Calfornia State lawmakers take aim at free parking

[TechMan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-free-parking29-2010jan29,0,211620.story

State lawmakers take aim at free parking
There is too much of it, they say, and it encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking or bicycling. A Senate proposal would prompt cities and businesses to reduce its availability.

By Patrick McGreevy

January 29, 2010

Reporting from Sacramento - State lawmakers are taking aim at what some of them see as a menace to California's environment: free parking.

There is too much of it, the legislators say, and it encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking or riding a bike. All that motoring is contributing to traffic jams and pollution, according to state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), and on Thursday he won Senate approval of a proposal he hopes will prompt cities and businesses to reduce the availability of free parking.

"Free parking has significant social, economic and environmental costs," Lowenthal said. "It increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions."

Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be meddling in how much people pay to park.

"If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach).

The bill, supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club, provides financial incentives for cities and counties to stop providing free parking on the street and at government offices and to reduce the amount they require businesses to provide.

Cities that take such action could get more state money for parking garages and transit programs and bonus points in competing for state grants.

When a store provides free parking, the cost to maintain, clean, insure, secure and light the parking lot is passed on to shoppers in higher prices for goods, said Justin Horner, an analyst with the NRDC. Free street parking is paid for by the entire community in the form of higher taxes, he said.

Lowenthal said that when businesses pay for their employees' parking, more of them drive to work.

"It's nice that we've been treated to this luxury," Lowenthal said. "The problem with free parking is it's not free."

patrick.mcgreevy @latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times


So the title of the bill is Let's Kill Small Businesses and Struggling Business Districts  /sarcasm

Seriously CA legislature is out of control, where do they get their warped sense of reality. More power to the people that live there as I don't think I could.

Some of the comments are pretty good.

 

[Ben]

The bill, supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club, provides financial incentives for cities and counties to stop providing free parking on the street and at government offices and to reduce the amount they require businesses to provide.

"Yeah, we wouldn't want those pesky taxpayers having easy access to us..."

[AZRedhawk44]

Yep.  Aimed at Tea-Partiers.

[Standing Wolf]

Makes you wonder whether the elected misrepresentatives enjoy free parking.

[HankB]

I remember a couple of decades ago, Chicago mayor Jane Byrne decided to force people to take the bus when they came downtown to shop by closing several municipal parking ramps.

This was a boon for suburban shopping malls, and many of Chicago's downtown retail businesses went under.

Duh. 

[zahc]

I like how "bribes", "coercion" and "strong-arming" becomes "financial incentives".

[longeyes]

Unction is the anteroom of fascism.  This is the kind of insanity we have to deal with in my state.  We'll see how much pollution is generated when the stuff starts hitting the fan bigtime, and that day is fast approaching.

[De Selby]

Wait a second here - the republican in the article wants local governments to keep providing free or subsidized parking, and the democrats in the article want to pass a bill that gets local governments to stop legislating these subsidies into existence.

Maybe they should all stop monkeying with the parking, and let businesses sort out their own space.

[Perd Hapley]

Wait a second here - the republican in the article wants local governments to keep providing free or subsidized parking, and the democrats in the article want to pass a bill that gets local governments to stop legislating these subsidies into existence.

Well, you got the second part right. 

Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be meddling in how much people pay to park.

"If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach).

[RocketMan]

We can always count on SS to twist arguments all out of shape.  It's funny how it's always a left-hand twist, though.

[De Selby]

We can always count on SS to twist arguments all out of shape.  It's funny how it's always a left-hand twist, though.

How is this is a "left handed twist"? 

[Desertdog]

Did you miss this sentence?

Cities that take such action could get more state money for parking garages and transit programs and bonus points in competing for state grants.

Somebody would get very rich running theses parking garages.  To me, this is the only reason they want to pass something like this.  Big money people getting laws passed to get them bigger money.

[De Selby]

Did you miss this sentence?

Somebody would get very rich running theses parking garages.  To me, this is the only reason they want to pass something like this.  Big money people getting laws passed to get them bigger money.

No, I didn't miss it - I'm not seeing the issue here. 

I said they should both stop "monkeying" with parking.  The republican guy is clearly supporting government intervention, just at a local level instead of a state level.

[makattak]

No, I didn't miss it - I'm not seeing the issue here. 

I said they should both stop "monkeying" with parking.  The republican guy is clearly supporting government intervention, just at a local level instead of a state level.

WOW. SinS, you purposely misinterperet things, but that's impressive, even for you.

Let me put the quotes together for you:

Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be meddling in how much people pay to park.

"If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach).

I said they should both stop "monkeying" with parking.  The republican guy is clearly supporting government intervention, just at a local level instead of a state level.

What part of "If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," is "I wanna monkey with parking!!!"?

Republicans want the state government NOT to monkey with parking. What localities do is there own business.

But, in liberal land, by wanting the state government NOT to monkey with parking, that means, ipso facto, they MUST want localities to monkey with it!!! See, by not wanting state government interference (or, in other cases, federal) they want local government interference.

SEE! We all want to monkey with parking! You say you want the state government out of monkeying, what you REALLY mean you want monkeying.

That was impressive. Twisting: "It's not our business" into "I want to monkey around with this!!". Bravo. /golfclap

[De Selby]

Wait a second here, since when is a "local government" not a government in the same way that the state government is a government???   "That's up to them" is about as clear an endorsement of "local governments should be able to regulate away" as you can get.

[AZRedhawk44]

SS, the tax revenues at the state level come from suburbia shopping centers, rural sales and urban downtowns.

Money WILL be spent, and the state doesn't care.

The state budget doesn't pay for the parking structures... the CITY budget pays for them.  As a form of tax subsidy to local businesses in urban centers, to make it easier for customers to get to the stores.

Without a certain amount of free parking, urban retail areas quickly become either snobbishly upscale, or blighted.  Middle class can't exist in urban environments, since middle class folks will simply drive out to a suburban shopping center rather than pay $10+ for parking.

As stated, the tax revenues generated by city taxes on urban shops pay for the parking structures.

I suspect also that part of the incentive for this, is to eliminate an expense at the local level (urban parking maintenance) while keeping revenues neutral (keep the taxes in place), so that the state can cut line items to metro areas and the metro area can creatively re-balance their books.

What they forget to take note of, is that the tax reveneues don't remain neutral in a free market:  When you make it a PITA to shop downtown (eliminate free parking) then shoppers will go to a different shopping center.  Thus, revenues fall.

[Desertdog]

Wait a second here, since when is a "local government" not a government in the same way that the state government is a government???   "That's up to them" is about as clear an endorsement of "local governments should be able to regulate away" as you can get.

The difference I see is the fact the "people" would be dealing with somebody in their own town, hot somebody in the state capital.  

I will agree with SS, keep your hands off the parking, let the merchants do their business as they see it/

[makattak]

Wait a second here, since when is a "local government" not a government in the same way that the state government is a government???   "That's up to them" is about as clear an endorsement of "local governments should be able to regulate away" as you can get.

I'm going to keep posting this until you actually answer this question:

What part of "it's not the business of the state government to monkey with parking" means "We want the local government monkeying with parking"?

Again, you take what is said and purposely misrepresent it. Good lawyering.

[Matthew Carberry]

By maintaining parking cost at the local level you get:

easier, more direct, accountability to the people

an increase (or maintenance of) the ability for local governments to compete against each other for retailers, and thus shoppers, thus giving retailers incentives for providing more/better services and lower prices while potentially increasing local gov't. income from existing sales/property taxes without having to raise them.

[Perd Hapley]

 "That's up to them" is about as clear an endorsement of "local governments should be able to regulate away" as you can get.

So you've changed your position to "the Republicans are not trying to monkey with parking."  Deftly handled. 

Still, the question remains, where in the article do the Republicans express a desire for "local governments to keep providing free or subsidized parking," as you claimed?