The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Urban Neighborhoods => Topic started by: Lunican on October 29, 2019, 02:36:36 PM

Title: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Lunican on October 29, 2019, 02:36:36 PM
Quote
Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition

Quietly, former DIA board member Dane Grey has been pitching a deal for his company to take over city parking in Downtown Jacksonville - and to bring metered parking to Riverside and San Marco. While much of the focus has been centered around downtown, an obvious elephant in the room has been exposed. There has been little to no community engagement to introduce paid parking in neighborhoods outside of downtown with businesses, consumers and residents that don't want it.

https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/riverside-san-marco-parking-plan-draws-opposition/
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Fallen Buckeye on October 29, 2019, 07:06:28 PM
If DIA needs money, how about we axe the developer's cut of parking fees from the Lot J plan and give it to them instead?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: thelakelander on October 29, 2019, 07:15:07 PM
^This deal sounds like the only entity really making money is Elite. With better parking management, the DIA could likely do everything in the proposal without the need of a private operator.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: jaxlongtimer on October 29, 2019, 07:32:32 PM
Just look at the last lousy deal the City negotiated over parking garages at the Courthouse and Stadium complex.  Taxpayers screwed over with all the risk and none of the rewards (unless you like losses!) while the operators are guaranteed a profit.  Typical City deal gone bad.  No reason not to expect more of the same with this round.

Following the JEA model, Curry is probably looking for another big upfront payment to pay down the City's debt while giving up much more in potential annual parking contributions to the City.

The articles this week on Grey don't reflect well on him so will be interesting to see if Curry treads more cautiously.  He isn't looking good with scandals also at the Housing Authority and Kids Hope Alliance in addition to the his unpopular leader at JEA.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 30, 2019, 07:04:33 AM
Just look at the last lousy deal the City negotiated over parking garages at the Courthouse and Stadium complex.  Taxpayers screwed over with all the risk and none of the rewards (unless you like losses!) while the operators are guaranteed a profit.  Typical City deal gone bad.  No reason not to expect more of the same with this round.

The same people behind the Courthouse and Sports Complex garages (Metropolitan Parking Solutions, or MPS), who's $50 million in profits have directly come from taxpayers subsidies, are the same people behind this deal. The principals of MPS are the investors in Grey's company, and Grey's company handles the management of the MPS garages in Jax.

More info on MPS' dealings with the City (and this is just the tip of the iceberg):

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/downtown-parking-garage-company-failing-to-meet-contract-audit-says/969207134 (https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/downtown-parking-garage-company-failing-to-meet-contract-audit-says/969207134)

Quote
An Action News Jax investigation uncovered a new audit found the company in charge of some downtown Jacksonville parking garages is failing to meet its agreement.

The Council Auditor’s Office found MPS didn’t submit tranche requests and financial reports on time.

For example, the second tranche request for 2017 was 171 days late.

According to the audit, 23.6% of the cash flow reports between 2016 and 2017 were mathematically wrong.

The CAO said that showed the DIA was not reviewing the statements in detail.

The report said MPS failed to pay property taxes on time for the three garages since purchasing the parcels, resulting in late fees and interest totaling $480,998.

The Council Auditor said the expenses are avoidable and required the city to loan even more money to MPS.

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180728/city-of-jacksonvilles-cost-for-aiding-downtown-parking-garages-hits-47-million (https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180728/city-of-jacksonvilles-cost-for-aiding-downtown-parking-garages-hits-47-million)

Quote
One of the most expensive public-private partnerships in downtown Jacksonville hasn’t restored historic buildings or turned vacant land into apartment towers.

The hefty cost to taxpayers, running in the tens of millions of dollars, is for three privately owned parking garages.

The city of Jacksonville has doled out $47 million in loans to assist the owner of the garages near the county courthouse and the arena. Theoretically, the owner will repay the loans when the parking garages turn a profit, but the garages continue to lose money, so a deal approved in 2004 will require the city to keep shelling out millions of dollars a year.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way. When City Council approved the deal for private construction of a parking garage for the new Duval County Courthouse plus two garages by the new Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena, financial projections showed the city would only need to provide roughly $19 million until the private owner reached the break-even point for the garages.

