Nah, they only build Octagons in Colerain.
Nah, they only build Octagons in Colerain.
Extending the parking 'till 9pm is a big pain for Reds fans. Meters are only valid for 1-2 hrs so how do you get parked and pay for it through 9pm when first pitch is at 7?
One would hope common sense would dictate, but you know what they say about common sense...
It's almost like they are rooting against people parking and going to games.
What I honestly don't get about this whole debate is why the meter times have to change. Why is it a deal breaker to keep them at 5 or 6pm? I haven't heard that addressed yet.
And is this a 30 or 50 yr lease agreement? At first I heard 30 now I'm hearing 50
My issue with it is that it'll discourage people from coming downtown and isn't that counterproductive? Sure they'll make more in parking fees but less in business generated taxes/money. It's hard enough to get my suburbanite brethren to go downtown. Once people hear about these $100 tickets and how there's no free parking, it'll really be a tough sell.
Additionally, the cash infusion is going to help balance the budget, develop a 30-story apartment tower and grocer downtown, and jumpstart the MLK interchange, creating jobs and economic development in the neighborhoods around the University and the hospitals. All things that increase the tax base.
--Right now when I go to a Reds game, I park on the street for free. I don't know that I'll have that option anymore if these meters stay on 'till 9pm. This is another tax I'll have to pay
--I believe Fountain Square is one of the garages that'll be impacted. It's the city garages that currently have cheap parking such as $1 for the first hr or whatever. It's not good for businesses to lose that perk. That's something that was started in order to help downtown businesses. If that was done to help bring folks downtown then it doesn't make sense to now say that "these are not the people the city should be focused on".
--This really hurts folks who live downtown and will now have to buy garage passes or something in order to park their cars. They've currently enjoyed the free parking after they get off work
--There's no telling if the MLK interchange or the 4th St project will ever happen because they rely on much more than this money in order to happen.
--This deal also includes extra "flush money" that the city can witter away and you bet they'll do exactly that. You don't want to give those idiots on city council drunked sailor money
My point is this: If you want to raise revenue by increasing parking costs, fine. Do it but do it openly. Don't sell it off. If this goes to a vote, it'll go down in flames.
-As much as John Cranley and the Republicans wants you to believe it, the Fountain Square garage is not impacted. It's funny to see Republicans so against privatizing something.
-Most people who live downtown have parking as part of their apartment or condo community. It will only impact their guests who have parked on the street for free after 5pm. The demand for center city rentals is off the charts right now and I don't think this proposal will curb it.
-The MLK interchange will happen. Gov. Kasich has made it a priority. This money will jumpstart it and allow the project to start much quicker.
Where to begin on this...
It's a quick-cash grab because the city's elected officials are too afraid of angering any portion of their constituents by cutting their budget to a sensible level. The overwhelming majority of the dollars generated by the sale of parking will go to covering budget gaps in 2013 and 2014 (~50-55m of the proposed ~95m cash influx). The budget gaps, however, are structural in nature -- the city is projecting deficits indefinitely into the future because they have too much money committed (mostly in salary/benefits of city employees) and not enough tax revenue to cover. This means that once 2016 comes, the city will once again be facing the exact some problem that is leading it to sell off the parking rights now: a multi-million dollar budget gap. The parking sale is just kicking the can down the road and hoping that someone else comes up with a brilliant plan in the interim to fix the situation.
So to recap this point, even if you're in favor of the idea of the parking sale, the dollars that COULD be used to fund long-term, revenue-generating projects within the city are being outright wasted to pay for salaries and benefits right now that will provide no long-term return on investment. It would be much better if the city finally (after years doing everything possible to avoid it) finally did something about out-of-control spending that is occurring at city hall.
Also, quickly, on some of your other points:
- This lease impacts the entire city limits of the city of Cincinnati, not just the urban core downtown (although the only benefits to the city will be seen downtown -- screw you to the neighborhoods who also pay property taxes and earnings taxes in the city). This means if you rely on street parking in Oakley or Westwood, get ready for more meters everywhere, longer hours on those meters, and higher prices as well.
- On the issue of apartment / condo parking -- even if you get a space given to you by the terms of your lease (and I'd contest the idea that "most" places give you a free space -- I can counter your anecdotal evidence by saying, accurately, that "most" people I know who rent within the city limits are not provided parking as part of their rental agreement), you still have parking issues for friends visting, girlfriends/wives, etc. Want to have friends over for dinner? Feed the meter. Family visiting from out of town? Feed the meter. Girlfriend spending the night? Feed the meter.
- I'd also disagree with your point that "the city shouldn't focus on X group of people" -- the city needs EVERYONE to buy into downtown. When you jack up parking meter prices and install technology that allows for aggressive enforcement (they're talking about installing sensors that alert when a space is occupied and, presumably, can notify a meter maid instantly when a meter is expired and a car is still in the slot), you're going to create a hostile environment downtown. People will choose to spend their money elsewhere at places like Kenwood and Rookwood, where the parking is free and you can spend all day shopping without worrying there will be a $100 citation on your vehicle when you come outside.
This deal is bad all around, and I can't fathom a single reason to support it unless you're a city worker who might lose salary benefits or a job if they don't use this money to fix the budget gaps. Even if you like the idea because it's an opportunity to grow downtown and use resources to "jump start" all of these projects (not pay for, mind you, but "jump start" -- there's no guarantee that any of these things actually get off the ground), don't you want ALL of the money going to those projects and not just whatever is left over after the city leaders buy themselves 2 years of budget solutions?
East Walnut Hills
That's a lot of neighborhoods benefiting. And it prevents layoffs of police and fire to balance the budget. I'm not a huge supporter of this deal and I don't like how quickly it's being rushed through but I don't think it's a "bad deal all around".
Yardhouse is set to open at The Banks next week, and just in time for opening day. It will have more than 150 beers on tap. Here's the impressive list: