Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Parking Tickets or Partaking in Thievery
by Javier Mata, published on April 26, 2011 at 6:29 AM
Storyline: Nightmare On J Street
Anybody that lives or visits Downtown Sacramento will tell you parking can be a true pain in the neck. Like a vampire sucking the life out of you, the City of Sacramento has decided to make the parking situation in its downtown and midtown area cutthroat. Now, this might come to a surprise to most, but to the residents of the area, or the employees that call downtown work, or just the frequent visitors to the area can tell you they are all too familiar with the headache that is parking downtown. Most downtown residents find it ludicrous that there is such little parking offered, and the trouble one must go to in order to have the privilege to park where he or she lives is serves as deterrent to living in the area. I understand the City has to mandate its parking and find a way to generate profit, especially in times like these - where every penny counts - but what about the residents and frequent downtown mainstays who work, live, shop, attend school, and do almost everything else in the area? Does it seem morally fair that one must pay $.25 for every 12 minutes that they spend in the places they call their neighborhood? To make things worse, if one doesn't pay the $1.00 for the measly 48 minutes and are cited before they are able to "feed the meter" (which by the way is illegal, and is cause for citation in itself) they are forced to pay a fine of $49.50. That is just outrageous and most would argue absurd. Surely, residents would advocate to see a special permit issued that extends to more than just the three block radius most residential permits are granted. And getting those permits is no walk in the park either. The extensive amount of requirements needed to qualify for a residential parking pass would be enough to discourage most from standing in the long lines at the City Hall offices where the permits are given. There has to be something done. Why not offer an “all-access” permit to the aforementioned areas, and allow for those people that call downtown and midtown home the comfort of not having to worry about a parking ticket in what is essentially equivalent to their parking spot? After all, these same residents continue to contribute and help stimulate these businesses even when the out-of-towners do not come, or the city officials and employees have furloughs. .
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I have also questioned the city's policy on how far a vehicle must be moved to avoid a meter-feeding ticket. The code doesn't mention it, and a city employee had to be pressed to issue a statement that was not entirely clear, and could just be an opinion. The code should be clear, and not designed ambiguously or left up to individual citation cops. I could gon on here for an hour about this topic, but I'll shorten it to this:
I fought a parking cite just last week. It's not my first at all. I don't like it when people abuse the available street parking, and the city should regulate it, but not with revenue as the goal.
I've been looking in to this too.
Now, I hear much grumbling about how parking shouldn't be a "revenue generator." I hear this a lot from people who also think that government should act more like a business. The last time I checked, if a business produced a product that was in demand, they charged for it--not just the cost of the product, but enough to make a profit. If they did charge less than the actual cost to produce that good or service, they were deliberately doing it as a "loss leader" to help create demand--but, as we can obviously see, demand for parking is high, and the price should reflect that demand. If you don't want to pay that price, well, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to drive your car downtown.
Some central city businesses have parking lots--but many do not. Parking space in front of high-traffic places with high-value real estate like the Capitol and City Hall is enormously valuable, with demand much higher than, say, in front of a convenience store in Marshall Park. If you don't know how long you are going to have to stay, use a parking garage instead of street parking. They cost a little more, because the cost of the land is high and so is the cost of building parking structures, but it's more predictable and there is no time limit. Some parking structures offer some free time--like the East End parking garage at 17th and L in the evenings, or the Downtown Plaza if you buy something.
In suburban neighborhoods, land is relatively cheap and businesses can often afford to buy land for parking lots. You are still paying for parking when you patronize these businesses--the property owner is responsible for maintenance, lighting and upkeep, and charges you for the right to park whenever you shop there. Same with any downtown business that has a parking lot. But downtown land is just too valuable to demolish every other block for parking!
Central city residents aren't entitled to free parking either. We actually pay for it with our property taxes, but that right is also limited to the vicinity of our homes. If you live next to that convenience store in Marshall Park, odds are you aren't going to park your car for the night next to the Capitol. For the most part, central city residents don't need to drive to take care of a lot of common tasks--partially because driving is too darn inconvenient, as there is not enough parking!
And if it makes you feel any better, parking is "free" (that is, subsidized) after 6 PM in most of the central city, and all day Sunday. Of course, on weekend nights in Midtown, this means parking shortages. "Free" evening parking in a neighborhood is based on the assumption that nobody wants to be there after 6 PM, and if you have been to Midtown lately, you know this is very much not true. Of course, just because there is no charge doesn't mean there are no rules--you will still be ticketed if you block a driveway or a fire hydrant or do other things that would merit a ticket during the day.