Instead, the current $47 million figure is on track to keep escalating. There is no maximum amount in the agreement for the city’s obligation, leaving open-ended what the city’s costs will end up being.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Des on October 30, 2019, 07:41:42 AM
I like the idea of parking meters in Riverside & San Marco. I don't like the idea of a private company profiting off of it though... Is there not a way for the city to hire experienced staff to manage this themselves?

I work in Riverside and I'm in San Marco often and I'll frequently see the same car parked in the same spot for the entire day into the night. Perhaps parking meters will cycle people out and allow new customers to park?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: acme54321 on October 30, 2019, 08:00:55 AM
I like the idea of parking meters in Riverside & San Marco. I don't like the idea of a private company profiting off of it though... Is there not a way for the city to hire experienced staff to manage this themselves?

I work in Riverside and I'm in San Marco often and I'll frequently see the same car parked in the same spot for the entire day into the night. Perhaps parking meters will cycle people out and allow new customers to park?

I'd rather see time limited spots (30min, 1hr, etc) than have meters installed.  I definitely don't think the city should be locking into a 30 year parking agreement either.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 30, 2019, 08:13:52 AM
Is there not a way for the city to hire experienced staff to manage this themselves?

The City already has parking enforcement staff that enforces public parking policies.

I work in Riverside and I'm in San Marco often and I'll frequently see the same car parked in the same spot for the entire day into the night. Perhaps parking meters will cycle people out and allow new customers to park?

Technically, on-street parking in Riverside and San Marco commercial areas are free for two hours. After that, a citation can be issued. There is nothing stopping public parking enforcement personnel from enforcing these policies now.

Revenue collected from City-owned parking garages, metered parking and other various parking citations (which primarily consists of handicap parking violations since existing two-hour parking is not presently enforced in practice) is held in a specific fund for capital-related improvements.  There is presently enough money in that fund to upgrade meters or invest in other technologies to assist enforcement and other parking management related strategies.

Since the present mayoral administration made personnel changes in the management of public parking five years ago... revenues have been declining year-over-year... suggesting that there is a serious management problem that can be easily fixed- not some systematic issue that only private industry can solve.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 30, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
I like the idea of parking meters in Riverside & San Marco. I don't like the idea of a private company profiting off of it though... Is there not a way for the city to hire experienced staff to manage this themselves?

I work in Riverside and I'm in San Marco often and I'll frequently see the same car parked in the same spot for the entire day into the night. Perhaps parking meters will cycle people out and allow new customers to park?

I'd rather see time limited spots (30min, 1hr, etc) than have meters installed.  I definitely don't think the city should be locking into a 30 year parking agreement either.

Technically, these on-street parking spaces are time-limited to two hours. Enforcement of these existing limits has been non-existent for a number of years... leading to abuses. I see the vehicles of the same business owners parked in the same spots all day. Some business owners even illegally block off spaces for their personal use.  All of these practices violate current public parking policies.

With better management, and a comprehensive transportation demand policy in place... public parking can be dramatically improved in short order, without resorting to handing this function over to a private entity.   Here is a 2012 article that scratches the surface of the kinds of elements a comprehensive transportation demand policy may include:
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-sep-stirring-a-different-conversation-on-riversideavondale/page/1 (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-sep-stirring-a-different-conversation-on-riversideavondale/page/1)
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 30, 2019, 08:21:34 AM
You already know I think the City of Jacksonville is incompetent from top to bottom - and stupidity like this is why.

Okay, now you can beat me up for being negative and always complaining.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: acme54321 on October 30, 2019, 08:30:17 AM
Technically, these on-street parking spaces are time-limited to two hours. Enforcement of these existing limits has been non-existent for a number of years... leading to abuses. I see the vehicles of the same business owners parked in the same spots all day. Some business owners even illegally block off spaces for their personal use.  All of these practices violate current public parking policies.

