Well reports on the death of the parking plan certainly were exaggerated, or at least premature.
You regular readers know I firmly believe we need to institute paid parking downtown. This is another logical step toward diversifying the city's revenue stream, taking a bit of the load off property owners. This isn't a Newburyport-centric struggles. Municipalities across the state and nation are wrestling with means of compensating for revenue short-falls.
I know many feel they already pay for parking through taxes, but there's no precedent for such thinking. Permits cost money. Licenses cost money. Schools now come with school fees. Our taxes do pay for the bulk of services, but they don't and can't cover everything.
But the best part of the paid parking plan is it will draw some revenue from our visitors, who will still come. In my travels people ask me where I live and when I tell them the reply usually is, "Oh, I love Newburyport." In expressing the rational behind their love no one - not a person - mentions free parking. Visitors probably are shocked that parking is free when they visit.
I concede this is a divisive issue, as Ward 3 Councilor Cronin notes in today's Daily News article. Perhaps one of the more compelling issues facing the council in some time. This is why I suspect the measure won't pass. I'm not sure the majority councilors believe strongly enough in the concept to go against paid parking opponents, but I may be surprised. Right now I think Cronin and At-Large Councilor Ari Herzog are the swing votes. Herzog, btw, posted an item on his blog suggesting the privatization of parking. The paid parking discussion has moved way beyond this point, so if this is something he'd seriously like to pursue I don't see him supporting the currrent paln.
In any case, you should consider attending tonight's meeting. I couldn't find a time in the Daily News article but I believe it's at 7 pm. The council will here all comers before taking the first of two votes (if the first is an affirmative) at Monday night's meeting.
Bob Cronin is also conducting a survey on this site.
Go, do something. Make your voice heard.
4 comments:
This is another logical step toward diversifying the city's revenue stream, taking a bit of the load off property owners.
What guarantee do property tax payers have that the new revenue will be used to take some of the load off?
Traditionally, new government revenue is met by more spending, rarely with a tax reduction somewhere else.
No guarantee at all, but that is not a good enough reason not to support paid parking.
There is no fee parking, just shifted costs.
I find Herzog's reasoning a tad faulty. He seems to feel that residents should not pay to park, yet privatizing the lot(s) will do exactly that...
I would agree with you but in a comment in his blog, he suggested he is open to a paid parking plan. However he has concerns about particulars.
Post a Comment