You are not entitled to free parking, any more than you are entitled to free food and drink at downtown restaurants. If you happen to get something free, it is because someone else is paying for it--so say thank you!
And I don't believe it's proper to run the city like a business. What many people said years ago to get this ball rolling was that they wanted the city to behave in a more business like manner when setting salaries, work schedules, and such. That's an argument for a different article. The streets are like highways, and we don't charge people to drive from one point to another, or how long they are on them. We can regulate it but not make to make money. The time regulations are permissable, but they need to be revisited, as does the entire code to make it proper. right now, many aspects of it are too ambiguous. That's not the way we should run a regulatory system. We are as entitled to use the streets for parking as we are to use the streets to drive.
We don't charge people directly for highways (which is one reason why they are so popular, and often so congested) but people do pay for them: through gas taxes (which pays for about half the costs of highway construction) and via other taxes (which pays for the other half of construction and other consequence costs, like emergency services and the costs of pollution.) Nothing is "free." Even if you steal parking (say, with a bogus parking permit or stolen disabled placard) someone else is simply paying for you unwillingly.
Similarly, private property owners don't have to charge for parking at their stores, because they include the cost in purchases. Note that just about every private parking lot is marked as private property, and store owners frown on people using their private lots as street parking: it costs them money when their customers can't find a place to park! Private property owners sometimes also charge for parking--urban department stores like the downtown Macy's have separate, paid lots, and of course there are private parking lots whose business model is based on the limited supply and high demand of city parking spaces.
And why can't cities make money via parking? Some cities create "parking improvement districts" that use parking revenue to pay for street lighting, street cleaning, landscape enhancements, graffiti abatement and other projects that make neighborhoods more comfortable, clean and safe to visit. The end result in such cities is increased sales at businesses and higher property values--even though they are charging even more for parking!
I live a block from freemont park and never have a problem...you live in a city center? stop being so whiney.
I only have problems on Sat night at 10:30pm...what a shocker, I should write an article about it....*Tear rolling down my cheek*....I say, if you get a ticket, thats your fault and I would love for the city to make as much money as they can from it. If you dont like it go live in Greenhaven or Folsom. They have plenty of driveways for you.
I just think this "Sac parking is so horrible, what are we going to do" tude is a little crazy. Paying for parking certian places will cut down on inter-city traffic...instead of driving to 58 degrees maybe i'll walk, or have a friend pick me up...the money from that could maybe go toward building parking structures or something ...not say that is a good thing but its the world we live in..especially for people without parking permits for those areas....
Although i would love the coin meters to take something besides quarters....its kinda annoying :)
Once the recession ends locally (please!), I think we'll likely see the private sector respond by building more privately owned/operated parking facilities, encouraged by rising meter rates, increases in parking ticket fines and more people living and working in downtown - so long as the city doesn't toss roadblocks in their way.
Some "enlightened" city planners are actually advocating for a reduction of downtown/midtown parking to force people out of their cars and onto R.T., bicycles, skateboards and what-not. Such policies would likely crater any chance of a downtown renaissance. Chronic parking shortages won't force people out of their cars so much as scare off customers for local businesses.
I never said parking should be free. And off street parking IS a market based service. But the streets themselves are a different animal altogether. Metering is fine within reasonable restrictions. But there is no definitive property line between the sidewalk and the street where that property can be bartered at market value.. And no! parking fines should not be an income generator. No punitive system should be.
San Francisco has started a demand-based parking program, with sensors on each parking space that detect occupancy and actually adjust parking prices to reflect demand. Prices are cheaper where there are a lot of spots taken, and more expensive where parking is most impacted--it adjusts to reflect supply and demand dynamically. You can also find a parking space with an iPhone app!
And Kimberly, As I see it, Zipcars is a private company receiving a public benefit of free parking to promote their company. A subsidy
People in other parts of the city are allowed to park in front of their homes without paying costly fees. If market based pricing were to begin, munis could rent those spaces to people as well. I don't think anyone wants to see that with the exception of a few people who want to see all cars disappear, but if you set the policy for one area, it's exploitable everywhere.
Look at the San Francisco program before you start judging it. It does not include renting out spaces in residential neighborhoods in the manner you describe--in fact, it works the other way around. If your argument is that central city residents should have priority to park in the neighborhoods where they live, you have my full agreement--but that can only happen with strict parking enforcement in neighborhoods where parking is in such huge demand. As you get farther out from those areas, less strict controls are necessary--and that is basically how things stand today.