Downtown merchants react to proposal to change Ann Arbor parking rates
Previous story: Parking in downtown Ann Arbor could get more expensive starting Jan. 1
As he fed a parking meter on Main Street Wednesday, New Hampshire resident Steve Sagon said he can't imagine it costing more than $1.20 an hour to park in downtown Ann Arbor.
"It's $2 an hour in Boston on the street, so compared, this seems expensive," said Sagon, who was in town helping his daughter move into her new digs at the University of Michigan.
When informed the rates were going up to $1.40 today — and could go up to $1.80 by Jan. 1, along with an extension of enforcement hours until 8 p.m. — Sagon seemed surprised.
"I don't know if that's going to discourage people from coming downtown when you want to fill up the restaurants, but it would certainly seem like somewhat of a disincentive," he said.
But downtown patrons might have to adapt to change soon with a new pilot program being proposed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.
Several downtown businesses owners and managers reacted with concern on Wednesday after DDA Executive Director Susan Pollay laid out a plan calling for a three-tiered pricing structure for parking meters in the area bound by State, Huron, First and William streets.
New Hampshire resident Steve Sagon pays to park on Main Street late Wednesday afternoon after helping his daughter move in at the University of Michigan.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The cost of entering some downtown parking structures also could go up.
"Obviously, it's a concern, especially with the economic times we're in," said Tony Lupo, director of sales and marketing for Salon Vox, located just west of Main Street on Liberty Street.
Lupo, a board member for the Main Street Area Association, said he expected the association's board members to discuss the issue at a meeting scheduled for today.
Pollay said meters that consistently have monthly earnings in the top third of all meters in the system could be increased to $1.80 an hour. Meanwhile, those meters in the middle could stay at $1.40 — the new rate as of today — and those at the bottom could go down to $1.
The DDA's staff plans to bring the idea to the City Council for discussion at a Nov. 14 work session, but the DDA doesn't need council approval to enact the changes.
Joe Morehouse, the DDA's deputy director, said he hasn't forecasted any revenue gain or loss from the pilot program. He said the DDA's only intent is to better manage parking demand.
Newcombe Clark, a member of the DDA board who lives and works downtown, said he supports the changes but hopes the DDA takes steps to offer additional incentives, such as free parking for the first hour or two in downtown parking structures.
"Meters should be expensive," Clark added, expressing support for the tiered pricing structure. "Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise, myself included."
Elaine Selo, owner of the Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, has operated in downtown Ann Arbor for nearly 30 years. She said the changes would deal another blow to downtown businesses that are competing with shopping centers with free parking.
"I can't imagine any good retailer or restaurant owner who would be in favor of that," she said, reacting to the DDA's proposal on Wednesday.
"I understand why they're doing it," Selo said. "But as somebody who really values the viability of the downtown and recognizes how fragile it really can be, I'm very opposed to it."
Selo said she's more worried about the expanded enforcement hours than the meter rates. She thinks the constant threat of a parking ticket already is deterring customers.
"Once they come in here, they're constantly looking at their watches," she said. "They're not even shopping, they're so afraid of getting a ticket."
Gary Boren, who recently lost his seat on the DDA's governing board, has expressed concerns that too much upward pressure is being placed on parking rates. But he said he doesn't necessarily have a problem with the pilot program laid out on Wednesday.
Boren said one problem merchants face is that many of the meters are hogged by downtown employees who get a spot early and don't move until later in the night.
"I'm all for a pricing structure that helps keep meters available for shorter downtown visits," he said. But he added he is concerned too much of the parking profits is going to the city's general fund without any direct or guaranteed benefit to the downtown.
A quick glance at how other cities in Southeast Michigan manage downtown parking shows Ann Arbor might be a rarity for stopping enforcement at 6 p.m.
Ferndale enforces parking meters until 10 p.m., though the rate is 50 cents an hour. In downtown Birmingham, parking meters are enforced from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. A city official there said meter rates are 75 cents to $1 an hour depending on the location, and parking in the structures is always free for the first two hours.
Elaine Selo, owner of the Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, said the changes to parking enforcement hours and meter rates would hurt downtown businesses.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Of course, there are alternatives to parking downtown.
"None of us drive," said Elizabeth Sullivan, co-owner of Ann Arbor's Vault of Midnight comic book shop on Main Street.
She said most of her employees either take the bus or skateboard to work, and those who do drive park outside the downtown and walk.
"There's no way we could ever park at a meter," Sullivan said. "And from our customers, I get a lot of feedback that they can't get a meter ever in the first place."
And therein lies the problem DDA officials hope to address. Pollay said the changes should encourage more frequent turnover of metered parking spaces by getting downtown employees to move into parking garages, freeing up on-street spaces for customers.
"To be a more sophisticated parking system operator, we should begin to think more like the airports," Pollay said. "When you go to the airport, everybody wants to be at the curb, but you can't all be at the curb … so they developed strategies."
Pollay said the DDA is looking at emerging strategies from around the country to better manage demand for parking downtown.
For those who consider price a key factor, Pollay noted, the new pricing structure would allow the option of parking at a lower cost if patrons are willing to walk a couple extra blocks. And when convenience is more important, others can pay more for a good spot.
"The highest priority for many people is 'I want the spot right in front of where I'm going,' so that meter space should be available for that customer or that person running late for a meeting," she said. "Whereas, for some of us who are here 10 hours a day, my parking should be somewhere away from that prime parking space. And I'm here all the time, so I'm willing to walk a little further.
"So the strategy and thinking with geography is to help spread the demand."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
anonymous
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
If part of the plan is to encourage more frequent turnover of metered parking spaces by getting downtown employees to move into parking garages or to park farther away to free up on-street spaces for customers, how do you explain the addition of meters on First St. between Ashely and William, and William between First and Second? That eliminates a significant number of free parking spaces for downtown employees. I go by those spots on a daily basis and since the meters have been installed, I think I have seen at most, 5 cars there - TOTAL. Not all at one time, but TOTAL. The parking spots are no longer available for free to downtown employees and customers do not seem willing to park that far away when coming downtown. So what exactly was the point of those meters? It certainly cost more to install them along with the pay station then they were worth - not to mention eliminating a free option for downtown employees. Shouldn't downtown be friendly to its employees as well?
Sam
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.
Deja vu all over again, AGAIN. Back in the 90s the Ann Arbor Main Street Area and State Street Associations successfully stopped the City of Ann Arbor after it began enforcing meter parking after 6 p.m. It had seriously hurt Ann Arbor business during the evening hours. In 2009 it was proposed by the City once more, but luckily it didn't happen then. Now it's back on the table, along with upping the rates this time. Anyone listening? Evidently not, or we wouldn't have a $50 million hole in the ground that few are keen to use, but it's there to drive parking hours and costs higher to compensate.
Mark
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
This craziness. The DDA needs a reality check. With stagnant wages, and the way the economy is now, a parking rate increase is a sure-fire way to turn people away from downtown. I was in Marquette last week -- the city has beautiful bike paths throughout town, flower planted everywhere, new condos going up along the lake, a busy downtown, and parking is 25 CENTS/HR. In many places parking is free, or costs something if you park longer than 2 hours. Of course, Marquette isn't Ann Arbor (which IS a good thing), but some comparable areas such as Royal Oak have cheaper parking. Wake up, DDA. I wonder if we can do a ballot initiative and eliminate the DDA entirely and place the functions under City Hall. It seems like a government within a government at this time.
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
I think this might be an indicator of pending fiscal doom. When local governments have deficits and cannot raise the big taxes they commonly resort to fees and hidden taxes. Parking, utility, fines, etc. If you can't get it one way you get it any way you can. Maybe if they want to boost use of the parking structures a good move would be to jack up the fines for expired meter to stratospheric levels. That way, the people who err would be those who pay. It might free up meters for those with rolls and rolls of quarters in their pockets, and collect more funds by filling the structures with more cars, making increases in fees less essential.
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
I go downtown for one reason, for my haircut. And they give stamps for parking. This is getting ridiculous. I have been in favor of expanded hours up to 10 pm like Royal Oak, but good grief not with an increase. Ann Arbor is a runaway spending train if they need to keep picking pockets for money. First I read they are trying to cheat the UM for football games and now everybody else who parks in the city. Doesn't the city often raid DDA funds for making it's budget? Is the city council behind the curtains here?
The Picker
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
This kind of arrogance can only come from a one party government. Note the unanamous votes on city council. The mayor and council believe we are sheep which need to be sheparded and since they are so much smarter than the rest of us, we should just believe.
Mr. Me
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 11:59 a.m.
I can NEVER get a space in downtown Ann Arbor at $1.20/hour (nor have I ever gotten a metered space in Boston for $2/hr, FWIW). In fact, I try to AVOID downtown Ann Arbor because the parking is inconvenient and the streets are full of people circling the block looking for a space. I know because I'm always one of them. Raising the price of metered parking would make me more likely to drive downtown, not less likely, if it means I could get a spot on the street for a short time to run quick errands. Right now if I need to just park and take care of something, I drive to the Briarwood Mall! What good is cheap parking if it takes half an hour to find a spot?
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
The other day I spend 20 minutes or so looking for a free space and found one two (long) blocks from my destination. I am so tired of the high fees and not having enough pocket change for meters I would rather do the search than pay so much.
Helen
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:21 a.m.
We have one of the last remaining vital energetic downtown areas in the country. Why would you do something to erode this precious AA asset. When choosing a place to dine people will simply choose to go where parking is less hassle......and free. You may think people will adapt to the higher fees and pay up, but in this economy folks are paying closer attention to the small ways in which they waste money. Like exorbitant parking meter fees! This is not a good plan.
kms
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
I am one of those people paying attention to the small ways of wasting money! I figure I spend about $10 a week on parking...I don't work downtown but stop there about 3 times a week. I frequently pick up a $4.00 coffee at Starbucks or Espresso Royale. That's easily $60 per month for my outings....really need to rethink this!
Hemenway
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.
Thanks DDA, Another good reason not to come downtown. See Ya!
seldon
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 2:03 a.m.
"Newcombe Clark, a member of the DDA board who lives and works downtown, said he supports the changes but hopes the DDA takes steps to offer additional incentives, such as free parking for the first hour or two in downtown parking structures. "Meters should be expensive," Clark added, expressing support for the tiered pricing structure. "Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise, myself included."" Does this idiot know that many people don't live in town?
seldon
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 2:04 a.m.
Or maybe Clark's actual job is to promote Briarwood and Arborland. In which case, he's not an idiot after all.
snapshot
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
The DDA will do what IT wants. Why? Because it can thanks to Mayor Hiefjie's reluctance to put any real "effort" into governance of the city of Ann Arbor. He could initiate change if he wanted to but he's too lazy and in a comfort zone, much to the detriment of the citizens of Ann Arbor. who's to blame? The complacent citizens of Ann Arbor who have given away their rights because they weren't paying attention. Still aren't.
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.
I have always felt that DDA members should be independently elected so that it's purpose cannot be impinged by a council that needs its funds to balance its budget. DDAs are supposed to be funded by TIFF taxes that are applied on downtown development. Those funds are supposed to go to enhancing down town. A2 has given the DDA the parking revenue system, which is city revenue, but if the city needs it they should take it back from DDA and run it themselves. DDA funds should not be tapped by the city. As is, the council can exert pressure on DDA for parking increases and deflect the blame.
Sallyxyz
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.
Ann Arbor is shooting itself in the foot. Increasing some rates to $1.80 per hour is ludicrous for a small college town. AA must think it is in the same league as big cities around the country, and it is not. Boston charges $2.00/hour, and AA is not Boston. Look at comparable cities in MI, such as Royal Oak and Birmingham. Much better comparisons and much lower parking rates. Unless you offer an incentive such as free parking for the first hour or two in structures, this will kill downtown traffic. AA needs to stop the all-day parking at meters by downtown workers, not raise the meter rates. How about more enforcement of the 2 hour limits? If the same car is at the meter after 2 hours, even if they have put money into the meter, then ticket the car. Mark the tires and enforce the meter limits. If they are there after 4 hours, tow them. Why should legitimate shoppers to downtown have to pay increased prices for the lack of enforcement to the "all day meter parkers"? If you work downtown, then pay for a spot in a structure. Unless AA keeps the parking meter rates low, people will stop coming downtown to the restaurants and businesses. Period. And the rates are already too high. I thought the idea was to get more people to patronize downtown establishments, not discourage them!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 1:56 a.m.
Glad to see that some people are more than happy to decide how other people ought spend their money. Good Night and Good Luck
Tom Hollyer
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
If $1.80 an hour to park discourages someone from frequenting downtown businesses, it's fairly safe to assume that that person would not be frequenting them anyway. Park in a structure if you want to spend an hour or more downtown. While I agree that the first hour or two should be free, I still fail to see why this change seems to be causing so much angst.
citrus
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.
If raising the meter rates actually did move long term parking to the garages, then this might be a good thing. But will it? They are also raising the garage and permit rates. The meters are already expensive, and people still park there in spite of the cost because there are other factors that are more important to them in that moment they are choosing parking--need to be close to load/unload, too late to drive to the top of the garage, don't feel safe in the garage, don't like the smell of puke in the garage, or they are lazy--whatever it is. The DDA's trying something, and maybe it will work. I don't believe this increase is going to move many people to the garages.
