Comments on: Merchants are wrong about parking meter fees

By: dto510

dto510 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:19:13 +0000

Free parking lots are private property. The city cannot provide free parking lots because the city cannot charge rent from the benefiting businesses to cover the costs. Free parking lots do not permit parking by non-customers, another thing the city cannot do. Oakland has many free parking lots. So does Walnut Creek. That is not a reason for either city to reduce or eliminate parking meters. Again, the cities with the most shopping in CA (Emeryville, Walnut Creek, Pasadena, and Santa Monica) run their meters late at night.

By: John Franklin

John Franklin — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:07:22 +0000

*shrug* You may speculate all you want about how cheap parking meters are in comparison to spending. But given the choice, I always choose to drive to vendors with free parking lots. When there is free parking, this means I don’t have to search or fight for parking. Paying for parking is more than about a few cents here or there, it’s about a massive hassle. Also, meters require you to guess in advance exactly how long you will be in a location, and then watch your time very closely or else you can face substantial fines which blow your calculations about parking expenses out of the water. And all that constraining of time and watching of the clock just makes going out that much more inconvenient.

Free parking lots with adequate space are substantially better, and result in a much more enjoyable outing.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:52:08 +0000

If it is true that they issued fewer tickets this year, then the changed enforcement strategy of ticketing more of the parking violations in the hills was not even an effective money raising strategy. And yes, they did modify their enforcement strategy, to the extent that they publicly announce that they had created a special group of parking enforcement officers that were going to target violations in different areas of the city. Apparently ineffective in addition to highly annoying to citizens.

Regarding the driveway parking, you are making a hugh assumption that the violator blocked the sidewalk. In most cases I have seen they are not blocking the sidewalk at all, the call is fully in the street. They are jsut parked in front of a driveway, and not on the sidewalk.

In the areas I have seen in the hills, even folks who are parked ‘on the sidewalk” are not blocking passage on the sidewalk, or even parked onthe actual sidewalk. Mostly they are actually parked onthe parking strip between the sidewalk and the curb, shick does not impact the ability to navigate the sidewalk safely.

I know that there are cases where cars have been parked where cars are parked blocing the actual sidewalk, and those should be ticketed, and there should not have been a warning, but that is not the ususal case up in the hills where the complaints have been.

By: ralph

ralph — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:11:35 +0000

according to my sources, in July and Aug 09, DPT issued on average just over 300 fewer ticket compared to the same period last year.

as to the ticket for blocking in the driveway, while i agree with the ticket because it creates a hazard for pedestrians, i disagree with the way the city went about enforcing laws that it has not enforced for years.

with the exception of meter violations, the city should have issued should have warning tickets for the first 30 days or so to make people aware of the new enforcement. More flies with honey.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:46:15 +0000

More revisionism. The change to allow 3 hour parking after 5 PM was done in response to complaints about the extended hours, not as part of the extended hour meters.

By: jack

jack — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:57:10 +0000

“By the way, city staff said on Tuesday that the perception that enforcement has been increased is “a myth,” and only 200 more tickets were issued in July and August 2009 than in July-August 2008. I don’t think 200 tickets in two months is a very large percentage, but we’ll learn more when the Council reviews the regulations.”

A myth? How come on the day after fines were increased , when i had never seen a meter maid in my neighborhood i got a ticket IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT for “blocking my driveway”. Something myself and my neighbors have done for years. Instead of it being a $30 ticket as it was only 2 days before, now its $90. Coincidence?

By: Retnan

Retnan — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:53:57 +0000

Why is the world did they need to raise parking fees? The government doesn’t take enough money from the people? Ridiculous.

If you’re gonna raise taxes at all they should ONLY be taxes on rich not regressive parking meter fees.

By: dto510

dto510 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:52:52 +0000

Yes, as part of extending meter operation past 6pm, the city abolished time limits after 5pm.

By: John G

John G — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:49:02 +0000

The Oakland parking site clearly states that feeding the meter to park longer than the maximum time limit for the zone will result in a violation. Is there really an exception to that rule after 5:00PM?

If so, it must be a brand new regulation. An exception like that wouldn’t have made any sense back when meters were only enforced until 6:00PM.

By: Beefy McManstick

Beefy McManstick — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:55:22 +0000

Good post. Thank you for the logical, level-headed, and non-reactionary response. You bring up some good points. Here’s some anecdotal evidence from Copenhagen that when the elasticity of the consumers’ behavior (demand) catches up with the increased parking costs (supply) we will actually become better shoppers:

http://tinyurl.com/6rlrn7

I find it much more pleasant and safe to cycle or walk along a less crowded avenue. In short, fewer cars = more window shopping = more actual shopping! Unfortunately, the American Way seems to be to bitch and moan and blame someone else for one’s woes.