LETTER | Increasing Downtown Parking Fees Will Drive Away Businesses

By on February 20, 2012 in Opinion

Dear Editor:

What is the purpose of adding/increasing parking lot fees downtown? If it’s to raise revenues, the idea of charging for parking downtown or other business locations is ridiculous. It will probably reduce sales tax revenues or maybe drive out business or cause them to locate elsewhere.

Since when did the Council quit supporting business or was their rhetoric just that? They cannot be trusted to keep their word.

Parking fees downtown doesn’t appear to do anything for improving our quality of life except may be lessen our tax burden. But, that’s another ridiculous idea. The Council never reduces our tax burden.

When the parks get crowded, more maintenance is needed. As it is now, we have to rely on volunteers to help maintain them or improve them. We are already over extended in money and a shortage of maintenance personnel.

What would make sense is to impose fees on park parking lots. Juanita Park is a regional park but only we pay for maintenance or improvements. User fees are appropriate for non-residents at Juanita and for regional parks on Lake Washington Blvd. All park parking lots should be considered.

Will Council listen? I doubt it.

 

Bob Style

 

About Robert L. Style

View all posts by Robert L. Style →

, , ,

  • Mavio

    Good ideas, Bob

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    The report of the Parking Advisory Board reviewed at the last council study session (which can be read at http://www.kirklandwa.gov/Assets/City+Council/Council+Packets/020712/3a_StudySession.pdf) pretty clearly says that the primary purpose of the proposed changes is not to raise revenue, but to manage the limited supply of parking, and particularly to discourage use of prime parking spaces by employees of downtown businesses. What limited revenue is raised from parking goes primarily back into operations and maintenance of parking lots, with some reserved for future parking expansion, and not for use in other areas of the budget.

    These proposals came directly from the Parking Advisory Board, which is made up primarily of representatives of the downtown business community. I’m sure all the city council members welcome feedback from the community on the PAB proposals.

  • RosesWA

    Hey Bob, don’t forget that Parks are for People so they are distracted from tax issues. Blocking access with a charge to park would defeat that purpose.

    But you are so right about increasing parking fees downtown… more tax put on a good thing, (shopping and spending,) means less of a good thing. Less spending may be more space for the minority who have unlimited discretionary income, but they can’t support the variety of shops that the majority would choose if they didn’t feel ripped off by parking fees.

    Now if the city would care to open up their precious parking lots in the evenings when city offices are closed… that should make a buck or two and not by giving tickets to the desperate who can’t find a spot.

  • Bonnie McLeod

    I feel compelled to respond as a former member of the parking advisory board and a downtown business that originally paid for the Lake and Central lot, “to provide free parking” downtown.  I applaud the parking advisory board for this recommendation and hope the council will take their board’s advice.  Parking is never Free.  It is just a matter of who pays.  I will be happy to reimburse the $1.00/ hour fee to anyone that does business with me.   
    Bonnie McLeod
    McLeod Insurance Inc.

  • RosesWA

    Toby, I have an idea for you… private taxis who give folks rides to the stores and restaurants from free parking out of the downtown corridor… if it were cheaper than parking then folks would stand in line, crowd into small cars… and the taxi drivers just might be able to make a mortgage payment. Of course, that means the city would have to regulate the “approved” drivers or set prices… or caveat emptor if you want faster change, and cheaper.  …(Caveat emptor is Latin for “Let the buyer beware”. )

  • bigyaz

    Totally disagree with Mr. Style (again). If all parking were free and unlimited there would be no turnover. Downtown workers would bee free to park all day near their work,  commuters would leave their cars on the street and hop on a bus to Seattle, boat owners would leave their cars downtown for the day, etc.

    A small fee (and certainly $1 an hour is small) discourages this type of behavior, thus turning over parking spaces and freeing up MORE parking for visitors.

    Yes, we know you can go to Bellevue and park for free so you can fight the crowds at Bellevue Square or shop at some generic strip mall. Do we really want to pave over our downtown so it has acres of free parking but looks like any other suburban city?

    What I would like to see is better signage directing people to the library garage, to free parking along Lake Washington Boulevard, up Market Street, First Street, etc. I’m sure it is frustrating for visitors when they can’t find a parking space and are unaware of the options available with only a short walk.

    • Jim Hitter

      Totally agree with bigyaz (again).

  • John Gilday

    As usual, Bigyaz has half a point and Bob does as well… put them together and you have something resembling common sense.

