Cheap parking makes life more expensive
By Emily Badger, Washington Post
Geof Glass, a doctorate student at Simon Frasier University, makes an interesting point in a blog post that’s been circulating for the last two days among people online fascinated by the economics of parking: The purchases you make at a store surrounded by free customer parking are effectively taxed to make that parking possible.
Glass puts this “invisible sales tax” at about 1 percent, given estimates that parking makes up about 10 percent of the cost of developing a store, while rents make up around 10 percent of a retailer’s costs of operating it.
That 1 percent, Glass argues, is then passed on to consumers in the cost of goods you buy at said store (which was built with, well, parking). These numbers would obviously shift depending on whether we’re talking about a surface parking lot or a more expensive parking garage, whether we’re talking about free parking, subsidized parking or pay parking. They would also change depending on the local cost of land beneath that parking. Here’s Glass:
This subsidy is like a tax, as governments require developers to build parking. For consumers the effect is the same as if the government collected the tax and built the parking itself. This is effectively a privately administered sales tax.
Bring back paid parking at Lakeview Commons. Use the revenue collected to properly maintain and improve this new heavily used asset. Allow residents to buy a parking pass for the season at a discount.
Council members, any questions?
Atomic: We had all of that in place and were in the process of revising the hours for more local benefit. The citizens voted it out.
I believe the citizens voted out ALL paid parking didn’t they? Some of the paid parking areas were silly and needed to go. Lakeview is different. Also, the parking pass was not fully understood by the locals. I think it deserves another shot with clarity.
Parking is just one of the many costs of having a “brick and mortar” business. We need to patronize real stores that keep money local. When you examine products at a store, or even try clothes on, and then go online to purchase (with no tax) you are effectively stealing from everyone in your town. Parking is just one part.
Atomic and Joann are both right, unfortunately it’s too late. The vote was made hastily by too many uninformed, ignorant and emotional citizens who were misled by T4T who hailed themselves as heroes for their fear mongering propaganda campaign. Of course paid parking would be a wonderful fund generator for beach areas like the commons, but most people don’t understand how cities need to generate revenue and create budgets, and they armchair QB it till it’s dead. I’ve paid to park at many Tahoe beaches, San Fran, LA, Hawaii, etc… And always found it convenient, well kept, beautified and appreciated, never thought twice about it. Likewise, as a Tahoe local, I never once paid at the Commons because anyone with half a brain can figure out where to park a few blocks away for free, use different beaches,utilize a locals pass or , God forbid, throw a dollar or two in the machine…I’m quite sure it’s not gonna mean the difference between having food on your table and roof over your head. But this is exactly why SLT can’t have nice things and will continue to be a poor, run down, dirt bag looking town that attracts too many low life’s and will not thrive and grow and beautify like other resort destinations. Thank You Mr O Rourke, Mrs. Kerry and the City Council for your efforts, unfortunately you have quite the uphill battle….
No vote was made hastily. The program was ill conceived, poorly implemented (signs) and was nothing other than aggressive enforcement against homeowners trying to enjoy their homes.
The city was charging for access to the CTC owned beach at the keys…even though the city provides nothing there.
Yeah the city went for it. They didn’t plan it at all, ticked off about 80% of the community and then reaped the rewards.
Moral,
Well said (mostly), agreed, the paid parking at the Keys was ridiculous and a mistake. location choices, affects on neighborhoods and homeowners were botched in some aspects at first. The city did roll it out too quickly and perhaps parts of it were ill conceived, but they were working to improve it and fix it to accommodate all parties and still help the city finances ( which means beach and parking upkeep, snow removal, parks, libraries, bike paths, beautification, new projects, potholes, etc….., it’s not as if the city administrators are pocketing the funds or “reaping the rewards” as you say) , but let’s be honest, the “lynch mob mentality” took over, reason went out the window and the rest is history ( except for the 1/2 million dollar cost the city must now cover to remove the meters…. nice one voters, thanks for that)…And the meters had nothing to do with enforcing homeowners against their will, not sure how you make that connection ( too much paranoia, Fox News, hate all things government perhaps???). We’re talking about putting a dollar in a parking meter at a beach parking lot…..
Moral: The program was presented to the public on numerous occasions over the course of a year and a half, and we were working to adjust it. The first day of a yes vote by the Council, I made the motion to keep Regan Beach free of paid parking for the locals, including the homeowners in that area.
To clarify, we never charged for access to the CTC beach at the Keys, and again, I was the one who made the motion to remove the meters on Venice. That income would have provided funding for a pedestrian and bike path along that street, which we thought locals would like, due to the heavy boat traffic in the summer. Those meters were removed before the vote to remove all meters.
To be clear, if I have to lift my wallet out of my pocket to go to a beach…I am being charged to go to the beach.
JoAnn, if you want to help locals give us a place to park a boat trailer near the boat launch. Banning parking on Venice was yet another poorly conceived plan for the City but it only affected a smaller number of us so wasn’t reversed in a vote.
