city-wide policy based on protecting a single business? We have followed that approach for the past 50 years or so, and have the current lack of shopping options in town (and poor sales tax receipts) to thank for it. Jeff, you have been one of the loudest voices calling out our poor per capita sales tax receipts, so I find it surprising that you would advocate continuing policies that have led to that past failure. We don’t create a vibrant retail environment by protecting an individual business from competition, we do so by creating an environment where all businesses are able to compete fairly, regardless of where in town they are located.
I shop at Davis Ace and want it to succeed, but it should succeed or not based on the skills of its owners, managers, and employees, not because of preferential treatment or a government subsidy. Our policies should be focused on creating a vibrant retail(plus) environment throughout the city, not just for protecting one location or business from the competition.
Mark
Is there anyone who is willing put his (note no women) name here on his comments deriding parking? This is all about anonymous fear mongering in a manner that allows baseless speculation rather than real consideration to drive the issues debate.
Mark wrote,
Locally, are you talking about Amazon, the solar industry, the farming industry, the homebuilding industry, the medical industry – all of which actually do qualify for structural tax avoidance or shelter strategies – or local, independent brick and mortar retailers?
I’m sure there are many who would like to see additional “local” retailers in Davis – COSTCO, Walmart, Home Depot, Nordstroms, IKEA – a few of the names that come to mind.
We’re not the only college town without these large national retailers. It may be of no interest to you, but of this same list, only Nordstroms has a store location in Palo Alto. Palo Alto doesn’t even have a Target.
But, then again, I thought we were talking here about paid parking in the Downtown – a strategy that even Palo Alto hasn’t yet adopted.
Ah, yes…for years, every time I brought up the topics of expanding retail or economic development on this site I could guarantee an anti-big box response from a few specific posters. Glad to see that you are continuing the tradition, John.
I don’t have a problem with the community deciding to limit the size of stores, but those limitations should be consistently applied everywhere, not just outside the downtown. They also should be consistent for the type of business, without zoning limitations that require a specific type of store in certain locations, or limit business types that might compete with an existing one downtown. Those are all examples of government handouts to downtown property owners and businesses that limit the retail options for residents and the sales and property tax revenues for the City. With an $8+ million annual deficit, perhaps it is time to consider a different approach.
For the record…the one time the community voted on store size limits we chose to ignore them.
As to paid parking, it should be implemented everywhere in town that the demand for access to parking regularly exceeds the supply. Other than downtown, where does that situation exist?
Palo Alto does this by having all it’s box stores right over the border in the next town, feet away. Around Davis is fields.
And, why does that problem today exist only in the Downtown?
It does seems ironic that the only locations where the City has actually ENFORCED developers to deliver required parking minimums is in our autocentric, peripheral malls. Funny thing, but coincidentally, this is also what their shopping center tenants demanded – in order to be competitive with other autocentric centers in other communities. That’s the field they play on. And then we call these “neighborhood centers” – as if everybody strolls home with shopping carts.
Minimums haven’t been ENFORCED in the Downtown (excepting the two new movie theatre locations) for nearly three decades. It’s no wonder that the Downtown has become so oversaturated with cars looking for spaces – with approval of increasingly “more dense” uses while waiving any requirements for additional parking supply. These were deliberate choices of the City Staff, Planning Commission and the City Council.
You would call this conferring a strategic advantage on Downtown retail locations – a strategy designed to foster and strengthen our Downtown as the commercial center of the community?
To your larger point, when cities approve a series of large format supermarket/department stores and big box specialty stores with acres and acres of FREE parking (based on strictly enforced parking minimums), located on major arterials, cannot these same actions be described as “picking winners and losers” while “conferring a strategic or competitive advantage” on one model over another? Isn’t this part of what Joe Minnicozzi’s talking points were all about?
Parking minimums are fiscally stupid whether downtown, at the neighborhood centers, or on the periphery. The City gains nothing from the land dedicated to private car storage at these sites. How much more retail might we have (and tax revenues) if we used the land for stores and restaurants rather than car storage? At least if there was residential on top of the retail(plus) the parking places might serve double duty. As is they are a waste of space and a fiscal drain on the community.
We are discussing Davis, I thought. What series of approvals are you referring too? I count one Nugget store and one Target over the past 50 years. If there are others, please enlighten me. It is the failure to approve new stores that are at the root of the City’s fiscal problems.
I think the more relevant example is restricting stores that might compete with an existing downtown business, as has been the policy here for decades.
I think you might want to listen to his presentation again as your description is not consistent with what I have heard him say.
Hard to believe, but 50 years ago was 1968.
Again, the primary topic here is about parking and parking policy. All the following developments have been built since 1968. All are based on copious supply of proximate, free parking. All were built on parking ratios mandated by the City of Davis – ratios that insured more abundant parking for the patrons of these outlying centers.
If Joe Minnicozzi’s message wasn’t primarily about the benefits of Downtown retail densification – versus suburban sprawl – then I really misunderstood his message.
Since 1968, we have seen the opening of the following retail centers located outside the Downtown:
Davis Manor
Anderson Plaza
Marketplace
Oak Tree Plaza
Westlake Plaza
Oakshade Town Center
Davis Commons
Target Center
Yes, and every one of those projects had zoning restrictions dictating the type and size of the stores allowed, not to mention all of the free car storage mandated by the City’s parking minimums. How much more revenue might we have received had those restrictions and requirements not been in place?
1961 the community came together to produce the first Core Area Specific Plan, which we then failed to implement. This time, we could have saved a good deal of time and money had we simply updated that ’61 plan, rather than proceeding with the current effort at reinventing the wheel. Back then, we focused on creating a downtown suitable for the city as it was projected to be 25 years in the future. Today, we are mostly focused on protecting the downtown so it stays as it was 25 (or even 50) years ago.
