Floreen floats parking tax proposal

Parking

Floreen floats parking tax proposal

by David Alpert • September 10, 2008 12:43 pm

Montgomery County Councilmember Nancy Floreen has proposed taxing business parking spaces in the county, reports the Gazette. The proposal would charge $250 per space per year, but give discounts to businesses if they make employees pay market rate for their parking, provide mass transit benefits, or subsidize parking for carpools.

Floreen plans to dedicate the tax revenue to transit, creating a reliable funding stream. It's still possible the county could reduce transit contributions in other areas, so the money wouldn't necessarily increase transit funding. The Council should commit to making these funds improve transit, such as by dedicating this revenue to new projects or service expansions which aren't funded today.

Besides the predicable reaction from business groups, there are some fair criticisms of the plan. Montgomery County requires businesses to build a lot of parking, even in dense downtown areas like Bethesda. To turn around and tax them for parking they may not have wanted to build is unfair.

At the very least, the County should relax or remove parking minimums so that future developments don't have to both build unnecessary parking and then pay to offset its environmental impact. Wayne Goldstein, of the Montgomery County Civic Federation (the same person quoted last week opposing accessory dwellings), recommends the same reform in the article.

The proposal also exempts local governments. Montgomery County and local jurisdictions ought to have the same incentives to encourage transit use as any other business. Plus, when legislators or agency administrators get free parking, they ride transit at much lower rates and see the world differently from their constituents who don't receive the same perks.

A dedicated revenue source for transit is a great idea. And coupling it with programs that encourage switching away from cars—a combination of carrot and stick—is a reasonable way to do so. It's just important to ensure the county isn't shoving businesses toward parking with one hand while wielding the stick with the other.

5 comments

Tags: Maryland, Montgomery, Nancy Floreen, parking minimums, parking taxes

Floreen shocked by tolls on project she supported (Dec 24, 2009)
Fund Ride-On, not subsidized parking, says Transit First (Mar 16, 2009)
Leggett: "Isolating revenue" via special districts is bad, unless for parking (May 15, 2009)
Floreen: Rockville works fine without LOS rule (Jan 21, 2010)
Floreen, Berliner vote to continue the cycle of sprawl and pollution (Jul 17, 2009)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Let the parking debate continue!

Rather than spend the money on nebulous "transit", spend it on the kind of stuff Shoup suggests in his book: Street furniture and trees, sidewalk improvements, wayfinding signs, etc. With "transit", you run the risk of political opposition because the money appears to disappear into a hole. If people can see, touch, taste and smell where their parking dollars are going, they're much less likely to oppose.

by Michael P on Sep 10, 2008 1:38 pm • link • report

It's a start. That kind of fits in with Montgomery's history. Good intentions. Spotty execution. I will be contacting the council as much as possible to try to repeal parking minimums rather than this more complicated proposal.

by Cavan on Sep 10, 2008 2:19 pm • link • report

Hear! Hear! Free employee parking is an implicit subsidy to those who drive to work. Taxing the parking spaces will help put driving on an equal basis with public transportation. My worry is that the initial tax will be too steep, as public transportation is still underdeveloped. Ideally, it should imposed gradually, so that workers can switch to public transit as it becomes available. Needless to say, a lot of details have to worked out to avoid perverse incentives, such as driving employment away from transit-rich locations.

by Chuck Coleman on Sep 10, 2008 8:34 pm • link • report

This seems like a really bad idea. What am I supposed to do if I own a business that already had parking spaces when I bought it, or if I was forced to build them when I built it? In fact, without removing minimums, wouldn't this force some businesses to build parking they don't need, and then tax them to discourage them from building it (even though they were legally required to)?

Taxes are a good way of changing short-term behavior. Tax orange juice and people will drink it less. Tax driving and people will drive less. Tax parking spots and people will... pay a fairly arbitrary (and significant!) tax.

I don't know much about performance parking beyond what's been I've read here and on streetsblog, but it seems to me that performance parking - parking minimums + parking maximums would be a more effective way of doing this that would also generate (less?) revenue and meet with far less resistance from businesses.

by Sam L on Sep 10, 2008 11:14 pm • link • report

Adding: Free employee parking is a problem. There are less blunt ways of addressing the problem though.

http://www.walkablestreets.com/cashout.htm

By making businesses decouple parking costs from rent/wages you can end the problem of non-driving employees/residents subsidizing driving employees/residents. I don't even really see how this tax does that.

by Sam L on Sep 10, 2008 11:27 pm • link • report