Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Columbus' parking meter rates now higher than NYC and Boston!

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Columbus’ parking meter rates now higher than NYC and Boston!

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 897 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #321534

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>
    Now, maybe there’s finanical evidence available as open records to substantiate all of your calculations, but, unless someone points it out, I think it’s huge a mistake to make too many speculative calculations on the numbers in this particular newspaper article that was edited for space, probably more so than content. I for one, would like to see the city’s books on the current meters implementation, if those are open to the public.

    Fair enough — all of this is somewhat speculative, for the reasons you outline. But in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the best I’ve been able to ascertain is that we are arguing over a measure that would provide $1.5m in additional revenue to a city with $613.8 million in projected revenue. If that’s right, and I can’t imagine it’s too far off, we’re talking about 0.2% of the city’s revenue.

    But, your making a false comparison that just happens to result in a number you feel supports a implied pre-drawn conclusion (though I’m not exactly clear which connclusion you’re implying of two possible choices) if I’m not mistaken that someone (city/stakeholders) is being unreasonable in light of the expanded revenue/total revenue ratio (net or gross isn’t known).

    City staff gave this following equation for arriving at the 50% increase mark.

    Your staff has said the rate increase of 50% was chosen because they used a 3% rate of inflation compounded annually over a 13 year period (the length of time since the last “citywide” rate increase, ignoring, of course, downtown rate increases in 2005)…

    Now, in all honesty, if the city was solely trying to meet the two expenses of new meters and hotel fund bonds, a responsible budget director would have estimated those two expeneses (leaving aside a question why no capital was claimed to have existed for meter upgrades) and then worked backwards into a couple of various policy options which should have been weighed against real and political costs. Not, grab a percentage from an unrelated calculation and then go public stating that a portion of those proceeds from the resulting revenue would fund both expenses. I’ll leave aside another question, which is whether a 3% compounded inflation rate should even apply to parking meters. I think I can make a pretty well-supported economic argument that it should not.

    Now, I’ve certainly not, but I don’t know that any other stakeholder has, seen any financial anaylsis as to the expected increase/decrease in revenue, gross/net as a result of the policy changes, either piecemeal or combined, as a result of the entire swath of policy changes Director Kelsey is rolling out. In fact, I don’t know for a fact that any exists. That number in the article (the implied 1.5m+) could just be a number some intern with a calculator worked out on a lunch break and fed to his/her boss. Given the liberty taken with political budget numbers in general, I wouldn’t wager a single cent on any politicians budgetary claims without as least access to some source material.

    I think it also sends up a red flag when John Angelo works out what I consider to be a fairly reasonable set of calculations on the combined policy effects in the Short North, and that effect ends up being a combined 200% increase in gross revenue from a single geographic area. Now, if I take that 200% number and try to reconcile it with the 1.5m increase, something doesn’t josh (and nobody from the city has addressed/contradicted any of what John’s put out there regarding revenue questions) and it seems pretty clear that the city is way overshooting their revenue target (which begs the question why).

    I’ve been a financial software developer for 10 years over a balance sheet of 2b, and when people have firm numbers, they shouldn’t hesitate to show you the work they’ve done to make them solid. I don’t think these numbers the city is throwing at people work, and I think the onus is on them to prove they do. Otherwise this policy choice isn’t any different than picking a number out of a hat. If that’s the case, then you better start watching your wallet, because something else might be next (remember, this is against the backdrop of a coming reduction in stimulus backing for local/state governments). And if the overshoot is purposeful, I want to know why.

    #321535

    Elizabeth Lessner
    Participant

    gk wrote >>

    lizless wrote >>

    greenhouse1014 wrote >>
    So now it come down to who you believe. Whats the chance that EC is flubbing to take away responsibility? Can anyone show the articles that supposedly ran stories about the increase? Looked like there were, what, two? And, since you are personally included in the list of people in the discussions, are you saying they’re lying about that? Just asking.

    I was included in a briefing in mid November. The City let us know when and where they planned to raise meter rates. There was no opportunity for input or discussion though John Angelo brought a number of alternate plans to the meeting, they were dismissed. We were told we could discuss alternate plans AFTER the rate went into effect at an advisory meeting.

    Is this the reason you quit the Downtown Commission?

    The Downtown Commission does not weigh in on the meter rates.

    #321536

    myliftkk
    Participant

    greenhouse1014 wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>

    greenhouse1014 wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>

    greenhouse1014 wrote >>

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>
    I don’t know if I have ever seen the time per coin marked, if thats what you are referring to. I do know that the enforcement hours and maximum time at meter are usually pretty well marked.

