I was thumbing through my city budget last night and I
came across something I had highlighted prior to
markup and had questioned in my mind.
If I understand the figures correctly, the city had
net revenue after expense of $1.8 million in 1998. By
1999 it shows net revenue of $124,000 and by the
Jordan Kushner
> I believe that in reality the increase for downtown parking meters is
> another regressive tax which will hurt people who have to drive downtown
> for work or personal business but cannot afford some of the outrageously
> expensive parking ramps (I noticed tonig a parking
This continues to be governance from the desert perspective. It seems that
our leadership wants to drive citizens with a hard wind and sand storm to
try and get them to do what they want. Increasing parking meter fees is not
the solution to increasing bus ridership! If the ultimate goal is to
in
Jordan writes:
> I believe that in reality the increase for downtown parking meters is
> another regressive tax which will hurt people who have to drive downtown
> for work or personal business but cannot afford some of the outrageously
> expensive parking ramps (I noticed tonig a
According to tomorrow's Star Tribune, price increases for downtown
parking meters are a "done deal." Jackie Cherryhomes announces in the
article that it's going to pass and calls it part of a "transportation
management system that makes sense." Lisa Goodman advocat
Parking meters are meant for short term parking and most of them have time
limits, however, since the hourly rate is often lower than the surface lots
or parking ramps, many people break the law by simply plugging them every so
often. My understanding is that the time limits are rarely enforced
center of the core and function alot like parking meters. They are
affordable for a couple of hours but get very expensive if you stay all day.
An example is the Dayton's Ramp. Then there are commuter ramps, which are
further out of the core and which are geared to people parking all day.
Us
The official position that people park too long at meters (undesirable)
and that they should be driven into ramps by (1) raising meter rates and
(2) removing meters is self-defeating. Yes, you will have fewer people
driving into the downtown area, but they also won't be doing business there
if th
nd correct the problem in advance, years ago. The
answer to the question is that we don't have foresight and this isn't the
solution to the problem. I do not buy Ms. Goodman's arguments. The traffic
jams are not due to cheap parking meters, they are do to an ineffective
council
year.
Meanwhile, parking in downtown Minneapolis has become prohibitively expensive,
except at long-term parking meters. The solution is to provide better mass
transit. Raising the rates at parking meters will only make going to work and
conducting personal business downtown more financially burde
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 2:53 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject:Re: parking meters
What struck me about the Strib article was Lisa Goodman's
comment that
increasing
What struck me about the Strib article was Lisa Goodman's comment that
increasing rates could encourage more people to use ramps and thereby
alleviate the congested downtown streets. To me, that flies in the face of
creating a more livable downtown.
In my uninformed opinion, raising the rates is
ticed something that stuck in my brain.
if i recall correctly, as recently as 1998, parking
meters returned a reasonable revenue to the city
whereas in the past two years they have barely broken
even. when i square this with the fact stated in the
strib this morning that rates have not increased
13 matches
Mail list logo