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
The lot rules are nasty too. I was in a lot, not a structure and had to wait just a couple minutes for those cars in line in front of me. I ended up paying for another hour, maybe half hour, because I was in line waiting. In the structures you can wait so long to end up paying a lot more for your waiting in line time. Happened once in the Maynard/Thompson structure. I had to wait forever until another driver even let me in the line to wait to exit.
Arno B
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
Well it is amusing to see that Joe Morehouse refers to this as a "Pilot Program". It actually looks more like a "Temporary Government Program"! I personally think that it is starting to dawn on the deep thinkers at the DDA that there is no way that the Black Hole (euphemistically referred to as "The Big Dig") is going to be paid off by parking revenues. My guess is that this will become highly obvious in about two years after it starts operating; now is an opportune time to soften up the public. Too bad that our ex-financial wizard Roger Frasier is now in Lansing to work his magic. His main mantra for a long time was "We need more Density". I think that he would be against this parking rate increase since it would encourage less density and increase the cost of doing business in Ann Arbor. By the way, he (and his like-minded cohorts) never have explained the virtue of jamming more and more people into a fixed space to arrive at "more Density".
Mmelendez
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
I have been working and living in the Downtown Ann Arbor area now for 14 years. I had the oportunity to move back to Nashville for a year and did so. I moved back to Ann Arbor for the culture and enjoyment of one of the best places I have had the chance to live. I purely believe in Ann Arbor as being an amazing and enchanting small city that has so much to offer. I am one of the people that thinks the change in the parking rates makes sense only to the DDA, in generating revenue for that organization. I can understand the mindset of wanting to flip the parking spots to encourage more people to park in the various spots. I think the planing is not as promising to the people venturing to the Downtown areas. With the economy getting better, but still being dull, we are probably going to miss more available action by people coming to the city from other areas. We do have, at least from my business standpoint, a nice amount of people that visit from other cities. There are pockets of cities from across SE Michigan and NW Ohio alone that come to this area due to the available entertainment and culturally rich aspects of our great city. We could see a loss with this traffic by adding more expense to their visits with higher parking costs. We could also see a change in the amount of local traffic by people who live close to the city (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) who would come downtown if it were not so expensive to just park in the city. From the talks I have heard and been apart of from a few years back up to this point, many Downtown Merchants, including the members of the MSAA agree that further hampering us by imposing more cost to people for coming to the Downtown area is going to do more harm then good. It is a time when we are all struggling for revenue, and striving to make the city a much better place to be, live and explore. These sanctions which are so controlled in part by the DDA are hurting this economy when we should be working to make it better.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
There's a "strategy"? The term implies that there's an end-state that the "strategy" is designed to achieve. So, aside from giving a bunch of businessmen an endless stream of taxpayer dollars with which to play, what is the end state that the current "strategy" is designed to achieve? How does the current "strategy" hope to achieve that end state? What would a new "strategy" look like, and how would it achieve that desired end state? Here's betting that any strategy adopted is one that puts a maximum amount of taxpayer dollars into the DDA's coffers, over which the taxpayers have almost no oversight or influence. Time to disband the un-elected and un-accountable DDA. Good Night and Good Luck
Mick52
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
Not sure this plan will allow more turnover when people can pump more money into a meter. Especially with the new meters where you can phone in some more time on your cell phone. How is that going to turn over the space?
jcj
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 3:02 a.m.
So says you! Actually I pretty much agree with you on the DDA issue.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 1:38 a.m.
"Street parking should be for short term, quick turnaround needs, not spending an evening downtown." So says you. I'd like to hear why the DDA finds it necessary to raise parking rates when it has a $9 million annual surplus from parking operations. "Whenever I long for the days of listening to a scratched vinyl record repeat a lyric endlessly, I read one of your posts." Glad I can give you what you want. "Look out you might be mistaken for a teapartier!" Not hardly. Teapartiers are more than happy when businesses feed at the taxpayers' trough. Good Night and Good Luck
Tom Hollyer
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:29 p.m.
Whenever I long for the days of listening to a scratched vinyl record repeat a lyric endlessly, I read one of your posts. The "end-state" as you call it is more rapid turnover of on-street parking spaces. This is a laudable goal. The limit should be 1 hour, not 2. And they should enforce it until 1opm or later. If you want to have a leisurely dinner in a downtown restaurant, or stroll the streets and check out a few shops, park in a structure. Simple as that. There are always spaces available in structures within 2 or 3 blocks of any downtown destination. In case you are unfamiliar, you can find them at Ann-Ashley, 4th-Washington, 4th-William, Maynard St., Forest-South U, and Tally Hall, not to mention several surface lots close to downtown. Street parking should be for short term, quick turnaround needs, not spending an evening downtown.
jcj
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
"Time to disband the un-elected and un-accountable DDA." Look out you might be mistaken for a teapartier!
HENDRIX242
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
The DDA, Mayor & City Council's willingness to ignore the impact of the Library Pit on Jerusalem Garden & Earthen Jar would have never have happened if it was Google or a Main Street Association restaurant. The DDA does not consult with business owners who are not affiliated with recognized associations or have deep pockets. The DDA does not even contact business owners regularly about issues which may effect them, like these parking rate hikes, traffic or suggestions to improve the Art Fair (which needs a lot of improvement, it's not 1979 anymore). I was not contacted. I've been here for 10 years. No mail, no email, no survey, no personal visit, no consultation or advisement what so ever. The city can easily find me when it's time to pay my Personal Property Tax, but has no interest in hearing my opinion or informing me of ANYTHING that occurs downtown. Maybe if I was from out of town, an absentee landlord with a seven figure net worth; yes, I bet we'd be on a first name basis then. The DDA represent's Ann Arbor business about as well as the rest of our government; disconnected, privileged and unconcerned with people who are not like them or who cannot enrich or accumulate more power for them.
HENDRIX242
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.
I am a downtown business owner who refuses to pay to park. I work to earn money, not spend it. I park over a mile away to avoid paying over $1 an hour to park. I can use the exercise as well. But I find the DDA, Polley & Newcombe especially, disconnected from the day to day economic reality of most people. Most people don't want to park in a structure for a 20 minute errand. Most people don't come downtown to dine at $45 a plate dinner. Most of my customers come down to buy from a local business, not some chain or faceless internet black hole, to find something that is not like Anywhere USA or the darn maul (yes I misspelled that on purpose). I think the DDA has done it's utmost to discourage people from coming downtown, raising the rates just makes it worse. Have you ever seen the 4th / William lot full? Maybe on the rare Friday or Saturday. I have very rarely seen it full. The money pit on Fifth is another fine example. The last midtown surface lot, where one could park & hop out to take care of business; immediately & without burden. Take that away & you ruin the business of the quick buy: a pair of shorts at Sam's, picking up repaired jewelry at Abracadabra or a single book on hold at the Dawn Treader. Meter spots will ALWAYS be too far, too few for this purpose. Heaven forbid if you actually have to carry anything of weight somewhere. The library lot is a short-sighted, expensive boondoggle that has taken far too much time & inconvenience.
Jim Mulchay
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 6:57 p.m.
I probably don't read read the downtown AA news close enough but - Is there a long-term (10-20 years) DDA / city vision for the Main Street area? It seems (to me) like there are a strong body of active officials that might be in favor of making the "Main Street" area traffic free. I'm not sure if that is realistic, but if you plan a way - *for truck traffic to get "around" downtown, *develop well-lit, patrolled, free-parking lots (say Briarwood, Arborland, Westgate?) with *free or low-priced ($1 or less) shuttles running every half-hour to downtown and continuing until "downtown" closes for the night (employees need to get home, too) - you might have something innovative - is it practical? ask the business owners - not the "city planners". Also - you will have downtown parking of some type - make sure it is well-lit and well-patrolled - and affordable (to some extent) for the "out-of-towner". Right now it seems like a steady stream of "band-aids" and fix-its to the area with no real focus.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.
most commentors are commenting about townies/local shoppers/visitors of downtown. However many people from out of town do not have the option of taking the bus. This week I had people come to a2 from Detroit, Saginaw, Chicago, Toledo, NY, Boston etc etc, many here b/c of move in week for thier kids going to michigan, parking downtown was a concern for many, the popular questions are "how well is parking enforced around here?" "can you make change for the meter?" "parking is really high here!" that doesn't even count the numerous people who visit A2 from around the state who aren't here for a particular reason other than to check out A2.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
they couldn't budget then, they can't budget now, they won't be able to budget later. Don't give them anymore funds to move around in a shell game (and not budget). do away with the DDA. as a downtown business owner I can say that without a doubt parking rates HURT business, and yes, people come in and look at their watches and make comments about having to leave before getting a ticket, just as Selo said above.
Jim S.
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
Do you remember the state of the parking structures before the DDA started managing them in the 1990s? They were unmaintained, and in terrible condition—I wish annarbor.com had a searchable archive of Ann Arbor News articles documenting all of this ca. 1996/1997—and to its credit, the DDA turned that situation around. I'd prefer to see that system of checks and balances in place than to go back to derelict parking structures. My parking experience in A2: - I worked downtown for 10 years, parking in structures (Tally Hall, 4th + William) - I continue to shop and dine downtown, mostly parking in structures, occasionally on the street If we do tiers, I'd rather see them be time-based: less for the first hour , more for the 4th hour.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 5:49 p.m.
"Meters should be expensive," Clark added, expressing support for the tiered pricing structure. "Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise, myself included." Ah, the voice of the controlling government -- MAKE people do whatever the government thinks is good for them. Why not look at HELPING people do what THEY think is in their best interest including shopping and dining downtown. We are competing with other municipalities and with surrounding shopping centers featuring free parking.
Goober
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
This approach by DDA is unfortunate, but consistent with what we would expect from our city leadership. The mayor, past city administration personnel and all city council members believe in tax, spend and waste. Too many unanimous votes on spending matters and waste projects for anyone to feel comfortable that true differences in opinion are being debated and decisions made in the best interest of Ann Arbor tax payers and businesses. Until the slate is wiped clean of all incumbents replaced by citizens that truly believe in the best interest of all Ann Arbor citizens, I believe we are stuck with a continuation of this – tax, spend and waste.
Guinea Pig in a Tophat
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:58 p.m.
'Meters should be expensive,' Clark added, expressing support for the tiered pricing structure. 'Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise, myself included.'" This is cracking me up! Clark just called a lot of people a bunch of fatties.
SalineBob
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
Since U of M is the Harvard of the midwest then why not charge the same as Boston? Whatever the market will bear. If the guy from New Hampshire can afford out-of-state tuition for this daughter then he can afford $2 an hour to park here.
Tyler
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
While tax dollars go to pay for the roads and maintenance of these roads and then the DDA charges people to pay to park on the roads that they paid for in the first place? Does this seem like a scam to anyone else?
Amanda
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
As much as I can try and understand why the DDA is doing this, I find it hard to get on board with their ideas because of the HUGE negative effect it has on my job. I work downtown, and it's already infuriating to know that unless I find a free spot (which is rare) I'm going to be losing $1.20/hour from what I make. I often work at night and don't get out of work until after midnight, so the last thing I want to do is walk several blocks down a dark street, or into a poorly lit parking structure alone, especially with the sexual assaults that happened early last month. In my case, it's a safety issue,as well as a financial issue. Getting rid of free, all day parking spots is something I have a HUGE problem with - I mean, does anyone really use those spots down at Liberty Lofts any more? Every time I drive by there are only 2 or 3 cars in a space that used to be full. I don't know about the DDA, but when you're making $10/hour, and have to pay for things like rent and a car and student loans, I can't really justify losing close to $2/hour. They need a solution that will help downtown workers 1)find parking, even if it is in a structure and 2) have affordable options. I wouldn't mind walking an extra block or two to work if my colleague and I are parked in the same area and only pay 50 cents or a dollar an hour, or $3 flat rate. There has got to be a better solution than raising parking rates and extending hours, which I firmly believe will hurt the downtown community more than help it.
bill
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
Why doesn't the DDA work with merchants to help provide parking for all of the employees who park downtown. The employees of business take up the lions share of parking. The DDA could provide a lot outside of town and use AATA to shuttle employees in. Most merchants already use the program set up by AATA to provide bus transportation for their employees. If they aren't using the program they should be required to dop so. AATA would only have to provide shuttles during peak come to work leave times. Get rid of employee parking and we don't have a parking problem. Also consider Valet parking at all ramps. This would make parking safer,and more efficient to program long term or in and out times. Try some ideas and maybe rates don't have to be increased
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 5 p.m.
The DDA is the main funder of the getDowntown <a href="http://getdowntown.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://getdowntown.org/</a> program, which does much of what you describe.
johnnya2
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.
The shuttle is great EXCEPT, what do YOU consider peak times? M-Friday business hours? What about the people who work in the restaurants and bars. Do you want your daughter riding a shuttle after getting off work at 2 am. Who do you suggest pay for this lot on the outskirts of town? Where will this be? Should it be in Briarwood area, which will then leave every person who lives north of the city back tracking to get to work. Should it be on the west side and then every Ypsi resident who works in town is taking an extra 30 minute commute time.
Tom Teague
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
I've experienced outrageous parking rates in unexpected places, so I don't believe that comparing city sizes and parking rates provides an answer. From my block circling and structure climbing experience, there's simply a lack of convenient parking in downtown Ann Arbor. I just don't see how raising the meter and structure rates helps since we will still have the same finite resource no matter the price (I'm ignoring the future impact of the Library Lot when I say that - let's see how it goes after it's been operating a couple of years). Also the timing of this increase seems particularly cruel given the double economic downturn that is straining many business owners and workers. Finally, before we throw out the DDA bathwater, we should take a deep breath and ensure that the agency or office that takes over the responsibilities is in place, up to the challenge, and has the proper oversight. If you really want to depress downtown visitors, try letting the structures and lots fall into filthy disrepair because the parking revenues have been spent on other political priorities. As a rule, the Ann Arbor lots and structures are clean and well maintained. Take a short drive and park at the DIA for an afternoon if you'd like to compare and contrast.
Alum
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:14 p.m.
Who does the DDA think it's beholdin' to? Each other? If this was an elected board, there would be all new faces very quickly.
schrodster
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:14 p.m.
I'm trying to understand why the DDA needs to raise parking costs YET AGAIN. We townies have been footing ever higher parking prices over the last few years and it's already getting beyond what I can casually spend. Keep in mind that the DDA board is appointed by the mayor and is relatively independent. I suppose they can hike up the cost of parking if they want - as far as I can tell, it doesn't require approval from City Council and certainly not from voters. But maybe with enough public outcry, we can convince them that this is bad idea - or that they need to make a better case. Some facts: The parking system has about 7,100 spaces, which generate about $16 million/year. They've just hired a fifth employee (why?). They started managing parking for AA in 1992 and that's when they put money into maintenance of the system and I'm guessing what's paid for the nice new garages and upgrades we've seen in recent years. The city gets some of the parking revenue - $1-2 million depending on what they end up negotiating for 2012. It appears that in addition to the parking revenues, the DDA gets $3.9 million from tax revenues (from my exhorbitantly high property taxes?)/year. The DDA is funding many of the big project we see downtown...that's the positive. But parking costs are already too high. I and many other people I know DO NOT go downtown because of the already high cost of parking; public transport options are not sufficient. The current rates are ridiculous for a town our size. It would be more palatible to charge less for more of the day (until midnight). For those of us doing regular shopping e.g, farmer's market, gift shopping, it is already difficult to think of going downtown for that. I'm considering going to Dexter's or Ypsi's farmer's markets because of the cost and hassle of parking in my own town. Raising parking prices in this economy is just plain stupid and I don't see a compelling reason to do so.
Lou Perry
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
The DDA's focus on parking demonstrates the dysfunction of the association. DDA's spends no effort to increase town human traffic to enhance business success. Having higher parking fees than Madison, WI, Austin, TX, and other college towns shows mismanagement and soaking folks parking because they can. Can someone tell me why they need to raise the rate? Moreover, can anyone tell me besides building parking structures what has DDA done to better the city? Where are the mini-training sessions for new individual businesses so they have a better chance of survival? How are they promoting the downtown beyond Washtenaw County? DDA is spoiled by football Saturdays and UofM traffic. Parking revenue a lifeline but for/to what? We sit next to one of the richest counties in America – Oakland. What has DDA done to drive business to AA? What has DDA done to bring consumers to AA besides football, art fairs and UofM events? When we have downtown events no one outside the neighborhood are told about them. And of course very little of DDA's money is given to the City.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
Football, Art Fairs and the UM bring many people to Ann Arbor. All of this was here and in the mix before the DDA. The DDA has nothing to do with those things except to bring in money thru the parking system.
johnnya2
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
1. One of the reasons parking fees are popular is BECAUSE it is a fee given to those who use it AND some of those will likely be employees of the UM (who pays no property tax) and many out of towners 2. The alternative would be higher taxes to pay for the surface lots and garages OR the businesses in the area would have to have their own lots. Imagine that cost. How many spaces does the Ark need and they will need to upkeep it themselves. 3. There are 110,000 people who will descend on Ann Arbor for 8 Saturdays this fall. They will pay over $40 to be close to the Big House, $25 to be a bit further away, AND maybe $10 to be even further. If you do not want to pay, you can walk or take a cab or bus. By comparison parking meters are a bargain.
Guinea Pig in a Tophat
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
U-M employees have the pleasure of paying ~$70/month to park in a blue lot. Many of us try not to move our cars during the day unless we have to, parking's expensive enough. Even with that cost, there's no guarantee there'll be a spot left we get back from lunch.
johnnya2
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.
Oh, btw, UM employees park at meters every day,. They go to lunch on Main Street. They go out for drinks after work. They shop at stores in town.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
I doubt that many UM employees or game attendees park at meters. A lot of parking is done on people's yards. $10- $20 parking for all day where you can also tailgate. Local neighborhood free street parking is bumper to bumper on game day and a short walk to the stadium is a bargain compared to meter or structure parking .5 to 1 mile from the stadium. I doubt that you live here and do not welcome your suggestion for more taxes from an outsider.
simply amazed
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
Thank you for my morning chuckle. Seriously? First, this is not Boston. It's Ann Arbor. Take off the rose colored glasses please. Who in their right mind could possibly think that parking in Ann Arbor can even remotely be modeled/compared to parking rates in Boston. Who googled that one to come up with a parking rate thinking that announcing Boston's $2.00/hr meter rate has any relevance to Ann Arbor? Those cities aren't even on the same playing field. Please stop. Second, so those guys and gals out there chalking tires, punching plate numbers into those handheld machines are just pretending to assess tickets for people staying over 2 hours? After having worked downtown for 10 years and watching out my window the number of tickets I see written for those that exceed 2 hours of parking (when clearly there is time on their meter), you can't tell me that employees that work downtown are parking for 8 or 10 hours at a meter. Not a chance. And if they stay in a spot after having received a ticket, those tickets just keep piling up on the windshield..and they aren't cheap. How many employees that work a full day aren't bright enough to park in a structure? There is no point in working if you spend it all on tickets. I'll give you the point that indeed employees park at meters, but there are many professions downtown that require an employee to just be in the office for an hour or two at a time and drive off to their next meeting outside of downtown paradise. Oh, and I guarantee its not waitstaff that work a 4 or 5 hour lunch shift hogging up those primo meter spots. Finally, I'd like to thank the DDA. After this "elevated rate, multi-tiered, DDA taking over the parking" proposal came out in AA.com a couple months ago, DDA gave us a financial reason to move. Cost of doing business just surpassed "we have to live with it" and has reached "are you nuts". After 40 years of working and supporting downtown, with a sad heart w
simply amazed
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
with a sad heart we say, "ooooooo, cya".
mtlaurel
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
with borders leaving, who is going to put up with this and for what? $15.00 minimum to eat out,...add parking and the general public no longer can partake.....I thought downtowns were to be for all citizens.
lindsay erin
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
Interesting point. Ann Arbor is unique for its people--what happens when only certain people (people with $$$) can afford a night downtown?
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
It could be if there was an open public square for people instead of more parking structures and conference centers.
Lifelong A2
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
As usual, the comments here reflect an angry politically-conservative constituency that doesn't live in -- or understand -- Ann Arbor City. Here's a solution to those who think parking meters are too expensive: park in the garages. There's lots of them. They're located everywhere downtown. They're cheaper. You can stay as long as you want and never get a ticket. They're staffed by human beings. You can use a credit card.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
You're wrong. I'm progressive/liberal, lived in Ann arbor for 40 years, worked professionally in the city for 37, and I think the parking situation here is confused, contradictory, anti consumer and pro bureaucracy.
DonBee
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
The increase can be tracked back to two things directly: 1) The city's desire to have more revenue from the DDA. $1 million a year was not enough, now they want $2 million and next year $3 million? 2) The city's desire to turn the library lot into a massive new structure. Call it the "Mayor's Folly". It was not the DDA members who wanted this, but the Mayor and his cronies. Yes, when the economy was growing like crazy, it was easy to see a use for the lot that offered way more value, now that the economy has cratered, there is no justification. So you can thank the City Council and more directly the Mayor for these parking price increases.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
We can also thank the mayor and his cronies for their UNSUSTAINABLE vision of development in Ann Arbor.
Tintin Milou
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Parking rates in the city of Tubingen: approx. $3 per hour. And the businesses are flourishing because people simply walk or bike there. If you are complaining about high rates, simply stop going there by car. Take your bike, which is more fun and saves you money.
say it plain
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 5:19 a.m.
Exactly, @Mr Blue! Plus, Tuebingen much better infrastructure for riding bikes as well lol. Not merely the addition of scary-to-use narrow lanes beside cars, like the bike-advocates around here seem to be satisfied with, but roomy lanes separated from the pedestrians but also well-separated from cars in the roads, perfect. *Then* you can ask people to do lots more biking, because only then does it seem like fun and less like dangerous mess. The roads in Ann Arbor are scary enough for cars as well, what with all the awful potholes...
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
If downtown Ann Arbor, or any business district here in Michigan, had to depend on walkers and cyclists for the majority of their income, most of them would be ghost downtowns. European cities have better public transit, are generally more dense by design and regulation and their governments encourage and subsidize their efforts to promote less travel by auto. It's a completely different situation than cities in the US.
Go Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2 p.m.
"To be a more sophisticated parking system operator, we should begin to think more like the airports," Pollay said. "When you go to the airport, everybody wants to be at the curb, but you can't all be at the curb … so they developed strategies." This statement says it all, and for this wisdom the salary to go with the position is of $94000? Here's a hint - we are not an airport nor should our parking situation be addressed as though we are. Seems like the entire parking scenario in Ann Arbor is nothing more than a self perpetuating money grab. Make it, so they can all have a title and salary with zero consideration to the shops and restaurants. The majority of the DDA should consist of the people it impacts, the merchants, restaurant owners and the general public and truthfully, none of the positions should be paid.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
The purpose of every bureaucracy is to ensure it's survival. The DDA proves the point with every idea, proposal and project that they ram down the throats of Ann Arbor residents. Too big to fail? I hope not.
jrigglem
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
Wow, wow, wow. I was going to state that the meters in Ypsi were only 75 cents for an hour but that I'm sure not many people spend much time down there. But to see that the nicer cities in Metro Detroit only charge 50-75 cents per hour makes me think that the DDA has lost it's mind. To think the rate is as close to the cost in a big city like Boston is absolutely absurd. Wake up DDA! You are not a big city, you're not even close to being as nice as Ferndale or Royal Oak, you really need to realize who your demographic audience is. I think in the long run, the DDA will lose more money because parking is too high.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
I'm going to start parking my (one) car in front of my home with a sign on it reading, "Will move car for your parking pleasure. $10".
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
Hey kids! Let's go into debt and build another parking structure that will charge prices so high no one will use it!
Twanders
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
Really DDA? this is Ann Arbor not NYC or Chicago. I think the DDA needs to check themselves, their ideas are getting worse and worse. I dislike them immensely!
Steve Borgsdorf
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
It is not at all clear to me that the DDA is can legally control parking anyhow, its contracts with the city notwithstanding. Downtown Development Authorities are creatures of statute and their powers and sources of funding are specifically outlined in MCL 125.1657 and 125.1661. Enlightenment requested. And speaking of the statute, the purpose of DDAs is to promote economic development of downtown business districts, not to promote the economic development of the DDA itself. If the downtown businesses are opposed to increased parking rates the DDA should--must--listen.
Bill
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
The neglect of the parkign structures are just another example of the overall neglect of basic services in Ann Arbor. This will not change until the mayor and city council are changed and basic services are placed first before pet projects and public art.
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
The DDA assumed this task as an additional responsibility at the request of the city council, at a time that our structures were crumbling after decades of neglect.
lindsay erin
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.
If they're going to hike up the prices of the parking downtown, the least they could do is use some of the money to install lights in the residential neighborhoods that have free parking so I don't feel so terrified walking back to my car at night with a serial rapist on the loose.
Top Cat
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
I can go out for dinner in Ypsi, Dexter, Chelsea and Whitmore Lake and not pay a cent to park. These people need a reality check.
trs80
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
Blue, the cost of gas for a meal outside if AA is no where near the inflated cost of dinning downtown with the increased cost of parking. Be a bigot on your own time.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
It's good to know that you have enough disposable income to put gas into your car to go out for dinner a distance from your home.
Ariel
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
We should all just park in blue lots after 5pm and residential streets from now on.
amberherself
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
Considering the parking prices ALREADY effect my decisions to go downtown, it will most definitely keep some people away for good. Ex. If a movie is screening at both the Michigan Theatre and Rave Cinemas I always go to Rave. I really don't like having to include $2-2.50 parking cost as apart of my cinema ticket but that's the way it goes.
A2Realilty
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
The bottom line is this: Parking does not add meaningful value to any entertainment activity. No one is coming to Ann Arbor to bask in the glory of the parking spaces. If Ann Arbor and the DDA wants to maximize business development, parking should be made as easy and inexpensive as possible. Hiding behind the notion that raising the rates to absurd levels will increase spot turnover as the justification for these changes is pathetic. It's to wring money from everyone, plain and simple. If the goal is to assist the downtown businesses while making sure that parking is available to everyone then they could simply allow businesses to give out parking vouches for 2-3 hour blocks of time when a purchase of a qualifying dollar value was made. The businesses, by the way, shouldn't have to pay for these and a simple method to prevent abuse could be used. The DDA's approach is going to discourage people from going downtown for meals and shopping. This does anything but "develop" the "downtown"; given that these are two of the three words in the DDA's name, I thought that this is what they should be supporting instead.
Jim S.
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
Anneke's Downtown Hair Co. does up to 2 hour validation, and it makes it easy to continue frequenting their business.
KJMClark
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.
We had validated parking. Almost no one liked it or used it. It's like the RecycleBank program - only a few people took advantage of it, so they scrapped it. Saved me some money though :-) Come to think of it, it's time to print my monthly RecycleBank coupons!
BigMike
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Clark, for looking out for my waistline. I have a better idea. Let's abolish the DDA and reduce the parking rates by the amount saved on their salaries.
paul wiener
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
Absolutely it will (would) affect my coming downtown to shop, eat and attend events.
Tom Joad
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.
Palo Alto, CA has FREE 2 hour parking on its downtown streets, YES, FREE. The 2 hour limit is rigorously enforced by meter readers who carry a hand-held device that clocks every car's time via license plate reader. No fumbling for change. Businesses there prosper and benefit from this generous system. If you exceed the 2 hour limit the meter reader issues you a parking ticket. They have your number so you can't repark in the same color-coded district. The system works beautifully. Ann Arbor could well do the same. The infrastructure and logistics of managing coins and payment on meters is completely eliminated, a real cost savings. Also, NO unsightly meters on the sidewalks, either. The boon to business is undeniable for merchants and customers
DonBee
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
I eat in downtown Palo Alto regularly when I am working in California, it is the most friendly place for someone from out of the area to find food and peace and quiet. In two hours, done right, you can do a lot. On the other hand, I almost never drive downtown. I find other places to buy my stuff or eat. I don't like parking meters (another form of taxes). Raising the price for the meters will decrease my desire to be downtown for any reason. With the flagship Borders gone, there is no major draw for me to come down to the city center.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
Getting a ticket, no matter the violation, isn't fun. Getting a ticket wouldn't be popular, but two hours free parking often enough time to get into a restaurant eat and get back to the car would be great. And the potential savings from not having to place, maintain and manually service a pay to park system would be helpful in the long run. Like everything else about owning and driving a car, people will learn how long two hours are and try to avoid a ticket. Those who can't follows instructions or are scofflaws will pay the price. I hope the ticket is at least $50.
KJMClark
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.
So we'd do away with the meters and write triple the number of tickets. Why do I think the increase in tickets wouldn't be popular?
Carole
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
Close down the DDA and put funds supporting them back into the city coffers. Free parking would definitely bring back a lively downtown area. But, I have assume once again, because many citizens are opposed to the parking hike and DDA as well, one will go in place and the other will stay in place. Sorry state of affairs when the city fathers do not listen the the citizens that they are supposed to be serving.
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:19 p.m.
This is the inevitable result of two factors: 1. Construction of the underground parking structure at 5th avenue. It was "designed" to be paid for solely out of parking revenues but is now causing the DDA to dip into its TIF fund. As I warned two years ago (<a href="http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/digging-ourselves-into-a-hole/)," rel='nofollow'>http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/digging-ourselves-into-a-hole/),</a> this has been disastrous financially. It also involved decisions being made about the Library Lot without a "robust public process". But the primary effect for now is that it has robbed the DDA of flexibility in many other areas. 2. The use of parking revenues to replace holes in the city budget. The city council has been drawing on the DDA parking revenues like a spare checking account. This has turned the purpose of downtown parking on its head; rather than providing parking as a service to enhance downtown business and other activity, it is being used as a "cash cow" to fund city operations. This is not the DDA's doing. Their policy until recently was to reinvest parking revenues into the system itself, and they have done an excellent job of managing the system within its budget until they launched into the 5th Ave project. Personally, I think their effort toward managing demand is a reasonable response to all the factors confronting them, and makes some sense in principle, too.
Hot Sam
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
"""The city council has been drawing on the DDA parking revenues like a spare checking account. """ Excellent point...sums most of this up...
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
Your reply assumes that parking should be a moneymaker. In the past, rates could be kept lower because revenue was plowed back into the parking system. Parking revenues were not used for other DDA programs.
KJMClark
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
As long as the city owns and has to maintain the streets, the city should get revenue from parking. Why should the DDA get all the benefit of public infrastructure for free?
mw
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
This is one of those cases where the DDA is in competition with downtown businesses for the consumer's dollar. Downtown businesses have to compete with shops and restaurants elsewhere that offer free parking. If the DDA extracts an extra buck or two from each customer, that's a buck or two that the businesses can't charge (or they'll start to lose customers on the margin). It's one thing to have high meter rates in the center of big cities, where it's difficult and time consuming to get out of the parking meter zone. But in Ann Arbor, I'm just as close to, say, Paesano on Washtenaw as to Gratzi on Main St.
AANEMom
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
This is ridiculous. I already avoid downtown because of the parking. This only makes it worse! I love the comment: "Meters should be expensive," Clark added, expressing support for the tiered pricing structure. "Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise, myself included.". He obviously hasn't had to tote young kids several blocks to a destination in the biting cold. I am all for exercise too and use the parking structures whenever I do dare venture downtown but the fact of the matter is, half the time when I try to use a structure, it's FULL anyways and then I spend 20 minutes driving around looking for a meter! I agree with the downtown merchants - I think this will hurt their businesses.
David Paris
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 1 a.m.
"He obviously hasn't had to tote young kids several blocks to a destination in the biting cold" You're right on Newcombe Clarke, he works downtown, lives downtown eats downtown. Great life, but no compassion for others.
Peregrine
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
Imagine being able to park within a block of your destination when you have your kids in tow rather than driving around for 20 minutes, wasting your time, wasting the kids' time, wasting gas, creating pollution, and adding to traffic congestion. If the price for parking were structured according to demand, there would be high turn-over in the most desirable spots.
Brad
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:02 p.m.
Any comments from the mayor or council on this? Hello?? And if you think the DDA is really giving you "political cover" on the parking issues, you're kidding yourselves. You're the ones that gave them the reins.
MjC
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:58 a.m.
I keep voting for change and Ann Arbor keeps voting the same people back in office (is it just a name recognition thing?). Re-elected officials believe they have the vote to continue making stupid decisions - like raising the meter parking rates in an attempt to force people to use the unnecessary underground parking lot!
MjC
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
And the DDA is appointed by and influenced by the City Mayor (who we keep re-electing to office!)
Carole
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Susanne, I believe you are right -- they are appointed by the Mayor I believe.
Susanne
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:19 p.m.
I was under the impression the DDA wasn't voted in, therefore we have little control over who is on it.
JHW426
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:29 a.m.
I never have a problem finding a space on the street or in one of the structures so this is only about raising revenue. I don't think this rate increase will not stop people who are going downtown to eat at a specific restaurant, however, I know it will stop me from going downtown on those evenings when I just want to go down to walk around and go into a few shops. There is no doubt in my mind, this will hurt downtown businesses.
kms
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
I think you're right on here. People will still pay when they want to have dinner at a particular restaurant but may think twice about about a casual stroll downtown. In fact, my husband frequently likes to take the kids downtown to window shop and get a coffee , ice cream or a treat from the Chocolate House on a summer evening. Those little outings have suddenly gotten a lot costlier....so probably will have to just go Dairy Queen.
KJMClark
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:26 a.m.
So complaint number one is that people can never find an on-street parking spot where they want to park. The DDA sees the problem, and realizes the only way to solve that is to figure out a way to encourage short-term parking in those spots. They propose what every city proposes to encourage turnover in on-street parking (read "more open parking spots"); raise the rates for those spots compared to longer-term parking. That's a perfectly free-market solution to the problem. The response? How dare you think about raising rates! We don't want a real-world solution! We want magic! Why not have double- or triple-deck on-street parking? All we have to do is magically levitate the first car that gets the spot. You know, put it about 10 feet up in the air. Then the spot is open for someone else, *and* we don't have to raise rates to do it. Just takes a little magic - why didn't the DDA think of that?
Phillip Farber
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
@talia Parking is a scarce resource. The standard for optimal availability of on-street parking is to have 80-85% of spaces occupied leaving %15-%20 open. Prices should be set to achieve these percentages. At $1.20 /hour it appears to me that on-street occupancy is %100 accompanied by a lot of fuel-wasting, pollution-causing, noise&traffic-creating cruising for open spots.
Twanders
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
I think the $1.20/hour parking rates already have the intended effect of urging short term parking at meters. Does the DDA wish all the meters to always be empty, maybe they want their pick of parking spots?
greenstriper
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:22 a.m.
I'm not sure that I care about what it costs to park downtown any more. The mess caused by the Library Lot parking crypt project has caused me to find alternatives to the places I used to go downtown. In the past two years, I've cut my visits downtown by about 80%. If I didn't have a post office box at Liberty Station, I probably wouldn't go downtown at all any more. At least now I've found lots of neat places outside of Ann Arbor that don't cause me to roll my eyes when thinking about trying to park.
kms
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
I, too, have greatly reduced my trips downtown since that Liberty lot mess. That used to be my favorite parking place...it was centrally located,I could always get a spot and it was easy to enter/exit. I hate slowly spiraling up parking garages. I will not use the new underground one. I no longer go to the downtown library and post office and have found other places to shop and dine as well. I've been going to the Northside Grill for breakfast and Casey's for dinner, two great places that have their own free parking lots. There's a couple new restaurants in Dexter that I will try before I consider heading to downtown Ann Arbor for dinner.
Silly Sally
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.
This is a perfect example of a city government that can't control its spending and costs. In the late 1990s, parking was 50 cents an hour. Now its 120% higher and scheduled to go even higher. Much of this money goes for unneeded structures such as the BIG DIG next to the library, and inflated executive salaries for elitiests such as DDA Executive Director Susan Pollay. DDA Board member Newcombe Clark shows his arrogance with his comment, "Make people walk, and lord knows we could always use exercise..." What an idiot. Not everyone lives downtown or desire to take a bus. On my way home, I sometimes stop by Arbor Brewing for a beer or perhaps stay there (or go elsewhere) for a meal. Now $2 parking doubles the happy hour beer. Stopping employees from hoging spaces all day is easy. Enforce existing 1 or 2 hour limits. The DDA should eb facilitating parking and ease of going to a downtown business, not social engineering.
David Paris
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
I was thinking the exact same thing on Newcombe Clarks quote, thanks for pointing that out!
Chip Reed
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 11:05 a.m.
Development means change. There is no reason think imagine that the DDA supports small business owners in any way. The concept of "highest, best use" doesn't leave any room for soulfulness, charm, etc. The whole concept of "progress" is having a tough time of it these days, with parents realizing that their kids' lives won't automatically be grander than their own.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
Thank those whose "vision" of Ann Arbor has, is and will continue to be UNSUSTAINABLE. The DDA tops the list.
jcj
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 10:51 a.m.
"Several downtown businesses owners and managers reacted with concern on Wednesday after DDA Executive Director Susan Pollay laid out a plan calling for a three-tiered pricing structure for parking meters in the area bound by State, Huron, First and William streets.? Does the DDA ever discus their bright ideas with business BEFORE going public?
Left is Right
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
Another example of groupthink from one of our many monoclonal committees.
HENDRIX242
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
No they don't. When Ali from Jerusalem Garden told her that his sales were down 20%, she replies with "stop b@@ching and buck up". Totally disconnected from reality. Vote in a new Mayor, get rid of her. The DDA only discusses some items with the Main Street Area Assoc. not ever business that don't belong to that. Newcombe is equally out of touch & greedy. Get rid of Hieftje. Get rid of the DDA. Bad for downtown, bad for Ann Arbor.
Mr Blue
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
No they don't. Their minds are already made up and any debate or discussion of policy of a publicly funded organization would only impede "progress". It's the same strategy that Hieftje and the Council Party use to cram stuff, like parking structures, Justice Centers, and Conference Centers down everyone's throat.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 10:30 a.m.
Ah, so 'downtown development' is really driving downtown customers and businesses away from downtown. Got it. And is it true the DDA Executive Director has a higher salary than the new Ann Arbor City Manager? Time to abolish this group once and for all.
Ross
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 2:43 a.m.
So your comment is completely inaccurate factually, and everyone still votes it to the top. Lemmings! Stop clicking arbitrarily and think a little bit first. Nonetheless, yes, the DDA sucks.
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Sep 1, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
The city is starting the new city administrator, Steve Powers, at $145,000 a year. The DDA director makes $94,689 a year last I checked.