    If you look inside the window, just under the part where it shows how much time you have, the per minute cost is there. Further, the actual time is shown on the meter. I’m saying you don’t have to use some archane formula to figure out how much time is on the meter, regardless of cost.

    Sadly, that arcane formula would be math, which a lot of people have trouble with, especially without a calculator and when decimals are invovled. How much sense does it make then, on a meter that gives you 7 min for a .25c, to ask users to extrapolate this from a reading of 3.6c/min written on the meter? Since a user can’t actually buy time in either increments of 1 min, or 3.6c, it’s probably in the running for dumbest abstract cost interpretation ever.
    Sounds like a typical technocratic methodology for writing user documentation. Makes you wonder if the meter companies ever actually use their own product. They probably have free parking.

    Except for the fact that you don’t even need to do the math. It tells you how much time is on the meter as you put in the money.

    Do you usually pay a cost first and then figure out how much of a product you are getting afterwards? I would suggest the typical customer experience is vice-versa.

    But that’s not what’s happening. Plus the fact that the rate per coin is posted. I can’t be held responsible for people lack of math. Further, AS YOU PAY, you see what you get.

    Is the rate per coin listed on the meter (min/quarter, min/dime, min/nickel)? You didn’t actually say this in your posts, you only spoke of the cents/min being listed (see above). If the min/coin ratio are listed, where coin is denominated by nickel/dime/quarter,then I agree, people should know how to pay.

    If the min/coin wasn’t posted, my argument was, because of the math involved, asking someone to pay an amount, only to then be made aware of the time they had purchased was akin to asked people to put in, not what coin they needed, but whatever coin felt right, having not a real idea of what time the meter would give them in return until after the purchase was made.

    #321537

    Elizabeth Lessner
    Participant

    We had a lot of media calls related to the petition today. Caught a blurb on 10tv earlier:

    http://bit.ly/7q8s0B

    If you haven’t signed the petition and you’d like to, here’s the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/c4ccg/petition.html

    #321538

    Well, I just had a rather disheartening experience at city council. I went to speak and I touched upon the meter issue. Basically, I noted the disconnect between the support of urban revitalization from city council and the mayor vs. the the PSD. I gave the examples of N High St and Gay St as two good tings they have done. Gay St is evidence that pedestrian-friendly streets are business-friendly streets, but instead of replicating that in the rest of Downtown and other business districts in our urban core, money is instead being spent to encourage new development away from the core to encourage businesses to sprawl on Alum Creek Dr and Hillirad-Rome when there are vacant commercial buildings on Cleveland, Mt, Vernon, E Long, Oak, E Main, E Livingston, Parsons, S High, Sullivant & W Broad (yes, I listed each one).

    I also emphasized that while I’m not against maintenance of roads outside of the urban core I pointed out that adding lanes is not going to reduce traffic as we can see from Polaris Pkwy which has as many lanes as a highway, yet has plenty of traffic. So basically, money that should be spent to fix the mistakes that the transportation division has made in past decades needs to be addressed first instead of throwing money down the drain to only induce more trafic and attract businesses away from the urban core.

    Lastly, I stated that if city council is unwilling or unable to control the PSD that they need (and like I told them this is a requirement, not a suggestion) to form a committee of urbanism with the authority to approve and deny projects planned by the PSD.

    President Mental responded that they have already have a process in place and that projects are reviewed and they collaborate with the Dept. of Development also. I spoke with councilman Craig and he told me that area commissions that made the most noise were prioritized and that federal money was only available to be spent on certain roads like those under the control of ODOT. While I understand that, I still don’t understand (and I wasn’t going to discuss this all night) why streets that have been screwed up by the PSD in the past would need area commissions to force them to fix their mistakes. I’m rather certain that residents in these neighborhoods weren’t asked if it were OK to turn their streets into high-speed thoroughfares before doing so.

    I got some contact info for those who handle both street infrastructure and development and one guy who gave me the former said that he didn’t understand what I meant by “the urban core” and that Alum Creek Dr is a part of that as he is in charge of it and I was confused by that so I specified that I meant where we have a grid, of streets. He was like well, it’s a part of the urban core and Polaris has made more money for this city than you can imagine. I pointed out that they’re sticking Downtown with the increase and that they’re not building tolls for traffic entering Polaris. Turns out that was Mr. Kelsey himself. Can’t say I’m surprised and shortly after thinking about it: if Polaris is so damn popular, then why isn’t the city trying to generate revenue from the traffic there if it’s in such high demand?

