Comments on: Parking Meter Rate Increase to Take Effect Nov 30th

By: urbanrunner

urbanrunner — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:37:11 +0000

Will the revenue increase come from higher meter rates or a greater number of overtime violations? I think the city plans on the latter. Parking meters in Manhattan Beach, CA were outfitted last year with devices that notified the parking police when a meter was about to expire. Although traffic and tourism in the area was down significantly, Manhattan Beach saw a 60% increase in revenue, mainly due to overtime violations. IMHO, It only takes one parking violation to convince a visiting shopper to head to the mall.

By: starman

starman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:08:41 +0000

Agree with John’s excellent mathematical analysis. Running meters in Short North until 9pm similar to the Cap is the single action that would do the most at the least cost to improve parking in the Short North. Now about 40% of metered spaces are taken by employees who arrive at work about 5 or 5:30 and hog best spots all evening when they are most needed by customers. Parking meters have one legitimate purpose only– to manage turnover of the most coveted spaces in our commercial districts. They should not be a moneymaker for the City. The City should turn over all meter money and fines after covering costs to local business asociations. Economic development is more than giving away tax breaks to big business or subsidizing high end hotels at the expense of small merchants.

By: Bryden

Bryden — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:19:54 +0000

Mayor Coleman needs to go. He and his administration claim to be helping small business development by raising city income tax rates 25%, and then one month later increasing parking meter fees 50%…this in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. The City of Columbus is throwing the equivalent of an anchor to downtown small business owners already treading water. The suggestion of combined City/County government to create efficiency is excellent. Coleman and his entourage at City Hall that think he is “God” should have no place in the newly formulated regional government. We need leaders with 21st Century Vision, not the poor excuse for current leadership at City Hall.

By: lizless

lizless — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:17:50 +0000

It really doesn’t seem fair that an appointed Director has the authority to raise rates on such a huge asset that belongs to the tax payers. I really don’t understand why our elected officials wouldn’t have a vote in this. Many constituents are affected negatively by the actions of one department, seems there should be a check and balance here.

By: Columbusite

Columbusite — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:41:50 +0000

I really hope it goes back into the area it comes from. If they’re going to stick meters in KL and Fton, this is going to be necessary. Of course, they city could have just extended meet hours in the Short North where traffic is crawling on weekends, but whatever.

By: Walker

Walker — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:53:16 +0000

Tenzo Says: I never let reason get in the way of a good rant. Actually, I just heard tonight that while City Council has no vote on the meter hike, they do have a vote on how the newly collected money is used. I'll post more on that when I get more details. Let us know what day you head to City Hall though, if you do. I'd get a kick out of watching the live stream on the web and looking for the guy with the "dog backpack" on. ;)

By: Tenzo

Tenzo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:24:02 +0000

Walker sez; Keep in mind though, that City Council has no official say on this plan.

I never let reason get in the way of a good rant.

By: BUSH

BUSH — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:37:09 +0000

Mike Brown? He sounds like a pointy-headed City Government Employee-is he?

By: BUSH

BUSH — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:22:08 +0000

DOWNTOWN!! -- OH YEAA-AAH!! -- Can't wait --Shove $2.50 in a meter, come back 2 minutes late to greet a TRAFFIC NAZI POUNCING on my Errant Car...OH MAN -- it is so much more exciting than parking on a street in Worthington, Dublin, New Albany...it is too easy and peaceful there. WELL, they need it -- you didn't pass their big tax increase ---WHAT? --you DID!?!?.. . . . .OH, YEA.., I remember all you admonishing me for opposing that.... WHAT COLUMBUS NEEDS: A NEW CHARTER -- A NEW CITY/COUNTY GOVERNMENT, throw the trash out of City Hall.* *Been to Indianapolis lately?? --Oh, and: Remember the pair of City Employees who were pocketing the money? There was NO accounting system for the cash cow....

By: JonMyers

JonMyers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:00:44 +0000

It’s about 10:45 at night, I was walking down High Street and I just told a visitor to the Short North that they don’t have to feed the meter. They were feeding it right on High.

There’s no way this visitor could even read the signage or meter itself to determine when they should be paying. Confusion.

I encounter this scenario at least 5 times a week.

By: KSquared

KSquared — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:01:07 +0000

Just sent my opinion too. I strongly disagree with this decision.

By: heresthecasey

heresthecasey — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:35:09 +0000

Sent my thoughts on this matter to Mr Bowman. I urge everyone with an opinion on this to do likewise.

By: myliftkk

myliftkk — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:38:08 +0000

In my mind, parking meters are for one thing and one thing only. Ensuring a reasonable turnover in parking availability for commerical portions of a district. I don’t see how the plan could at all be considered “reasonable”. And if they end up killing the goose by discouraging customers, they’ll only have less money to boot.

I think the city should, like Chicago, contract out the parking meters/enforcement to a private company. Let them invest their capital in upgrading the meters and just set reasonable regulation as to what the contractor can do regarding rate increases. I’ll say that my recent trip to Chicago and dealing with the 1-per-block meter kiosks was a vast improvement over individual meter heads. I found it cleans up the sidewalk scape immensely.

In the era of tightening budgets, I don’t see how this could be anything less than a win-win for the city. Offload the budgetary pressure of a parking enforcement department and collect a check in return.

By: Walker

Walker — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:25:44 +0000

Trixie Says: I heard a little birdie say that the reason they took out the credit card meters was because people were too efficient at paying. False. The credit card meters were on loan for testing/evaluation purposes only. My understanding is that the more recent ones on Gay Street performed a lot better than the earlier ones tested out in the Short North, and that's probably what we're going to be getting system-wide in 2012 as Mike Brown stated on page 1 of this discussion.

By: Walker

Walker — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:16:55 +0000

Columbusite Says: Anyway, this is great for neighborhoods just outside of Downtown to attract businesses instead. Franklinton is right next door, there is on-street parking with no meters, and there are plenty of urban retail spaces where rent is cheaper. The plan includes the addition of 1,800 new meters to areas that are currently un-metered. It sounds as if they'll be filling in currently un-metered areas throughout Downtown, such as areas around CSCC & CCAD, and I have to imagine they'll have plenty of meters left over to push further into retail corridors in Franklinton, OTE, KLD, Parsons, and maybe even Clintonville. That growing retail cluster just south of High & North Broadway is ripe for meter revenue, right? So this might not be quite as good of news for those areas as you might think. It's really only good news for Easton and Polaris. Even though those properties are located within Columbus City Limits you can be guaranteed that they won't be getting any new city parking meters out there. That would be totally absurd, wouldn't it?