Lol.  I've lived within walking distance of the square for 10 years and never eveb noticed.  A quick Google Map tour shows that everything in the square, except for the parallel spots adjacent to Balis Park and a few next to the AT&T building are all 3 hours.  I guess if parking is really an issue they should start enforcing the regulations currently in place!
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 30, 2019, 09:13:32 AM
Quote
Since the present mayoral administration made personnel changes in the management of public parking five years ago... revenues have been declining year-over-year... suggesting that there is a serious management problem that can be easily fixed- not some systematic issue that only private industry can solve.

Sounds like a self-created 'reason' to privatize something that could and should be done by the public sector.  Enforcing the existing rules would probably be more than sufficient for any issues in San Marco and Riverside.  DT could work the same way, and without charging for parking, but they will never give up the revenue stream because they don't see the bigger picture. 

The whole thing is just more of the rampant corruption growing like wildfire in JAX these days. 

Quote
The report said MPS failed to pay property taxes on time for the three garages since purchasing the parcels, resulting in late fees and interest totaling $480,998.

The Council Auditor said the expenses are avoidable and required the city to loan even more money to MPS.

This is INSANE !!

Why don't the reporters writing these stories ask John Peyton about how screwed up his plan is? 

Republicans bitch up a storm about food stamps for the poor, but they don't say or do a damn thing about this type of crony corruption that enriches the few at the expense of the public.   
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 30, 2019, 09:33:16 AM

Why don't the reporters writing these stories ask John Peyton about how screwed up his plan is? 


Grey's company has hired Sam Mousa as their lobbyist, the man responsible for the MPS parking garage deal while working for the City. Mousa consistently avoided the Inspector General from auditing MPS' records... until his retirement, which led to the audit and subsequent Action News story linked.  MPS has been milking the books for years.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 30, 2019, 09:37:03 AM
Quote
Since the present mayoral administration made personnel changes in the management of public parking five years ago... revenues have been declining year-over-year... suggesting that there is a serious management problem that can be easily fixed- not some systematic issue that only private industry can solve.

Sounds like a self-created 'reason' to privatize something that could and should be done by the public sector.  Enforcing the existing rules would probably be more than sufficient for any issues in San Marco and Riverside.  DT could work the same way, and without charging for parking, but they will never give up the revenue stream because they don't see the bigger picture. 

The whole thing is just more of the rampant corruption growing like wildfire in JAX these days. 

Quote
The report said MPS failed to pay property taxes on time for the three garages since purchasing the parcels, resulting in late fees and interest totaling $480,998.

The Council Auditor said the expenses are avoidable and required the city to loan even more money to MPS.

This is INSANE !!

Why don't the reporters writing these stories ask John Peyton about how screwed up his plan is? 

Republicans bitch up a storm about food stamps for the poor, but they don't say or do a damn thing about this type of crony corruption that enriches the few at the expense of the public.   

Maybe you mean the elected Republicans.  I'm just a lowly registered Republican and I hate corporate welfare just as much as individual welfare.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Captain Zissou on October 30, 2019, 10:15:22 AM

Why don't the reporters writing these stories ask John Peyton about how screwed up his plan is? 


Grey's company has hired Sam Mousa as their lobbyist, the man responsible for the MPS parking garage deal while working for the City. Mousa consistently avoided the Inspector General from auditing MPS' records... until his retirement, which led to the audit and subsequent Action News story linked.  MPS has been milking the books for years.

I thought Mousa was supposed to be one of the good guys.  This sounds like actual criminal activity.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Papa33 on October 30, 2019, 10:21:00 AM
"Drain the swamp.  I only hire the best."
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 30, 2019, 01:38:54 PM
"Drain the swamp.  I only hire the best."

This is why we need to get rid of the Strong Mayor format and move to a City Manager.  The day to day operations of the City need to be taken out of the hands of politicians, and all these review boards need to be stacked with activist and not political appointees who later want to do business with the City and/or the businesses they are supposed to be monitoring.  The whole thing is an cesspool.

I know I know - the strong mayor format works in City X - but who gives a crap - it isn't working here.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 30, 2019, 01:51:22 PM
"Drain the swamp.  I only hire the best."

This is why we need to get rid of the Strong Mayor format and move to a City Manager.  The day to day operations of the City need to be taken out of the hands of politicians, and all these review boards need to be stacked with activist and not political appointees who later want to do business with the City and/or the businesses they are supposed to be monitoring.  The whole thing is an cesspool.

I know I know - the strong mayor format works in City X - but who gives a crap - it isn't working here.

There is a City Manager/weak Mayor system in Tallahassee (and a separate County Commission, since Leon County and the City of Tallahassee are not a consolidated form of government, although of all counties in Florida, Leon is the poster child of needing a consolidated form of government). That checks all your convenient boxes on what's wrong with Jacksonville... and low and behold, corruption still happens.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-scott-maddox-tallahassee-plea-20190806-p6e63ky52jfkvh5sxkidmsjewq-story.html (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-scott-maddox-tallahassee-plea-20190806-p6e63ky52jfkvh5sxkidmsjewq-story.html)

None of that though, has anything to do with privatizing public parking in Jacksonville. Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 30, 2019, 02:00:19 PM
So what are the odds the City agrees to this?  I personally think paid parking should be extended to Riverside and San Marco with all parking converted to pay stations and the complete removal of individually marked parking spaces along streets.  If your car can fit you can park, if it can't, go look somewhere else.  However, I see no reason to let a middle man enter the mix.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 30, 2019, 02:27:35 PM
So what are the odds the City agrees to this?  I personally think paid parking should be extended to Riverside and San Marco with all parking converted to pay stations and the complete removal of individually marked parking spaces along streets.  If your car can fit you can park, if it can't, go look somewhere else.  However, I see no reason to let a middle man enter the mix.

The whole thing is a scam, and the powers that be stand to gain from it. I put the odds at passage at 95%. 
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Captain Zissou on October 30, 2019, 02:35:43 PM
So what are the odds the City agrees to this?  I personally think paid parking should be extended to Riverside and San Marco with all parking converted to pay stations and the complete removal of individually marked parking spaces along streets.  If your car can fit you can park, if it can't, go look somewhere else.  However, I see no reason to let a middle man enter the mix.

The whole thing is a scam, and the powers that be stand to gain from it. I put the odds at passage at 95%. 

I say 85% odds based on what neighborhoods this is impacting.  If this was for springfield and the eastside, it would have passed before the news ever got wind of it.  If San Marco raises hell, odds of passage are lower.  If they see this as a way to keep outsiders from sullying their beautiful neighborhood, odds of passage 100%.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Steve on October 30, 2019, 02:43:36 PM
So what are the odds the City agrees to this?  I personally think paid parking should be extended to Riverside and San Marco with all parking converted to pay stations and the complete removal of individually marked parking spaces along streets.  If your car can fit you can park, if it can't, go look somewhere else.  However, I see no reason to let a middle man enter the mix.

The whole thing is a scam, and the powers that be stand to gain from it. I put the odds at passage at 95%. 

I say 85% odds based on what neighborhoods this is impacting.  If this was for springfield and the eastside, it would have passed before the news ever got wind of it.  If San Marco raises hell, odds of passage are lower.  If they see this as a way to keep outsiders from sullying their beautiful neighborhood, odds of passage 100%.

I doubt it goes through in its entirety, and maybe not at all. I feel like the proposal works for Grey economically because of the inclusion of San Marco and Riverside. But, I can’t see them being for this at all and if it gets serious, watch them raise hell. I feel like even Curry himself wouldn’t be stupid enough to screw up San Marco and Riverside.

Then they may consider the proposal for downtown only, but likely the economics create a challenge.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: CityLife on October 30, 2019, 02:51:30 PM
I can't believe anyone would even think to make a proposal like this without heavily engaging the merchants associations and community groups in both neighborhoods.

An interesting case study would be the Beaches Town Center. AB and NB just implemented paid parking programs and the process was exactly the opposite of this. The Beaches Town Center Merchants Association spent years trying to solve actual parking issues by creating parking studies and parking management plans, before finally convincing the municipalities to implement a paid parking program.

Would be interesting to get the perspective of the BTCA President Jay Handline, who spent years working on getting community buy in for the implementation of a paid parking program, compared to how Jax is going about it.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 30, 2019, 02:56:12 PM
I don't see how San Marco or Riverside are negatively impacted in any way.  The City on the other hand would get screwed by not getting the full financial benefit.  Springfield should also be included.

For those who have more than a passing interest in paid parking I suggest you joing The Shoupistas group on facebook, read/watch The High Cost of Free Parking,  watch the Donald Shoup videos, and join the Market Urbanism group on Facebook.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: jaxjags on October 30, 2019, 03:06:00 PM
Be careful with parking privatization especially as it comes to San Marco and Riverside. As it now comes down to money and nothing but money, the managing company can get very cut throat without regards to the citizens or the merchants. I have had this experience at Atlantic Beach Town Center. My vehicle got towed over a non issue (long story). Neptune Beach mayor AGREED with me and tried to get me a refund, BUT had no control as it is privately operated. Even the merchants are not happy with the situation, BUT can do nothing about it. So if you want to keep your customers and merchants happy - BEWARE.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Steve on October 30, 2019, 03:48:42 PM
I don't see how San Marco or Riverside are negatively impacted in any way.  The City on the other hand would get screwed by not getting the full financial benefit.  Springfield should also be included.

I’d ask the business owners whether they think they’d be negatively impacted.

In terms of including Springfield, I think we all know why they aren’t: The finances likely don’t work for downtown alone. Springfield, while developing, likely would make it even worse. Riverside and San Marco on the other hand get Grey the volume he needs to balance the investment.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 30, 2019, 03:50:21 PM
I don't see how San Marco or Riverside are negatively impacted in any way.  The City on the other hand would get screwed by not getting the full financial benefit.  Springfield should also be included.

For those who have more than a passing interest in paid parking I suggest you joing The Shoupistas group on facebook, read/watch The High Cost of Free Parking,  watch the Donald Shoup videos, and join the Market Urbanism group on Facebook.

I see no benefit to Riverside or San Marco myself. I expect the merchants to fight it tooth and nail.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Charles Hunter on October 30, 2019, 04:07:58 PM
I don't see how San Marco or Riverside are negatively impacted in any way.  The City on the other hand would get screwed by not getting the full financial benefit.  Springfield should also be included.

On one of the many Facebook discussions of this, the owner of the Sun-Ray Theater has said he is likely to shut down if short-term meters come to Five Points.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Florida Power And Light on October 30, 2019, 08:27:26 PM
San Marco’s  formal initial response presented as efficacious,a certain Solid outlook and stance, Riverside / Avondale’s response eventually mirrored Backbone apparent across the River.

Regards neighborhood/ home street parking space charged.....why not simply pay a dividend to the adjacent home/ property owner.Toss that to General Counsel,for starters.
Hopefully this episode will soon Stop dia.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: avonjax on October 31, 2019, 05:33:48 AM
Just more incentive for people to shop and eat at SJTC.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 31, 2019, 08:16:07 AM
Business will actually improve, but some people would vote against tomorrow if they thought it might be different than today.  Nearly every city in America has paid parking in commercial districts but for some reason Jax is an anomaly.  If a business relies on a customer base that can't afford $1 hour to park their private property on public land then they should go out of business and make room for someone else.