    Seems to me that after considering the above, there does in fact need to be a committee of urbanism consisting of urban planners with authority over the PSD. The current model has resulted in what we have now and that, even with Polaris, does not a world-class city make.

    Didn’t have time to talk about ODOT, so I guess I’ll just have to e-mail and wait til Jan.

    #321539
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Bear wrote >>
    What I guess I don’t get is why we’re paying Hilton to open a hotel here. If it’s going to be profitable, it should pay for itself, and they should be willing to do it anyway.

    Hilton will be operating the hotel, but I believe that the “Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority” will actually be building/owning it.

    Personally, I have no problem with the city kicking in $1.4M to fund reserve bonds for the hotel. The city often pays more than that for infrastructure and utilities upgrades to make private development happen. That $1.4M is a drop in the bucket compared to the economic impact that this hotel will have both on Downtown and on the Central Ohio region as a whole through increased convention/visitor traffic. I think it’s a safe bet as far as the whole “spend money to make money” thing goes.

    The problem here comes from the fact that the city is taking that $1.4M directly out of the pockets of downtown retail businesses and downtown visitors instead of coming up with a less painful solution that can spread the cost out to the whole region.

    #321540
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    gbinkley wrote >>
    How on Earth did the meters come to be viewed as a revenue source anyway? They should exist as a means of creating turnover and common availability for parking, not as a cash cow.

    +1

    #321541

    JonMyers
    Participant

    I thought the 1.4 million was to secure a $15 million bond?

    #321542

    Elizabeth Lessner
    Participant

    Walker wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    The problem here comes from the fact that the city is taking that $1.4M directly out of the pockets of downtown retail businesses and downtown visitors instead of coming up with a less painful solution that can spread the cost out to the whole region.

    Director Kelsey says the money must be raised in a year. The MOU actually says we have until 2013 to raise the funds, I don’t understand the aggressive payment plan at our expense.

    #321543

    Elizabeth Lessner
    Participant

    Walker wrote >>

    gbinkley wrote >>
    How on Earth did the meters come to be viewed as a revenue source anyway? They should exist as a means of creating turnover and common availability for parking, not as a cash cow.

    +1

    +2

    #321544

    Bear
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    all of this is somewhat speculative, for the reasons you outline. But in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the best I’ve been able to ascertain is that we are arguing over a measure that would provide $1.5m in additional revenue to a city with $613.8 million in projected revenue. If that’s right, and I can’t imagine it’s too far off, we’re talking about 0.2% of the city’s revenue.

    But, your making a false comparison that just happens to result in a number you feel supports a implied pre-drawn conclusion (though I’m not exactly clear which connclusion you’re implying of two possible choices) if I’m not mistaken that someone (city/stakeholders) is being unreasonable in light of the expanded revenue/total revenue ratio (net or gross isn’t known).

    Your uncertainty is due to the fact that I’m not trying to arrive at a pre-drawn conclusion; I’m just trying to ferret out some concrete numbers to get some sense of how much the city needs the money. Informed opinion will differ regarding how necessary $x million or y% is to the city’s budget; my point is just that we’re focusing entirely on how concerned we are about what businesses will lose. The city will probably be entirely unsympathetic (and rightly so) as long as the people interested in this question haven’t at least made an effort, also, to estimate what the city will gain, and weigh those two things against each other in some reasoned fashion. The reaction may well be that the public, business owners, etc., “don’t see the big picture” or are just acting out of self-interest.

    Frankly, I know a lot of the people spearheading this movement, and that conclusion would be dead wrong.

    So I’m trying to get some sense of what we stand to gain from this as a city, so that the discussions going forward will carry even more credibility. That’s all.

    #321545

    dirtgirl
    Participant

    Walker wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    What I guess I don’t get is why we’re paying Hilton to open a hotel here.

    Personally, I have no problem with the city kicking in $1.4M to fund reserve bonds for the hotel. The city often pays more than that for infrastructure and utilities upgrades to make private development happen. That $1.4M is a drop in the bucket compared to the economic impact that this hotel will have both on Downtown and on the Central Ohio region as a whole through increased convention/visitor traffic.

    I do have to say that if we manage to get the 2012 Democratic National Convention as a result of this fiasco, it will make me feel a tiny bit better.

    #321546

    L3cubed
    Member

    dirtgirl wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    What I guess I don’t get is why we’re paying Hilton to open a hotel here.

