Paid parking is a controversial issue, both inside downtown as well as in the community. On the one hand, I don’t think the council should fear paid parking. As someone who works in the downtown, I see the E Street Plaza parking lot all of the time and the council should view that parking lot as a pilot project for how paid parking can work.
The reality is, as I show in my lunchtime photo, that parking lot is almost always at or near capacity. There are not a lot of open spaces there during any time. What that shows is that when people have the choice between paying money and having less convenience, they will choose to pay money.
I grew up in San Luis Obispo, and we always had parking meters in the downtown. However, there were alternatives if you didn’t want to pay. One is that you park on a more distant street and walk a number of blocks. The other is that if you were parking for short term in a parking garage, the first 90 minutes were free and after that you had an hourly rate that was prorated.
But looking at the data, I don’t believe that Davis really has a parking problem most of the time.
In their staff report, staff writes, “Generally speaking, the ideal parking occupancy rate is in the vicinity of 85%. At this usage, the parking supply is being efficiently used while spaces remain
available for new arrivals, preventing vehicles ‘circling’ downtown blocks in search of a parking space.”
They found that the average occupancy rate for the days and times collected was 70 percent, a slight decline from fall of 2015. However, downtown experiences parking peaks during the lunch and evening time frames.
Staff writes, “Downtown experiences parking ‘peaks’ during the lunch and evening timeframes. During these peaks, downtown parking closely reaches capacity, resulting in vehicles circling around the block to find spaces, resulting in added congestion.”
If the average occupancy rate is 70 percent and it factors in peak hours, that means that, most of the day, there is really no need for paid parking.
Last week’s article showed us four time slots – two at the lunch hour and two in the evening that would represent peak hours. You have Wednesday at noon, you have a heavy capacity in the southern part of downtown, with overall light capacities in the northern part – but the street parking even there on a lot of the streets is still at over 85 percent.
On a Wednesday evening during Farmer’s Market, you see the impact shifts to the western half of downtown, but if you look at the surface streets on the east side, most are in the red, even if overall capacity isn’t filled.
Friday at noon is even more congested, with three of the quadrants at red and most of the side streets in the remaining quadrant in red as well. Finally, Friday evening, as expected, is red almost across the board.
The Vanguard is certainly not opposed to metered parking. However, in our view, it might be an interesting idea to try an approach where parking is only metered during peak hours. That means weekdays from noon to 1 pm. It also means evening hours from 6 to 9pm perhaps. One thing that would be interesting to know is whether a Monday during the 6 to 9 hours is just as congested as a Friday.
Right now it appears that the plan would be for city to meter 3rd Street and southward, from D Street and eastward. But the data suggest otherwise. During the peak times, the heavy parking traffic extends beyond that area.
One thing that we do know from the E Street Plaza is that a sufficient number of people will choose the convenience of parking in close proximity to their destination over cheaper parking options and walking. Therefore, you can target the areas that are congested.
But we would suggest a peak-hour only pilot project. Run it for six months with surveys on each section in the downtown a few times during the course of that time. And we would suggest that the entire downtown is metered, with a further suggestion that the 4th and G parking garage have two hours of free parking during peak hours to encourage usage.
Let us see if that helps alleviate the parking congestion.
One other issue that I believe needs to be addressed is what does success look like here? After all, if you have a finite supply and a limited problem during peak hours, what are you hoping to accomplish through the implementation of the paid parking? Less congestion downtown? That might be an actual loss. Without increasing supply, it is hard to imagine that paid parking would alleviate the parking crunch, so I would want to understand, what does success look like?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you take just the lunch-hour peak time, success would mean high numbers of people being able to get to downtown in a manner that minimizes circling, congestion, bottlenecks, and the headache of trying to find a spot. Success is people wanting to come downtown instead of avoiding it because of traffic or parking issues. I think good parking management can really help the situation even during peak times and even without increasing supply. It’s a sorting issue. Paid parking incentivizes the walker and bikers to walk and bike, the able-bodied (and those not carting big items or kids) to park farther away and walk, while allowing those that need close on-street parking the ability to find that easily and quickly.
Thank you, Cindy. All points that I agree with.
“Without increasing supply, it is hard to imagine paid parking would alleviate the parking crunch”
You seem to be ignoring the elasticity of the act of driving a car into downtown Davis. When the cost of parking is externalized to the driver, transportation decisions are distorted at best. The number of drivers searching for available parking is not a fixed number that we must forever try to accommodate. Our goal should be to accommodate as many downtown visitors as possible, not cars.
“most of the day, there is really no need for paid parking.”
Parking availability is by no means the only reason to implement paid parking. Our current system of fully-subsidized parking flies in the face of many goals that our city has set for itself. Not to mention the city budget.
So if we decrease the number of cars, does that mean that people choose other means to go downtown or does that mean that we have less people choosing to go downtown?
The first answer, of course. Our goal is to encourage *people* to safely and conveniently visit our downtown. Once we stop equating cars with people, we’ll start to make some headway.
The only practical way to fit more people downtown is to get some of the cars out of the way.
I think that for most people, the elasticity of choosing a bicycle vs. choosing a car only applies to relatively short distances. It seems unlikely that you will significantly incentivize people to travel by bicycle by implementing paid parking. I think the concern merchants have is about making downtown seem less hospitable to their customers overall. Paid parking is a tool for managing parking decisions, not really a very effective tool for managing ride-mode decisions.
I’m in favor of alternative modes of transportation but I tend to agree you are not going to convince people to bike to downtown through paid parking.
To me, this would be a timid, status quo decision. Small, incremental change that will have little impact one way or the other. We need to move away from timid decisions like this for the simple reason that the status quo isn’t working. Remember our annual budget deficit and unfunded obligations? Whether we are talking about parking, redevelopment, economic development or cost containment, continuing with our current timid approach will not solve our challenges.
We don’t have the money to build a new parking structure, so we need to do a better job of managing the parking resources that we have. The CC should pay attention to the research and fully implement the recommendations of the Downtown Parking Task Force, even if doing so is unpopular. This is a time to make the right decision, not the popular one.
The first question I would have is does the data on parking suggest we need something more than a small incremental change? I’m not worried about popularity, but if the overall usage rate is really 70%, I’m not sure we need to do something radical. And the other question is still, what does success look like if we do add paid parking?
If additional residences are added downtown and in adjacent areas, they (and their visitors) will impact the demand for parking downtown, as well. (Especially if sufficient parking spaces are not required as part of the redevelopment.)
The city is not going to effectively “force” those in surrounding neighborhoods to suddenly start biking downtown (for those not already doing so), by limiting parking. More likely, they’ll avoid going downtown as often, thereby impacting downtown businesses.
As a side note, the area around ACE looks so much better (and more “open”), now that the ugly metal shed have been removed (to make way for a parking lot, which I believe will have a solar panel covering). What an improvement! It seems that common sense prevailed, in that case.
If the city does add residences to the downtown, my preference would be internal parking – I’ve seen it done well in Sacramento where you have businesses on the ground floor, live-work townhouses, apartments with parking on the interior.
David, after discussing the data, the case studies & best practices on this site endlessly for going on 4 years, it is not at all clear to me why you are ignoring:
1) The parking behavior of downtown employees.
2) The impact of a pricing mechanism on downtown employee parking behavior.
3) The impact of a pricing mechanism & X permits on a mostly empty G Street parking structure.
4) The recommendation for X permits in OED.
Success looks like 2-3 empty spaces on almost every block face & much higher turnover on metered spaces.
I wasn’t ignoring it (intentionally). Just trying to get a sense: So we are expecting that paid parking will help us deal with downtown employees?
Case studies give every reason to believe that a significant number of employees will choose to park in the free or near-free spaces rather than pay for the higher-demand spaces. That will free up many hundreds of higher-demand spaces effectively increasing the supply.
On the other hand, perhaps all the data, research and case studies are in error.
But my question still is: are we simply implementing the paid parking as a way to deter employees from parking in the downtown?
No, David. The employees (and business owners) occupying prime parking spots that could otherwise be utilized by paying downtown customers is only one aspect of the parking dynamic addressed by instituting a parking mechanism.
I’m asking the question honestly here, so what else?
the technology exists to monitor and not have anyone pay except for violations of the time.. perhaps our esteemed business folks could do a better job of monitoring themselves and their staff to start.. then use the technology rather than wasting money for those those folks driving around town giving tickets and being in the way of bicyclists in the bike lanes…if other towns can do it, why cannot Davis ? are we that behind the times? or who is getting paid off? I bet there would be more business, and more parking if the business folks who would make money off of more customers would stop hogging the spots…
Implementing paid parking will give people one more reason to not do their shopping there. Woodland isn’t that far away.
Maybe. The pilot project at E St doesn’t seem to bear that out. It probably costs more to drive to Woodland than it would to pay for parking.
First off I’ve found most of our downtown business goods to be somewhat more expensive than I can find elsewhere. If I have to pay to park than that just tips the scales a little bit more where it makes it more feasible to drive elsewhere. Most people have a limited amount of disposible income. If paying for parking is going to start eating a chunk of that up they’re either going to look for cheaper options or they’re going to skip some outings. It’s just common sense.
Driving 20 extra miles actually figures to cost more when accounting for gas and wear and tear on the car.
More than what, David? Have not seen anything about proposed “rates”… 50 years ago, growing up in San Mateo, downtown was all meter parking… a penny bought you 10 minutes… what do you see as rates/hour for “prime time”? You should not compare gas/”wear and tear” costs (default would be IRS rates) with a cost that has not yet been defined. Sophistry?
Current rate is $1 an hour, a trip to Woodland would be around $8 with gas and wear and tear.
A trip to Woodland and back would be around $2 with most cars, nobody is going to figure in wear and tear. Add to it that you can for the most part buy goods cheaper there and not have the added hassle of when you park having to search out a meter station in order to pay.
The reimbursement rate is around 32 cents a mile. Plus my time is also worth something, a lot more than a buck or two for parking.
Plus I don’t understand what it is you buy currently in the Davis downtown that you would otherwise buy in Woodland.
Well for starters:
Home Depot is almost always less expensive than Ace Hardware goods with a nice huge free parking lot.
Everything at WalMart is cheaper than most things our Davis stores have to offer, once again huge free parking lot.
And let’s not forget Costco.
WalMart and Costco are not competing against the Davis Downtown, maybe Target, but not the Davis downtown. So you’re talking about at most one type of a purchase.
I won’t travel to Woodland for things like seeing a movie and getting lunch, but with the added cost of Davis Parking to every excursion I will be be doing that less often. Our businesses will definitely suffer.
Actually, if they achieve the goal of having a couple of open parking spaces in key locations at any given time, due to better parking management, businesses will do better.
The key is the perception of how easy it is to get in and out on a shopping errand, not whether one has to pay to park there. Very few people will be primarily motivated by the cost of parking, nor by the relative cost of goods. Some will. If people are already avoiding downtown Davis due to the perception of parking congestion, and if this helps to reduce that congestion, it will be better for the businesses that are there.
There are plenty of studies out there about the effect of parking management. It’s hard to extrapolate them from truly dense urban areas to a small town like Davis, but they tend to support the idea that paid parking can make parking easier and may improve the shopping experience for people. Since we really don’t know for sure, it’s very important to tweak the changes after the results come in.
I lived in SLO, and it just wasn’t a big deal to drop a few quarters in the meters. You had choices as well – you could park and walk, there were 90 minutes free at the parking garages, but if you wanted to park on the street up close, you had to pay a little bit. And it worked for the most part.
The one thing I think the city can look into is simply doing it during peak hours, because that would address the concerns about management and employees without burdening people during non-peak hours when this is a non-issue.
Keith O – But, would you go downtown and park for free a few blocks away from the most congested areas to shop there?
Cindy, I always find a place to park when I go downtown. Maybe part of that is I live here and know where to look. I live in Wildhorse close to 102, it’s an easy drive to the Woodland stores.