Alas, if done correctly the price will be set so that 85% of parking will be used, thus ensuring that some amount of parking will always be available.  Also, a huge percentage of the customer base walks there or rides their bike.  Revenue from parking should go to improving sidewalks and bike routes (not profit to a private company).
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: thelakelander on October 31, 2019, 08:33:26 AM
Business will actually improve, but some people would vote against tomorrow if they thought it might be different than today.  Nearly every city in America has paid parking in commercial districts but for some reason Jax is an anomaly.  If a business relies on a customer base that can't afford $1 hour to park their private property on public land then they should go out of business and make room for someone else.

Other than personal opinion, what are your sources that business will actually improve?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Captain Zissou on October 31, 2019, 09:28:29 AM
Lake, he already answered your question.  He saw it on a youtube video.....

Also, a huge percentage of the customer base walks there or rides their bike.  Revenue from parking should go to improving sidewalks and bike routes (not profit to a private company).

Do you consider 5-10% to be a huge percentage?  I don't.  San Marco is an affluent residential area, but every business would close if the bulk of their customers came from within walking distance.  Residents of St Nicholas, Miramar, the Southbank, the Northbank, and Lakewood all rely on the square for dining and entertainment because it has things that our neighborhoods don't offer.  Likely none of us walk there, but a handful may ride their bike. I'm in the square 2-3 nights a week every week and I am always able to find a space, but sometimes after a lap or two.

The new pay to park policies at the beach have been an adjustment, but I'm happy to do it for the 1 or 2 days a month that i'm out there.  There they have a policy where if you are a local resident, you can register your license plate with them and you are exempt from paying.  Maybe residents of 32207 could get an exemption since that is our neighborhood commercial center. This won't happen if it's a private company, but it's nice to dream.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: CityLife on October 31, 2019, 09:57:21 AM
Be careful with parking privatization especially as it comes to San Marco and Riverside. As it now comes down to money and nothing but money, the managing company can get very cut throat without regards to the citizens or the merchants. I have had this experience at Atlantic Beach Town Center. My vehicle got towed over a non issue (long story). Neptune Beach mayor AGREED with me and tried to get me a refund, BUT had no control as it is privately operated. Even the merchants are not happy with the situation, BUT can do nothing about it. So if you want to keep your customers and merchants happy - BEWARE.

The NB beach mayor is simply 1 of 5 voting members of the City Council. She wouldn't have the authority to waive a parking ticket fee even if the program was publicly run, nor should she have that authority.

As I said in a previous post, the paid parking program was initiated by the Beaches Town Center agency and many of the merchants lobbied for it, including the two people with the largest financial stake in BTC businesses. Trust me I would know....

It's not an apples to apples comparison to R/A and San Marco, since part of the genesis of the problem was beach goers parking in public spots all day, thereby leaving no parking for business patrons. But as I said previously, the Merchants Association was heavily involved, and despite what Kerry is saying, the businesses in R/A and San Marco need to be heavily involved. Every community is unique and solutions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the community.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 31, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Nearly every city in America has paid parking in commercial districts but for some reason Jax is an anomaly. 

You mean, like the current Kerry flavor of the day.... Greeneville, SC?  Downtown, West Greeneville, etc are all two hour free parking.... just like Riverside and San Marco.

There is already a mechanism to effect consumer parking behavior in Riverside and San Marco (just like the alleged non-sprawling utopian you claim Greeneville to be after spending a few days there), it simply isn't enforced. Dramatically changing that policy would likely be foolish without first better utilizing existing tools to affect supply/demand. It's even more foolish to not include the people who live, work and own a business in those neighborhoods when considering such a dramatic, wholesale change to public parking and/or privatizing public parking.


Also, a huge percentage of the customer base walks there or rides their bike.

Considering the vast majority of restaurant sales are cashless, spending data reported by credit card companies would extrapolate a much different picture. Transaction data in Riverside, San Marco and Brooklyn are not primarily coming from people living in the 32205 or 32207 zip codes (if you assume that a person's billing address is the same as their personal residence).  I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that a 'huge percentage of the customer base' is walking or biking 45 minutes or more to buy bags of groceries at Grassroots, or a steak dinner at Matthews.


