Thanks, MikeM. We've fixed the error and appreciate you bringing it to our attention!

Ooops, I hate it when that happens!
Thanks for catching it!

the question is: does having free parking like this to give away for random events such as this outweigh selling those spaces to a private company to invest in larger projects (ie the community theater remodel or E.S.C.) that generate long term sustained tax revenues? That's a question, not a statement (for any drama queens out there).

Marc it's one day. Besides I have no idea of how you imagine that selling public parking spaces to a private operator is going generate so much money for the city? is it that you can't purchase monthly parking permits?

Marc - the City currently gets the parking revenue to use in whatever manner it chooses and, on occasion, it allows free parking to promote an event or a venue. Obviously, that marginally reduces the revenue but the payoff is in promoting the downtown area and helping encourage people to attend downtown events which, in turn, generates more spending downtown. If the City sells the parking garages or leases them for a fixed fee, it gains a lump sum payment from the new operator but it also loses the ongoing revenue from the garages/meters. The operator is only going to enter into such a deal if they can make a profit and the only way they make a profit is to either pay the City the same amount it currently receives in revenues and then increase the fees, or maintain the same fees and pay the City less than they currently collect (or some compromise between the two). The City may gain that lump sum that could be applied towards a project, but it loses the ongoing revenue stream - so it's not found money, it's just money being collected at a different moment in time. If the money is spent on a particular project, then the City also has to make up the new shortfall in general income from the lost revenue stream. In other words, it hasn't actually helped financially - in practice all it means is that the City has borrowed from its future self - and it's still going to have to pay itself back by making up that shortfall. In the meantime, the City loses the control and the discretion to support the local events and venues by offering free or subsidized parking. That could damage multiple arts events and festivals as well as eliminate the revenue stream - which seems like a lose/lose.

People seem to be thinking in terms of selling or leasing the parking garages/spaces as though it's an infusion of one-time free cash - like a sudden, surprise bonus at work. But it's not like that at all - it's more like having your employer come along and offer a one-time bonus in return for accepting a lower salary from now on. That's great for people who take the bonus and then quit - but it's not as good for employees who expect to stick around. And those of us who are going to stick around Sacramento might get a new facility of some kind but we're going to have to live with reduced revenues from lost parking income for years to come. The only way to come out ahead in the long run is to be absolutely certain that somehow that new facility is going to generate more from increased local spending than the parking garages would ever have generated. But those other smaller local arts events, venues and festivals still stand to suffer and if they disappear they're also detracting from spending downtown. And, coincidentally, just as people are suggesting using such a deal to finance an arena, with math that relies on a stable basketball income and high attendance figures, we're watching an NBA lockout and seeing other cities with financed arenas threatening to sue teams and/or the league because their basketball revenue is suddenly non-existent. If the arena makes sense, it should do so without gimmicks like selling off future parking revenue and risking damage to existing community organizations, events, venues, and festivals.