Online Petition for Parking Meter Rate Increase
In November, Columbus’ Director of Public Service imposed a unilateral 50% parking meter rate increase throughout Columbus. The policy was approved by the mayor. Due to the way Columbus’ policies are written, neither city council nor the general populace were invited to weigh in on the final plan, muchless question its validity. Every parking meter in Columbus is now slated to be reprogrammed to be 50% more expensive before the end of the year.
Many voters have expressed great opposition to the initiative, and moreso to the manner in which it was implemented. In response to the move, the Short North Business Association has drafted an open letter to the mayor outlining a variety of requests from the community.
If you would like to read the letter and add your name to the growing petition endorsing the letter, please do so by following this link: Citizens for a Collaborative Columbus Government
Please feel free to pass this link along to other concerned citizens!
Update: 12/15/09 - Our voices have been heard! After accumulating over 1000 signatures in the first 36 hours, the Public Service Department announced that they will be rolling back meter rates for further study. Thank you!
This entry was posted
on Sunday, December 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Development, Online.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: city hall • Development • downtown • john angelo • parking • parking meters • petition • Short North
December 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Signed it. Our city leaders clearly need someone that knows and values good urbanism.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Please pass this petition on! Our electeds need to understand this affects more than just a few vocal stakeholders.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Done, and done.
Well, I passed it on through my facebook page, but I didn’t sign it as I live in Gahanna.
As this effects us suburbanites as much as anyone, I’d like to see something for us as well. Although we can’t vote in Columbus, I think our dollars should give us as much sway as anyone.
Screw it, I signed anyway.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Even if you don’t live in Columbus, please sign it. There is space to let our electeds know how this will affect your shopping habits downtown. If your dollars will be going to Easton instead of the Short North, our electeds need to know that.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Signed it
@DavidF
I think it’s plenty fine if suburbanites sign it and I’m glad you did. You may not be able to vote in Columbus but anyone who ever comes downtown is a part of this.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
DavidF Says: Screw it, I signed anyway.
Good! This is a regional issue, and I’d say your signature is just as valid as anyone else’s.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Someone might want to change the part where it say who is eligible to sign it. Right now it say residents of Columbus.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Signed. Up to 248 names :-)
December 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
DavidF Says: Someone might want to change the part where it say who is eligible to sign it. Right now it say residents of Columbus.
Where does it say that? I’m not seeing it.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
@Walker,
If you click the button to sign the petition the line above where you type your name says,
“Eligible signatories:Citizens of Columbus, Ohio”
December 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Oh, gotcha. Didn’t see that. Should say “Citizens of Central Ohio”. ;)
December 13th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Signed it.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Signed it. In the suburbs but class at CSCC brings me downtown enough.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
how about a petition for lowering the income tax back to 2%?%? The parking meter increase is nothing but change compared to that!!
December 14th, 2009 at 12:31 am
It’s not like we actually had a say in the income tax or anything…
December 14th, 2009 at 12:38 am
But I would support a citywide referendum to allow specific neighborhoods to opt out.
(sorry, couldn’t help myself)
December 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
VictorianGate Says: how about a petition for…
No one is stopping you from starting up a petition for anything you like.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
WOSU has an interview with Dan Williamson on the formation of a Parking Meter Advisory Team: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1588098
December 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Mayor Coleman issued this on Friday in response to this issue:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Kelsey, Director, Department of Public Service
COPY: Boyce Safford III, Director, Department of Development
Members of City Council
FROM: Michael B. Coleman, Mayor
DATE: December 11, 2009
RE: Parking Meter Policy
To begin with, I wish to thank you for your hard work and leadership on the issue of parking meters and express my confidence in your work.
When the administration took over the Parking Violations Bureau two years ago, it was clear that parking meter policy had been created in a piecemeal way. Recent public discussion provided many creative ideas about improvements to our parking meter policy.
I am charging you to pull together stakeholders, research their ideas and, where possible, integrate them into a simpler, comprehensive parking meter policy that benefits businesses, our entertainment districts and Downtown.
The parking meter increase that took effect November 30 was the result of research by your department after almost 12 years without replacing old meters or instituting a citywide meter fee increase. This increase will allow the City to install new solar-powered digital meters, which offer the option of debit and credit card use. It also allows the City to create a funding mechanism for a 500-room Downtown convention hotel, which will add 500 jobs while generating at least $2.3 million in annual sales, lodging and income taxes for the local economy as well as thousands of new customers for Downtown restaurants. The new meters and the convention hotel have long been advocated by Downtown stakeholders, and we have the opportunity to do both while benefiting businesses and core city districts.
That said, this meter increase took effect without a process of full public input. Although your department did more to inform the public than what was legally required, the City did not involve the public as much as it should have. I appreciate that you have repeatedly acknowledged and apologized for this. As Mayor, I too take responsibility for this oversight and offer my sincere apology.
Though we were tardy in soliciting it, the public input that we have received in recent weeks has already been valuable and has produced some very constructive and creative ideas about parking meter policy. This is why I have asked you to invite those who have shared their concerns to serve on a working group to study our overall parking meter policy. This Parking Meter Advisory Team will build upon the valuable research done in recent years regarding valet parking and Downtown parking meters.
I am charging the department and this advisory group with the following:
· Meter locations. Determine whether the six meter pricing zones set up over the years should remain as they are or whether they are outdated in their current form. Determine whether it is appropriate, as some stakeholders have suggested, to expand our coverage with additional meters, and we will determine priority locations for the new digital meters.
· Meter operations. Some have suggested alterations in the hours our meters are active and in the time limits of meters at various locations. These are constructive suggestions worthy of review.
· Meter pricing. My goal is to use our meters to help, not hurt our businesses. If there is data that the prices set for existing meters are harmful to our efforts to create and sustain economic vibrancy in and around or Downtown, we should reexamine them.
· Meter enforcement. I strongly believe we can improve in the area of customer service. While it is necessary to enforce our meter policy, our parking violations personnel need to be as customer friendly as possible while performing their duties of monitoring and ticketing.
Bottom line, we should be open and listen to concerns and be willing to change if, in fact, there is a better way.
As we come together to address these issues, I ask that we do it in a constructive way. At times in recent weeks, I have seen this debate digress into personal attacks that make the task before us a more difficult and contentious one and, frankly, counterproductive. Now is the time for all of us to put animosity aside to move forward on these important issues.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“The parking meter increase that took effect November 30 was the result of research by your department after almost 12 years without replacing old meters or instituting a citywide meter fee increase.”
Mike- Can you share the research that resulted in this meter increase? It might help us better accept the hardship you have placed on our small business community.
Also, the “citywide meter rate increase” is misleading. Rates were drastically raised downtown in 2005.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Sure, every voice counts but is there a threshold (# of signatures) that is really important to reach?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@lizless:
City Research on meter replacement and fee increases:
Duh, those meters look old. We should totally replace them.
Dude, while we’re at it, we should totally jack the rates up.
We are sooo stoned.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Up to 976 signature, including one from someone with the last name of Lazarus. That’s a big name around here, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I think the dude had something to do with a retail store downtown one time.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
We got a lot of calls from media today in response to this petition. I saw a spot on 10tv tonight:
http://bit.ly/7q8s0B