    Bigyaz is correct that downtown employees would tend to take up the lion’s share of parking if left to their own choices.  There was a time when all parking on Kirkland Avenue between the Marina and Lake Street was sucked up by restaurant employees and patrons were stuck circling the block until they found an open spot.

    But then again, Bob is right that high per-hour fees drive customers to Bellevue, where parking is mostly free (and far more plentiful).

    So what can be done?

    We always here people complain that they “Don’t want Kirkland turning into Bellevue” but lets take a moment and examine that.

    On any given evening there are more people on the ESCALATORS in Lincoln Tower than in all of Downtown Kirkland. Is it because the drinks are stronger, food better, movies brighter or clothes more stylish?  NO.  

    It’s because people understand what they can expect in Bellevue.  Pull in, park and come back with the understanding there will be no parking ticket.  In Kirkland you need a degree in urban planning to fully understand where and when you can park.

    If Kirkland did away with parking fees and vigorously enforced 2-hour and 4-hour parking limits as well as required all employees of downtown businesses to park in library or Antique Mall, then a hundred parking places would open up overnight.

    Pull up in front of Starbucks at Lake Street and Park Lane and look at the many signs… no wonder it is considered low-hanging-fruit for parking enforcement between 4-7pm.

    Parking regulations have become so convoluted that the average customer would rather drive to Bellevue… or Redmond… or Woodinville than to chance inadvertently breaking a parking regulation in Kirkland. 

  • John Gilday

    As usual, Bigyaz has half a point and Bob does as well… put them together and you have something resembling common sense.

    Bigyaz is correct that downtown employees would tend to take up the lion’s share of parking if left to their own choices.  There was a time when all parking on Kirkland Avenue between the Marina and Lake Street was sucked up by restaurant employees and patrons were stuck circling the block until they found an open spot.

    But then again, Bob is right that high per-hour fees drive customers to Bellevue, where parking is mostly free (and far more plentiful).

    So what can be done?

    We always hear people complain that they “Don’t want Kirkland turning into Bellevue” but lets take a moment and examine that.

    On any given evening there are more people on the ESCALATORS in Lincoln Tower than in all of Downtown Kirkland. Is it because the drinks are stronger, food better, movies brighter or clothes more stylish?  NO.  

    It’s because people understand what they can expect in Bellevue.  Pull in, park and come back with the understanding there will be no parking ticket.  In Kirkland you need a degree in urban planning to fully understand where and when you can park.

    If Kirkland did away with parking fees and vigorously enforced 2-hour and 4-hour parking limits as well as required all employees of downtown businesses to park in library or Antique Mall, then a hundred parking places would open up overnight.

    Pull up in front of Starbucks at Lake Street and Park Lane and look at the many signs… no wonder it is considered low-hanging-fruit for parking enforcement between 4-7pm.

    Parking regulations have become so convoluted that the average customer would rather drive to Bellevue… or Redmond… or Woodinville than to chance inadvertently breaking a parking regulation in Kirkland.

    • Per-Ola

      Not often that I agree with Mr. Gilday, but here he is spot on.

      At the same time I would say that $1/hour is likely not going to deter visitors, but the way this story has spread for sure will (on King5 the other night: “Parking in one Eastside city is going to be more expensive”). That is just bad marketing – even though people will forget as well.

      Parking in downtown is plentiful if one just dares to walk a few blocks, but most visitors probably are not aware of that, and no, it is not fun to park at city Hall and walk down the hill during a downpour. But it is not fun to have cars occupy every inch of the downtown core either. Fees/fines of some kind are needed to instill a “good behavior”. Not easy.

  • Cyberfogey

    Trying to solve the problem of merchants and their employees usurping the limited number of parking spots available in downtown Kirkland by imposing a fee on the customers of those merchants strikes me as a non-sequitur. 

    Experts on the subject seem to agree that solving the problem of getting downtown purveyors to park elsewhere would leave plenty of parking for customers.  To make them do so by forcing their patrons to add a dollar to the cost of a haircut or a cup of coffee, three bucks for a permanent or so on, seems a lot more draconian than asking them to spend a few bucks to park for a nice dinner in the evening.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to admit that since previous attempts to dissuade merchants and their employees from hogging their customer’s parking have not been effective, better negotiated policies or better enforcement of policies intended to persuade them are needed?  

    I think the council should reject this proposal as counter productive and send the problem back to the parking people with the charge of coming up with a proposal to correct the merchant parking problem without creating a potentially bigger problem for the long term health of our downtown than already exists.