If I recall accurately, the city at one time took a grant and spent it to create a bike lane on Venice. They did this with a simple paint stripe at first. Then when parking was taking up the bike lane, the realization was that there was a problem and maybe the grant would have to be paid back.
My memory of this is not perfect ( I am not a city resident), but I bet one of you will recall the facts. Let us know if you do.
The point I get out of this article is that parking is part of an enterprises’ “overhead”, whereas a City like SLT seems to have its’ “overhead” ignored. . .
‘Atomic’ is fundamentally correct, as ‘zones’ for the meters (especially Lakeview Commons) were to be ‘set-aside’ to care for the new sidewalks, landscaping by CalTrans, etc. . .that it was defeated was by ‘virtue’ of anemic voter turnout, not because it was the brilliant (but ill-conceived) initiative it was – – – I see people patronizing Sprouts, for example, that have to park in the Sandwich shop parking lot across Tallac, due to people taking up spaces on the other side of Harrison to go to the beach all-day – that is not what ‘parking management’ is about, but it IS what NOT having parking management means…
Harrison Street is also questionable in creating more parking – (extra) lots, which are almost never used, as the ones lining Hiway 50 are taken first – usually for the entire day.
Shrewd move on the part of those who thought that all those extra spaces represented extra business, the same essential reason they thought that ‘charging’ was to their disadvantage – we’ll continue to see how that works for them. . .
If I Were In Charge:
I agree with your comments 100%. It really is too bad that Tahoe4Tahoe through their lying propaganda convinced approximately 1,400 citizens, many of whom now admit that they were misled by Tahoe4Tahoe, to buy into their deceptions. This ultimately caused a substantial revenue loss to our City that would have been generated solely from the users of paid parking spaces.
I lost respect for Tom Davis when he aligned himself with the demands of Tahoe4Tahoe and placed their wants above the financial needs of the remainder of the City of South Lake Tahoe, but I guess that’s what someone does when they want to get re-elected.
What’s completely laughable is that Tom Davis at the last City Council meeting came up with the suggestion that there should be a South Lake Tahoe Float in the Rose Bowl Parade. Maybe he can get his Tahoe4Tahoe constituents and friends to pony up the donations for that expense that’s estimated at $600,000 to $2 million.
4-mer,
Thanks, I agree with you as well ( and with most of your other postings as well. I enjoy your well thought out and intelligent and reasonable opinions, as do many others in town that read this site). Shocking that voters continue to elect Davis, ( see: definition of insanity) and then complain of lack of change. I believe he is probably a decent man with good intentions, but he’s old and out of touch and frankly, it’s time for some new blood, new ideas and new direction. I thank him for what he has helped to accomplish but for the love of God can we move on??!!!. We could go on and on about parking, the political circus, err, I mean process, the voting public, T4T, but the bottom line is, so many of us see what this town has and what it could be, and want so badly to see the progress and live in a thriving, beautiful community. So, so frustrating…. At least we’ve got the lake, the mountains, beaches, skiing, hiking, etc and of course the small group of fun loving, young, friendly locals and families that do make this a good community…just hope we can grow it…..
4-mer,
If you want to keep debating a dead issue, fine. It’s unfortunate you can’t respect, even if you disagree, with the votes of the citizens of So. Lake Tahoe. When a vote doesn’t go someone’s way, and many don’t go mine, it’s easy to say the opposition lied in their campaign.
However, we can debate Paid Parking over & over. What’s just absolutely not debatable is that Tahoe4Tahoe did not create the heavy opposition to Paid Parking!
Everyone I knew disliked it from the get go. The instant tickets on Venice and in the Lakeside area for the quickest of stops, when many felt/feel our City still had/has a bloated expense structure, created the intense opposition before Tahoe4Tahoe got started.
Disagree with the vote result. I’d suggest moving on though. But the absolute fact is, many citizens were intensely opposed to Paid Parking before any group was organized, let alone did any campaigning!
Parker we also voted out two council members that were 110% behind paid parking. We still have two left. Thanks T4T, the signs, the tickets, the permits, the meters are gone hopefully for my lifetime.
If I were in Charge:
I agree with you that Tom Davis is likely a decent person with good intentions and I also agree that we need some new blood, new ideas and new direction in our leadership. I think there is already a very intelligent group of young people in our town with wonderful new ideas as evidenced by watching the City Council meetings and listening to some of the Commission Appointees speak, such as those on the Parks and Recreation Commission (Pete Fink, Rebecca Bryson, Bonnie Turnbull, Scott Valentine and Steve Noll), or listening to Shannon Eckmeyer, Heidi Hill Drum, or to any number of young people that have spoken before the City Council from the Tahoe Regional Young Professionals Organization or those who participated on the Economic Development Task Force that addressed the City Council on December 9, 2014. You all give me hope for the future of SLT and its prosperity, and the fact is we old people are just getting older and at some point the reigns must be turned over to those that are younger. Perhaps when that happens positive change can be accelerated in SLT and certain old type thinking and cronyism will diminish.
I admit that I’m most curious about the City Council’s two newest members, Wendy David and Austin Sass, and I am remaining optimistic at this time.
Best regards – 4-mer