Mark – I stacked up a few of your comments to comment on.
First, related to you point about car storage – unless I am unaware of other modes of transportation, there are four ways for me to get from my home to downtown to shop: 1 – walk, 2 – bike, 3 – drive, 4 – ride public transportation or ride-share. I prefer #3 most of the time given my busy life schedule… and especially if I am buying big and/or heavy things downtown. Just being honest here. So please hold that point related to your criticism of using land for “car storage.”
With respect to parking minimums, I will use the example of a grocery store to make the case that not all retail is created equal in terms of “car storage” needs. Really, you would constrain the parking spaces so that there is more room for store? I think that would result in too few customers to frequent all that extra store space.
Lastly, why is challenging the utility of paid parking downtown associated with protecting the downtown from competition? I would agree with you if surrounding communities also charged for parking… but they don’t. I would turn this around and ask why are you for increasing the difficulty for downtown Davis stores to compete when everywhere else is free parking?
From my perspective this is a much more straightforward debate. Either paid parking is going to help downtown business, or it is going to hurt downtown business. I think it is the latter.
Note that Watermelon Music has abundant free parking now and it has been good for business from what I have heard.
You can use ALL the land for retail and build ZERO parking so that we don’t waste any of that land on car storage, but then how do you think that will workout for these retail locations? Obviously the key is to strike some balance.
Jeff –
I will go back to a question I asked earlier. Are we going to make this decision based on decades of research data, or because of some individual’s anecdote, expectations, and fears? I think it should be based on the data, which shows that paid parking is an effective way to manage a restricted resource. The important thing to remember, though, is that paid parking is being used to manage that limited resource so that it functions best for the entire downtown area, not just for one store or one shopper. What works best for the region, may not be ideal for each individual entity or person. That’s the situation when we are dealing with large groups of businesses and people…it’s not all about you (or one business).
The goal is to improve the function of the downtown as a whole during peak parking demand. If there was no period of time when parking was limited, there would be no need to manage the resource. Right now, we manage it through enforcement of time limits by writing tickets. Technology provides a better solution with paid parking and your smartphone. Instead of a parking ticket, you get a notification that your meter is about to expire and are given the opportunity to add time. Maybe that extra hour costs a little more but it’s not as much as the ticket.
As to the parking at the neighborhood centers. I am not suggesting that there should be no parking, but that we should ‘right size’ the amount of parking. How often have you gone to one of our neighborhood centers and not been able to find a parking spot? Ever? The only place I have seen that has been even slightly impacted is at University Mall, and that likely is due to some fraction of people parking in the lot and walking across the street to the campus. In most cases, there is far too much parking for the actual demand so the obvious problem is that we have set our parking minimums too high. Wouldn’t it be better to balance the required supply with the demand? We waste a huge amount of space on parking (and add unnecessary costs to the development), and as a consequence, miss out on commercial opportunities and City tax revenues.
That is the same story downtown as well, with all the little private parking lots at various businesses created to meet their building’s parking minimums. Why do we want to encourage people to drive to the bank, then get back in their car and drive to their coffee shop of choice, then get back in the car again and drive to Davis Ace to pick up a few things before going home? That is three parking spots for one car on one trip. If we replaced all those private lots (which are rarely full) with more businesses, or even better, mixed-use development, we might even balance the City’s budget with the increased property taxes. If demand increases beyond the available supply, then (and only then) we should look at expanding that supply. As it stands now, we have sufficient supply downtown.
To end I will say that we simply have to stop using fear as the basis for managing the City. I’m sure we will hear horror stories about how paid parking ‘killed’ a downtown business, just as we heard about the same supposed impact of Target. Even if the story is true, which it will rarely be, that business was likely going to die anyway. It happens, businesses die for many varied reasons, but I guess it is convenient to have something outside the business to blame, rather than expecting management to look in the mirror. The City will not come crashing to a halt if a business closes downtown, no matter which business we are talking about. There is no single source of sales tax revenue downtown that cannot be replaced by another, no matter how often we hear otherwise.
When Mark asks “How often have you gone to one of our neighborhood centers and not been able to find a parking spot? Ever?”
I’m guessing that Mark has not been to the South Davis Nugget Center in the past year (since the old Burger King was converted in to a super popular Starbucks). Before UCD finals with so many students packed in to the Starbucks there were weeks with the parking lot just packed and they even added a new corner gravel lot. It is still bad now (even before school starts) and I was just talking to a “South of Davis” neighbor that works in downtown Sac (and still wears a tie to work) this past weekend and he said he is running out of clothes since in the past couple weeks he has driven around the center after getting off at Mace but after not finding a spot he has gone home and decided to hope he can park and go to the dry cleaner the next day…
A couple of times going to shop at Whole Foods so I left and never shopped there again… and then it closed.
Ken A – Yes, I had forgotten how impacted that lot has become since the Starbucks opened, as I rarely shop at that center now. I did shop there regularly though for close to ten years through 2012 and never had an issue finding a spot.
Jeff – That center is another where people park and walk onto campus instead of going shopping. Still, over the years I was never unable to find parking the times I went there to shop.
Back when a South Davis Burger King drive through guy was robbed I remember people joking that the robbers must have been waiting a long time since almost no one ever goes to Burger King (I don’t think I have passed since the Starbucks open when I have not seen multiple cars in the drive through)
https://patch.com/california/davis/motorist-robbed-in-burger-king-drive-through-off-of-mdf2b89f41c
Jeff reminds me that there were multiple times when I could not find a space in the lot behind the old Whole Foods before it closed..