Our home has enough curb space to accommodate two cars, whether we park in front of our house or down the street. We have two cars. I would estimate that's about average for our neighborhood, so we're full up when everyone's home. We have three businesses within half a block that have no off-street parking and perhaps 10-20 customers each at any given time with high turnover- plus employees. Those businesses have enough curb space for nine vehicles. Many of their customers drive to those businesses. You don't need calculus to figure out that there's a problem or why. Businesses without off street parking have almost always asked for and obtained a waiver from the city to bypass the requirement that they have adequate parking for their employees and customers. In economics this is known as taking from the commons- i.e., taking more than your share of something that belongs to everyone. With all those waivers, what might otherwise be a trivial problem has impact. At some point that impact meets resistance. Any guests that we have over already have to deal with that. There have been many times when our guests have to park elsewhere. Throw in Second Saturday or some other special event and you can be certain that it doesn't matter how many parking permits I or my guests have. To those who say this is part of living in the central city, I'd like to point out that this is not a unique problem. Central cities that are truly "vibrant" actually have much more severe parking restrictions than those currently in place in Midtown- for example, no on street parking for nonresidents, time limited meter parking 24/7, and public parking in garages that start at $5/hour and $30 for 24 hours.

You can't realistically compare midtown to San Francisco or Manhattan. If you want to use that comparison, consider the cost of parking and the parking restrictions on nonresidents in those places. The bridge and tunnel crowd there has limited metered parking, pays $30 and up, or they use well-developed public transportation. The problem with the tired old "live somewhere else" argument is twofold. The first is that some of midtown's residents are pioneers who've lived there for twenty or thirty years and made it desirable for businesses by engaging in the hard work of saving the area from urban blight. So their reward should be that they now have to move? Second and most important, what's best for business and the community is whatever it takes to make the area a desirable place for people to live. A free-for-all "adult entertainment" district that consists of bars will not attract the stable and diverse group of residents that are good for all businesses and the community. This parking proposal isn't just about parking spaces for residents. It's also about limiting the adverse impacts of the adjacent bars in an area that's essentially 100% residential. It's a three month pilot project in a limited 26 square block area. To my knowledge, the two residents who commented negatively in the article don't even live in the proposed pilot zone. How can you be opposed to people who actually live in the area trying something to improve their neighborhood? Whatever happened to people who live in a community deciding what's good for that community?

The best way to promote productive activity and a vibrant, active central city is to make it a place where people of all ages want to live. That's a win for businesses and the city. William Burg is right that special events and festivals, while they may have their own merits, are not the way to promote a community.

God knows if you want to perfect an ancient religious practice you need the right clothes!

It's not hard to understand. It's hard to swallow because all the evidence derived from experience shows that the ROI for the community that puts up public funds for these projects is nonexistent. There are lots of projects that might create construction, jobs, tourism, tax revenue, but they're not all going to result in improved outcomes for the taxpayers who are asked to foot the bill.