If paid parking is going to free up spots close to businesses why is that? The answer is less people will be shopping downtown.
“If paid parking is going to free up spots close to businesses why is that? The answer is less people will be shopping downtown.” -Keith O
This answer is factually incorrect and has been refuted numerous times over the past 3-4 years. Paid parking will free up spaces in the SE quadrant because it provides incentive for price-sensitive employees and shoppers to park in the free spaces in the other parts of downtown. This is not rocket science.
Or the price sensitive shoppers will just travel to Woodland where they can park for free close to the stores and in many cases find less costly goods. Charging for downtown parking might be the tipping point for many shoppers.
I’m sorry Keith, I just don’t buy into the idea that most people who would go to Davis Downtown are going to go to Woodland as the result of a $1 or $2 for parking. And if it ends up freeing up spots and making parking easier, the opposite is likely to be true.
You guys don’t make any sense, in one hand you want to say that people won’t shop downtown unless they can park close to the stores but on the other hand you say people that don’t want to pay to park will be willing to walk several blocks to get to the stores. Those people that don’t want to pay to park will also be willing to shop elsewhere. You can’t have it both ways.
Keith O – These are different groups of people. We are saying that some people won’t shop downtown unless they can park close. The parking management plan helps ensure that these people have spaces that they can park at (for a fee; Option A). And, yes, some people won’t be willing to pay that fee. Those people would park a few blocks farther away (Option B). Right now, these two groups of people are competing with each other for the close spots, causing circling, congestion, and annoyance. With paid parking, they’ll head to different spots.
What we seem to be disagreeing about is the likelihood that people who don’t want to pay will park farther away or drive to Woodland. Parking farther away will take an extra 5 minutes of time. Driving to Woodland is at least 30 extra minutes (round trip). So, I’m betting they’ll still shop in town and choose Option A or Option B above. But we’d need data to settle the matter.
This argument assumes that there is no “travel time” to reach downtown, for someone living in a Davis neighborhood that’s not all that close to downtown. (And, disregards all of the congestion and intersections that have to be navigated, to reach downtown.)
Overall, some businesses in Woodland compete with those in Davis (e.g., Home Depot, Costco). Others (such as restaurants) – not so much.
Had Davis ACE not been allowed to build a parking lot, it likely would have lost more customers to Home Depot, at least from some Davis neighborhoods.
No it just assumes that it’s further to drive to Woodland than Davis, which is pretty much undisputed.
David: A longer “straight shot” (without intersections, congestion, hassle of parking) is sometimes faster and more efficient than a shorter, stop-and-go situation.
Now, add parking hassles and costs, less selection, and higher prices.
As a side note: When I periodically travel to the Bay Area, I avoid purchasing gasoline (due to the higher price, and more congested gas stations). (Even as I joke with others that the higher price in the Bay Area must be the result of a “higher-quality” gasoline.) 🙂
Having said that, I believe that paid parking is coming to Davis, regardless. And, I understand the argument for doing so, for the most part.
Ron – I am going to go out on a limb and bet that if I crunched the numbers and calculated the average travel time to downtown from every location in Davis (taking into account traffic, stop signs, etc) and compared it to the average travel time to travel to Woodland from every location in Davis (taking into account traffic, stop signs, etc), we’d get a 20 minute difference in favor of Davis.
I am not disputing that we may lose some customers to Woodland (especially if you live in Wildhorse or the north of town, e.g., the bird streets), but on average we’d see a net benefit with the plan in terms of getting customers to go downtown. I also don’t dispute that the effects of the parking plan may differ depending on the type of establishment. But again, I bet the downtown businesses, on average, would benefit.
So, is anyone going to take me up on any of these bets? 😉
Well, since you kept saying “every” you would lose. It’s 7.7 miles and 12 minutes from Wildhorse to CostCo. We’re delivering to homes in Spring Lake almost every week. It’s about 10 minutes from our shop.
Having said all that, I still think the paid parking will not have the adverse consequences that are being predicted. That just isn’t really how people make shopping decisions overall.
Cindy: Probably true.
Let’s see how things are after downtown is further densified, and perhaps a couple more megadorms added in the area. (Haven’t even seen the impacts from Sterling, yet.)
My guess is that downtown will become even more restaurant-oriented, overall. And, those from outlying areas may cut back on their visits.
Downtown will cater more and more to those living there (or very nearby).
An “extreme” comparison might be to ask, how many (within a 100-mile radius of San Francisco) want to visit there, these days? (For example, how much is the Golden Gate Bridge toll, these days?) A very “intense” town, compared to years ago.
Ron: Sterling isn’t adding population, it’s re-distributing it. It’s not going to impact the downtown.
What are you talking about? The vacated apartments or houses that the new Sterling residents leave will be filled by someone. Everytime we build in Davis we’re adding more people because of our desirability. Remember we have a .2% vacancy rate as you often remind us.
I was referring to taking every location in Davis and then averaging across all the different travel times from those locations to downtown Davis vs. Woodland (Costco area). In other words, for residents in Davis, is the average travel time (averaged across all of those residents) to downtown Davis shorter than the average travel time to Woodland.
Dang. I thought I’d won a latté or something.
From Wildhorse I can get to shopping in Woodland faster than I can go downtown. Less lights, wide open parking and no parking fees. Oh, and the prices are usually cheaper for everything from groceries, to hardware goods to plants.
I have to believe that residents in North Davis might consider jumping right on 113 and head straight to Woodland at 70 mph without the hassle of stop lights and paid parking.
Keith O – I just realized that in my previous analysis, I left out one group of people. People that want to park close but don’t want to pay for it and also don’t want the hassle of parking farther away OR the hassle of going all the way to Woodland. So, instead of going out, they just stay at home and microwave a Hot Pocket while they shop online from Amazon. This is not an altogether unappealing option. 🙂
In fact I just got home from a Woodland shopping trip. First Home Depot, then Costco gas and then Costco itself. Bought some great wine for a steal at Costco, bought wood from Home Depot for a project and bought gas at Costco for $2.79/gal withan extra 4% off using my Costco card. Charge for downtown parking and I will make this my norm.
Cindy, I agree with your last post. On Amazon you often don’t pay any taxes either, prices are cheaper and if you use an Amazon Prime card you get an extra 5% discount. I will use our downtown for an occasional movie or to dine out, get a beer. Otherwise to heck with it, the paid parking will put me over the top.
Keith
It would be “common sense” if everyone valued money more than anything else. But some value their time more, or not using gas which will then cause an earlier trip to the gas station ( an act I loathe more than looking for a parking space), or simply do not like driving. We do not all share the same priorities as is clearly reflected in our behaviors.
It has been my experience, and observation, that most of those who do not “value money more than anything else”, are financially secure. There are some whose spiritual values are such, that even if they are not financially secure, actually value everything else more… but they are exceptions, not the majority.
Then there are those who are financially secure who value money more than anything… we have some technical terms for them, including, but not limited to, misers or ‘Scrooges’. And they can be very ‘self-righteous’…
Direct price comparisons are only important to some shoppers, and studies have shown they are in the minority. A broader perception of value, convenience, service, the overall experience, and other factors go into the decisions about how and where to shop. A concern is that a whole area can get an image as being inconvenient, pricey, rundown, dangerous, etc. Destination retailers can overcome that (see Annie’s Annuals in Richmond), or an anchor retailer can hold its own. But the smaller retailers that need the traffic can really suffer if the public gets the idea that it’s hard to go somewhere.
Finally, some truth…
Don, we agree 100% on this point. I just think that the downtown already has the reputation that it’s hard to get to, and we need parking management to change that.
I agree. Implement it carefully, monitor it closely, and prepare to revisit the idea in a year or so. That’s my opinion, but I’m not materially affected by any of this.
Now, for your consideration… if we go with paid parking, AND transform downtown to build up and incorporate housing…
Another thought… going to paid parking has costs for equipment, maintenance/repair and replacement of that equipment. If we go there, the parking charges should apply from 7 A to 9 P, to make sure that those costs, and the costs of enforcement, have zero net impact to the City. Within 3-5 years.
That said, I could support “premium pricing” for peak hours, as a management tool…
What has not been mentioned, as far as I’ve noticed in the current discussion, is that DT businesses may want a lions’ share of the revenue to go for DT “enhancements” (they have in the past, to the point where they didn’t care very much if the City was “made whole”)… my thought is that any paid parking be priced such that the City has no net cost, and only if there is “profit”, should revenues go to as DT businesses might want. [there might be a tipping point, where the enhancements add to City revenue, then there could be a “split” … 50-50 would seem reasonable]
For discussion purposes…
HP, you made this claim about DT businesses previously. Please provide a policy statement or other evidence to support your assertion.
Verbal, at meetings of the DDBA Parking Committee… was there as observer… was not “wired” (have no tapes)… DDBA was too sophisticated to put it in writings…
If you verbally got together with Jennifer Anderson, Jeff Adamski, and others on the parking committee, when it was brought up years ago (~ 10 years ago), they might well verify, if there was no ‘attribution’ to what they say. Pretty sure neither would “deny”.
So, you can call me a liar if I cannot “document”. I’m good with that, but have given you clues as to how to verify.
Pretty sure you were not in the room… upstairs, @ Davis Ace ‘conference’/break room.
That’s real easy to verify as to where the DDBA Parking committee met.
Part of the context was they might risk loss of customers, and wanted assurances in return…
Davis Ace had a policy that no employee parked in the Core… with ‘disciplinary’ back-up…
You might want to drop that line of commentary as it is polar opposite to the ddba’s position on parking meter revenue.
Maybe now… I’ll concede your point (sort of)… but that’s now, not ~10 years ago… we may both be correct, but I told truth. ‘Truth’ can change with time… you say,
Are you prepared to,
Am open to that… please provide at least the documentation that you asked of me… or I’ll definitely feel free to challenge you as you challenged me. If you follow through on such documentation, I’ll actually apologize, admit I am wrong in the current situation… until then, I’m a skeptic, and stand with my assertion… and the facts as they existed ~ 10 years ago… I gave you two sources to verify my assertion. You have not done likewise.
Fact, not a personal attack…
Michael… I see you do not follow your own “rules”… irrespective of the issue at hand, you have near zero credibility… just my opinion…
I gave you ‘first person sources’… you did not respond in kind… I call…
David… doing paid at only peak hour would have to be a pretty high rate to pay for the acquisition, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the equipment [and enforcement]. Don’t go half-stepping… in or out… the pricing could be different for peak hour, but get into the game, or sit on the bench.
Howard P, maybe this will help:
From: Brian Abbanat [mailto:BAbbanat@cityofdavis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 9:16 AM
To: Michael Bisch
Subject: RE: Parking comments on DV
Hi Michael,
No, not that I’m aware of.
-Brian
From: Michael Bisch [mailto:michael@davisproperty.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:11 AM
To: Brian Abbanat
Subject: Parking comments on DV
Good morning, Brian!
A Vanguard commenter, Howard P, posted the following comment yesterday:
“What has not been mentioned, as far as I’ve noticed in the current discussion, is that DT businesses may want a lions’ share of the revenue to go for DT “enhancements” (they have in the past, to the point where they didn’t care very much if the City was “made whole”)… my thought is that any paid parking be priced such that the City has no net cost, and only if there is “profit”, should revenues go to as DT businesses might want. [there might be a tipping point, where the enhancements add to City revenue, then there could be a “split” … 50-50 would seem reasonable] “
As the city point person on the implementation of the Downtown Parking Management Plan, are you aware of any DDBA communication to the city resisting the city being “made whole” as claimed by Howard P?
-Michael
And a negative from staff (2017,@your prompting) is a polar opposite of what I recall vividly that the DDBA Parking committee verbally espouse 10 years ago?
Where is your writings from DT businesses as to their current stand (which you demanded of me!)? You don’t even say what your position is! I see no need nor reason to change my impression of how DT businesses feel about paid parking revenues. Your attempt to refute, or offer ‘evidence’ that I was/am incorrect, is impotent, at best… and not credible.
If I learned anything from my interactions with the DDBA board a decade ago, it was that there was not unanimity of opinion about issues and I’d say, based on more recent experience, that is true especially of parking issues. I think it doesn’t really matter now what downtown business owners might have said ten years ago. What matters now, inasmuch as it might affect implementation of this policy is what the current Downtown Davis board says, what Jennifer Anderson says, and what the city council decides.
Well,perhaps it is time for the DDBA and other merchants to weigh, in, and make it clear that they want the city to be made whole first with any revenues that are generated.
Until that is put in writing, and presented to the City, I will feel perfectly free to repeat what I heard… J Anderson was NOT in favor of the DT getting ‘first dibs’, as I recall, and neither was Jeff. Just ask them…
Recommendation 15 from the Downtown Parking Task Force reads as follows:
These could all be viewed as examples of putting the money back into the downtown. These are the recommendations of the Task Force, not the DDBA.
Now looking at the DDBA Website we find the following:
The Board of the DDBA does not agree with this recommendation and thinks it should be deleted.
There is nothing that I have seen in the published record to indicates that the DDBA Board views the topic the way that Howard has suggested. It may well have been the opinion of some unnamed business owner at a meeting 10 years ago, but it does not represent the current position of the DDBA Board based on their published comments.
Much ado about nothing.
Mark… now those are ‘writings’, more current, that I respect. Thank you.
BTW, it was a plurality of the DDBA Parking Committee, but perhaps with Jeff as chair, and Jennifer’s influence, it went nowhere as to writings.
Your response is far more credible than Michaels’s… again, thank you.
So… irrespective of history, are we all agreed that if paid parking is pursued, it be done in a manner where the City pays for no expenses to implement, at the end of the day? [I figure it will take 3-5 years to amortize the costs…]
Also, Mark… as I understand it, the downtown businesses self-assess, via the authority of the City, a DBID or some such acronym, which moneys are not GF monies (per se), but are ear-marked for downtown improvements… since those monies come from self-assessment of DT owners/businesses, they should go to DT improvements… GF supplements I reserve the right to object to. They may be justified, maybe not.
No, their funds don’t go to downtown improvements. They pay for the expenses of Davis Downtown.
Thank you for the clarification, Don… I was incorrect… apparently…
Wondering what that is, exactly. (Including what the expenses are, e.g., if other than what Mark listed.) If anyone cares to chime in.
And Howard – thanks for asking about the distribution of the potential revenues (including your follow-up questions).
Side note: I understand that we’re talking about two different revenue streams (self-assessment, vs. parking revenues). And, that parking revenues are the only “interest” of the public, at large.
That is correct.
Oh, and the costs associated with the revenue… my opinion, they should zero out. No loss, for sure, and no profit (otherwise it would be a tax, not a fee)… inappropriate, in my view…
Howard: That is a good goal. However, if there’s a “profit” at some point, I’d be more concerned about the parking revenues (inappropriately) supporting private business/development interests, in some manner. (Perhaps a fine line, at times.)
The streets (and the adjacent parking spaces) belong to the public, as do some of the parking lots.
Downtown business/development interests are only one of the “stakeholders”.
What you refer to (I surmise) is the pavement devoted to parking… that’s fair game… the travel lanes are not … those are community resources… and should, IMHO, financing should come from the City as an entity, GF, not parking revenues.
“parking pavement”, I also see as a legitimate ‘common’ expense (but still a fair question)… it’s not like we’d stop maintaining, or removing it, no matter how dire City finances are… we ‘bought into’ that many, many years ago. I’d not mess with financing existing pavement.
I do believe that off-street lots City owned and/or City maintained should be treated similarly as to parking fees, as on-street parking. Practical, and fair/equitable.
Perhaps we should also look at the pricing of “preferential parking” permits in neighborhoods…
Your first implied ‘question’ as to what Davis Downtown’s expenditures go to, is a fair and good one. I do not know. I am satisfied that it does not go to DT ‘improvements’, per Don.
The budget is posted publicly on their website.