At some point we need to realize that every so-called manifestation of the Tea Party is nothing but rebranding. There have always been crotchety old white guys who have hard-ons for the founding fathers. Simply because they now call themselves the tea party doesn't mean there's more of them.

by Reid on Nov 19, 2010 9:36 am • link • report

Reid,

Agreed, you don't wake up one day a teabagger, but they did wake up and found each other on the internet. The numbers are the same, but now they can coordinate. If planners or community leaders retreat from tea partiers, then they were not doing their job in the first place.

by RJ on Nov 19, 2010 9:56 am • link • report

@Reid,

This fact doesn't get anywhere near enough attention. These guys have been around forever. They used to be called the "John Birch Society". Before that the "White Citizens Council", etc, etc, ad nauseum.

So long as there's been a *society* there've been collections of aggrieved reactionaries.

by oboe on Nov 19, 2010 9:57 am • link • report

In terms of employees using free street parking, who exactly owns street parking? The city -- or merchants? Is the purpose of pricing parking to allocate a scarce resource? To create turnover to promote business?

I'm sure every storefront retail wants an open spot right in front of them, but unless they are willing to pay -- a lot -- I can't see that happening.

by charlie on Nov 19, 2010 10:24 am • link • report

@Charlie: my model is that on-street parking is owned by the local goverment and managed for the benefit of the local land users and potential customers, by ensuring that parking spaces are available to people that arrive at their destinations and that no adverse street congestion impacts occur.

Sometimes this takes the form of off-street parking requirements like in many cities, sometimes it takes the form of resident permit parking requirements. Sometimes it takes the form of prohibiting parking and sometimes it takes the form of metering or permiting spaces.

In this case the city thinks it's doing something nice for customers (by giving them free parking) and therefore for the businesses that they'll patronize. This is probably related to a long-standing tradition ("We've always done it this way!")

What happens in a lot of these cities is that parking availability gets worse. Leesburg did this a couple of years ago (free parking for the holidays) and they found that some cars stayed for two entire weeks.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 19, 2010 10:45 am • link • report

I think that raising RPP fees is a good idea, including a graduated cost system based on number of vehicles. But there are some other reforms needed:

--smaller RPP zones than the current Ward system (which allows people to drive up to several miles to park on the street in neighborhoods near Metro stations, thereby taking up all the street parking).
--charge also for Visitor permits, and imprint each one with the holder's address; the current "pilot" program is rife with abuse, private school kids from MD and VA somehow winding up with DC visitor passes so they can park on the street near their schools
--end RPP eligibility for "reciprocal" out-of-state plates. DC law allows students and Congressional staff and others to live here but not register their vehicles. Fine, but if you want an RPP sticker, you should have to register your car (and pay fees) here.
--If TOD reduced parking minimums are implemented, do what Arlington does. If lower TOD parking minimums apply, exclude the new development from the RPP program so that on-site parking doesn't just shift to crowded nearby streets.

by Bob on Nov 19, 2010 11:11 am • link • report

As a new DC resident, the RPP visitor pass situation confuses me. MPD says to get a visitor pass, you need to go to the police station with the plate number, etc. of the visitor's vehicle. If someone's visiting for two hours, it makes no sense to run to the police station to fill out a form to get them a parking permit. But if you live in an RPP neighborhood, they might not have anywhere nearby to park.

In Arlington, rather than an RPP sticker (which can only go on a specific car), a resident can get a hanging pass. For those of us who don't own cars, if someone visits, we can just give them the hanging pass. But DC doesn't seem to have that option.

by Gavin on Nov 19, 2010 11:40 am • link • report

@Mperkins; we've debated the "mythical" 85% number before. If I characterize your point, it is a more or less arbitrary line that is intended to maximize street parking use.

The reason I point out the conflicting goals is human nature: people want to park right in front of their destination. The 85% figure doesn't work for that -- perhaps the number needs to be 50 or 65% to make sure there are enough open spots -- rather than half a block down. That is doubly true is smaller downtown areas in small towns or small cities.

(In larger cities, I think people shouldn't mind blocking one or two blocks away and walking. But they've become more used to that behavior)

And I will gladly concede the inital Stoupian insight that charging for some parking increases turnover, and prevents the employee parking all day on the street.

But in the last example you sent in, it was retail owners complaining that gym customers were taking parking. Now, you've got gym owners complaining. My point it is really dumb for any city to decide WHO should be parking on the street -- customer, employee, whoever.

Now, I will admit my logic was tested last week when I saw valet operators taking free evening parking downtown. Namely, the spot I wanted to go the gym. Under my logic that shouldn't matter (cheaper valet means more restaurant traffic?) but that did upset me as much as seeing employees park for free upsets you.

by charlie on Nov 19, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

@ Gavin--

DC does have something akin to Arlington's hanging pass, the dashboard visitor pass that is a long "pilot" program in Ward 3 and perhaps some other wards. In theory, it's a good idea, for the reasons you mention. DDOT mails them free to households that are RPP-eligible, whether or not they have a vehicle or even request them. My point was that (1) DDOT should charge for them and (2) they should be imprinted with the address of the holder to assist in cracking down on abuse.

by Bob on Nov 19, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

@Charlie: 80-90% is a target which allows people to use most of the spaces while keeping some available for people to arrive.

Everybody wants to park right at their destination. Some destinations are going to have larger populations of "everybody", so we can't satisfy "everybody" regardless of what target we set. What we can do is use pricing to determine who *really* wants to park right on the same block as their destination, and who is willing to save maybe a couple of bucks by parking a few blocks away.

In the article today, I think the short-term business owners were complaining about people who might have worked in an office building or something.

I agree, the city should not be determining who is parking on the street. It's available, here's the price, if you're willing to pay, go for it. The prices will tend to make people with long-term parking needs to find other places to park (maybe a garage nearby has an "all day" rate that's cheaper than paying for four hours at a meter?).

I get upset when letting employees park for free all day gets in the way of customers who just want to park for an hour, and now don't have any options.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 19, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report

@Bob,

some parts of Ward 6 also are doing the pilot visitors parking pass program. Not sure how much of the ward is doing it; the ballparks around the neighborhood are now are their second year of the pilot. I don't have too many visitors that arrive by car, but it is handy to have when the parents stop by.

While there have been some problems with ballpark employees getting their hands on these visitor passes, a much bigger problem is the lack of enforcement of the posted parking restrictions. They will only come and ticket if someone calls and describes in detail each car that is illegally parked.

by Robin on Nov 19, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report

Bob, good to know that this is being attempted. Hopefully the "pilot" will soon expand to Ward 1.

FYI, the Arlington passes do print the passholder's address, IIRC.

by Gavin on Nov 22, 2010 10:54 am • link • report

Here's the scoop on the dashboard visitor parking pass pilots: all of Wards 3, 4, 5, and parts of Wards 1 (Mt. Pleasant) and 6 (Ballpark). Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to wait -- but it's good that this is moving forward.

by Gavin on Nov 22, 2010 11:02 am • link • report