    Personally, I have no problem with the city kicking in $1.4M to fund reserve bonds for the hotel. The city often pays more than that for infrastructure and utilities upgrades to make private development happen. That $1.4M is a drop in the bucket compared to the economic impact that this hotel will have both on Downtown and on the Central Ohio region as a whole through increased convention/visitor traffic.

    I do have to say that if we manage to get the 2012 Democratic National Convention as a result of this fiasco, it will make me feel a tiny bit better.

    Yea, better make sure the delegates bring plenty of change! (And not the Obama kind!)

    On a side note, I noticed the meters outside of my dear other’s apartment in the Brewery District now say “25c for 16 and 2/3 minutes” WTF? There isn’t a seconds timer on the thing.. How am I going to get my 2/3 of a minute?

    #321547

    gramarye
    Participant

    Columbusite wrote >>
    Seems to me that after considering the above, there does in fact need to be a committee of urbanism consisting of urban planners with authority over the PSD. The current model has resulted in what we have now and that, even with Polaris, does not a world-class city make.
    Didn’t have time to talk about ODOT, so I guess I’ll just have to e-mail and wait til Jan.

    If the mayor and council aren’t inclined to push the PSD in the direction you wish they would on their own initiative, why on Earth would they be receptive to the idea of forming yet another bureaucracy with veto power over decisions that were, in all likelihood, made with the full knowledge and cooperation of the mayor and council, whatever their protestations to the contrary?

    #321548

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    myliftkk wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    all of this is somewhat speculative, for the reasons you outline. But in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the best I’ve been able to ascertain is that we are arguing over a measure that would provide $1.5m in additional revenue to a city with $613.8 million in projected revenue. If that’s right, and I can’t imagine it’s too far off, we’re talking about 0.2% of the city’s revenue.

    But, your making a false comparison that just happens to result in a number you feel supports a implied pre-drawn conclusion (though I’m not exactly clear which connclusion you’re implying of two possible choices) if I’m not mistaken that someone (city/stakeholders) is being unreasonable in light of the expanded revenue/total revenue ratio (net or gross isn’t known).

    Your uncertainty is due to the fact that I’m not trying to arrive at a pre-drawn conclusion; I’m just trying to ferret out some concrete numbers to get some sense of how much the city needs the money. Informed opinion will differ regarding how necessary $x million or y% is to the city’s budget; my point is just that we’re focusing entirely on how concerned we are about what businesses will lose. The city will probably be entirely unsympathetic (and rightly so) as long as the people interested in this question haven’t at least made an effort, also, to estimate what the city will gain, and weigh those two things against each other in some reasoned fashion. The reaction may well be that the public, business owners, etc., “don’t see the big picture” or are just acting out of self-interest.
    Frankly, I know a lot of the people spearheading this movement, and that conclusion would be dead wrong.
    So I’m trying to get some sense of what we stand to gain from this as a city, so that the discussions going forward will carry even more credibility. That’s all.

    I thought that might be where you were going, but I didn’t want to infer without some clarification. While I do think we can make an argument that the city is unreasonable in gripping so tightly against what we believe to be an insignificant amount of budgetary dollars (in comparison against the whole), it’s significance to the city can vAry widely depending on the state of the city’s budget at a given point in time.

    let’s say the city expects a budgetary gap to widen in the face of receding stimulus cash and a non-forthcoming economic rebound, a reasonable assumption. we know for a fact that the feds have propped up municipal and state budgets across the country, the extent of which in cbus, i am not personally aware, but i’d surmise it’s not pocket change (ex. see the 64.2m in stimulus cash that went to cbus schools). if we look at the increase in this light, the city’s fanaticism over the increase makes more sense. i don’t agree with it, and certainly don’t agree it should be footed as a expense borne by the users of parking meters, but it clearly has them staking out an extreme position in the fear, a reasonable one, that they’re going to be hemorraging cash in the future, and covering any amount of shortfall will help at that point.

    but, to get to the veracity of the city’s own calculation, i’d like to know where they got an average inflation rate of 3% (1996-2008) compounded yearly. that number alone i could pick apart a thousand ways until sunday but, i’ll just say i’ve researched the bureau of labor statistics on the CPI of past years and i can’t find any information backing why a 3% inflation rate should apply to parking meters. the only way you could reasonably claim a 3% compound rate should apply to parking meters would be to pluck it out of the sky, period. 3% inflation as a rule of thumb, is no more suited for making policy decisions of real consequence than licking your finger and then sticking it up in the air and deciding if the wind is right to launch a space shuttle.

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 897 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: