If I were a gambling man, and I do enjoy dabbling in a wee bit of blackjack from time to time, I'd wager that Mayor Holaday's paid parking plan is dead.
This is a gut bet. I'm not consulting the cheat card in my left breast pocket or counting cards. I'm just working off my impression of the city council's behaviors and attitudes during last Thursday's sparsely attended hearing.
I spoke in favor of the parking plan. (I spoke poorly I might add, speaking extemporaneously in public is not a strong suit. Should have prepared.) I can't offer much more than The Daily News article and agree with the "mixed" label applied in the headline.
So here's how I see it going down.
YES
Ward 1 - Allison Heartquist
Ward 2 - Greg Earls
Ward 4 - Ed Cameron
CAL - Barry Connell
NO
Ward 3 - Bob Cronin*
Ward 5 - Brian Derrivan
Ward 6 - Tom O'Brien
CAL - Ari Herzog*
CAL - Katie Ives
CAL - Tom Jones
CAL - Steve Hutcheson
* Cronin says he's undecided but my gut says he's leaning toward no. Same with Ari Herzog, who wrote in his blog that he still has questions that need to be answered. I wrote about this last month and I still think he's going to vote no.
Katie Ives said she'll vote against it unless resident parking permits are reduced to near zero (or the cost of a sticker.) No doubt this will win her points with parking skeptics. The question is will the council amend the plan to reduce the fee from $50 to $5. As was mentioned at the hearing, this could completely skew the financials of the parking plan since residents - who account for a considerable percentage of the parkers downtown - would be parking for free.
Again, this is politically attractive to many. And perhaps it's a first step to get SOME parking plan adopted. But it might be too big a tweak to make the entire package workable.
The council is voting tomorrow night. The public has the right to speak so take the opportunity to have your voice heard. But be prepared.
3 comments:
we are being sold this plan on the fact that it is a chance to make revenue of visitors to nbpt, and basically what you're saying is if residents get a reduced rate the math won't add up and we might lose money. if that is the case then this is nothing more than another tax on residents, and not a chance to raise revenue from tourists.
I said that's a concern of mine. I don't know that to be the case.
Anyone who is proposing and supporting a reduction on the fee should examine the impact on the bottomline. I'm not doing either.
I think it'd be dishonest to suggest that residents wouldn't be paying for parking if the plan as currently constituted were adopted.
Street parking would be free of fees but all other lots would require a 50 cents per hour payment. Or, if they park downtown a lot, they'd pay the $50 permit.
So at some point, yes, a resident would be paying a fee to park their car.
I personally don't have a problem with paying to park downtown. I pay all kinds of fees: compost fees, school fees, permit fees. These aren't taxes.
But what I like about these fees is that visitors to our town will also pay. I see it as sort of a matching donation program.
Thanks for posting.
fees are taxes.
Post a Comment