Alas, if done correctly the price will be set so that 85% of parking will be used, thus ensuring that some amount of parking will always be available.

That's nice that you can read an article by Donald Shoup, and somehow take that is a hard/fast rule without examining the context.
Curious, since your theory sounds well researched, how many public and private spaces exist in Riverside and San Marco now. How many transactions do these businesses handle per day? What is the parking turnover in both public and private spaces in Riverside and San Marco?

If a business relies on a customer base that can't afford $1 hour to park their private property on public land then they should go out of business and make room for someone else.

You seem to be assuming that consumers have no choice.  In reality, they do have a choice. Do you know how many people drive downtown (where parking is not free) from a nearby neighborhood (where parking is free) to eat lunch?  Based on parking garage data... very little.

Based on parking garage data that found a high number of people leaving downtown for lunch, we were able to open a business downtown that captured those people who otherwise chose to leave downtown during those hours.

There are theories, and then there is using data to form opinions.  Have fun with your theories.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 31, 2019, 10:56:37 AM
  There they have a policy where if you are a local resident, you can register your license plate with them and you are exempt from paying.  Maybe residents of 32207 could get an exemption since that is our neighborhood commercial center. This won't happen if it's a private company, but it's nice to dream.

There are 35 spaces in a City-owned lot in Neptune Beach that are free on a first-come, first-served basis for registered residents. On the Atlantic Beach side, registered residents are given a 50% discount.

It should be noted that, the first 30 minutes of on-street parking at BTC is free. That would average out to (slightly) less than the proposed $2/hour rates in the Dane Grey (and other investors who already make money off taxpayer subsidies) privatization proposal.

I think there is a case that can be made to increase meter rates in DT Jax to $2/hour. That money could easily pay for two-waying at least 4 streets downtown.

In the core of Downtown, parking meter utilization rates are well above 85%... meaning that supply/demand is likely not at an equilibrium point. On the outskirts of Downtown, meters are rarely used (and even more rarely enforced). The fact that these meters are still of the coin-operated variety, reflects that reality. A distribution problem exists Downtown, just as much as it exists in Riverside and San Marco. There's also no uniformity in price between private garages (which are full of mostly monthly parking) and public parking facilities.. another supply/demand optimization opportunity. This will be further exasperated when Vystar completes their move Downtown.

The picture is much more complicated in Riverside and San Marco, where there are many private parking lots that are vastly underutilized.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Tacachale on October 31, 2019, 11:14:20 AM
Lake, he already answered your question.  He saw it on a youtube video.....

Also, a huge percentage of the customer base walks there or rides their bike.  Revenue from parking should go to improving sidewalks and bike routes (not profit to a private company).

Do you consider 5-10% to be a huge percentage?  I don't.  San Marco is an affluent residential area, but every business would close if the bulk of their customers came from within walking distance.  Residents of St Nicholas, Miramar, the Southbank, the Northbank, and Lakewood all rely on the square for dining and entertainment because it has things that our neighborhoods don't offer.  Likely none of us walk there, but a handful may ride their bike. I'm in the square 2-3 nights a week every week and I am always able to find a space, but sometimes after a lap or two.

The new pay to park policies at the beach have been an adjustment, but I'm happy to do it for the 1 or 2 days a month that i'm out there.  There they have a policy where if you are a local resident, you can register your license plate with them and you are exempt from paying.  Maybe residents of 32207 could get an exemption since that is our neighborhood commercial center. This won't happen if it's a private company, but it's nice to dream.

My wife and I are in walking distance of San Marco Square and Hendricks and make a point of walking, but our next door neighbor makes an equal point of driving his truck there exclusively, and he probably goes out as much or more as we do. That said, I believe there was free resident parking as part of the plan. But like you say, probably a significant chunk of the customer base aren't San Marco residents.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 31, 2019, 01:20:46 PM
If free parking is 100% full and it switched to paid parking which was also 100% full - tell me how business is hurt.

Since it was brought up - downtown Greenville has 8000 city owned parking spaces of which 700 are currently free for some portion of the day or day of the week.  My first time there I happen to find an open space right where I was going.  Every time since then finding a free space was an impossible task so I just paid $6 for 24 hours in a city-owned garage.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 31, 2019, 02:02:31 PM
If free parking is 100% full and it switched to paid parking which was also 100% full - tell me how business is hurt.


100% full? Interesting.

So how many public and private parking spaces exist within a 10 minute walkshed of Five Points and San Marco? What is the occupancy of on-street and off-street parking broken down by the hours of the day? What is the turnover and duration of on-street spaces during lunch, dinner and late night hours in these areas?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: jaxjags on October 31, 2019, 02:09:26 PM
Be careful with parking privatization especially as it comes to San Marco and Riverside. As it now comes down to money and nothing but money, the managing company can get very cut throat without regards to the citizens or the merchants. I have had this experience at Atlantic Beach Town Center. My vehicle got towed over a non issue (long story). Neptune Beach mayor AGREED with me and tried to get me a refund, BUT had no control as it is privately operated. Even the merchants are not happy with the situation, BUT can do nothing about it. So if you want to keep your customers and merchants happy - BEWARE.

The NB beach mayor is simply 1 of 5 voting members of the City Council. She wouldn't have the authority to waive a parking ticket fee even if the program was publicly run, nor should she have that authority.

As I said in a previous post, the paid parking program was initiated by the Beaches Town Center agency and many of the merchants lobbied for it, including the two people with the largest financial stake in BTC businesses. Trust me I would know....

It's not an apples to apples comparison to R/A and San Marco, since part of the genesis of the problem was beach goers parking in public spots all day, thereby leaving no parking for business patrons. But as I said previously, the Merchants Association was heavily involved, and despite what Kerry is saying, the businesses in R/A and San Marco need to be heavily involved. Every community is unique and solutions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the community.

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that if you privatize the parking both the government and the citizens lose any control of what may occur, good or bad. Also a 30 year contract better have some mutual ability to break the contract early. If is a private company remember it is more about the money. If not, why would they do it.

I just strongly suggest the business community thoroughly investigate what procedures, rules, enforcement, appeals policies, ect. will be. Once in place it will be too late too change.

Also, valet parking should not be allowed to consume what previously was public parking. This may help the restaurants, but can hinder other businesses.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 31, 2019, 02:17:38 PM
Greenville's DT parking:


On street parking is free 24/7/365. There are no meters. Each space is timed. Most are 2 hours but a few are 15, 30 or 60 minutes. Banks for instance generally have two 15 minute spaces and a 30 minute space at their front door.  All time limits only apply M-F from 9-6. The time limits ARE enforced and you will get a ticket if you exceed the limit.  It isn't publicized but because of the time it takes to monitor a circuit, you will generally get an extra 5-10 minutes before a ticket is actually issued.

During evenings and weekends, on street parking is not time limited or policed. Two garages are also free/unlimited unless there is a special event (festivals).

ALL spaces that are not leased monthly (which is the vast majority) in ANY garage are FREE for one hour 24/7/365, except during special events.  The second hour is $2. Each additional hour is $1, up to a maximum of $7. There is a free trolley that  the city operates too.

I have lived here 23 years and can count on my fingers the number of times I have paid to park. During business hours is actually the easiest time to find an on-street space. Weekends can be harder to find a space, but as long as you are willing to walk a modest distance, you can find one. Admittedly being a local helps as I know some of the less obvious places to find a space. I almost never park in a garage unless it will be free. 

The city controls the lion share of the parking throughout DT, and operates it as a break even proposition, not a revenue generator.           
   
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 31, 2019, 02:21:21 PM
Vicupstate - are you aware of any local discussions about charging for on-street parking there?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Peter Griffin on October 31, 2019, 02:29:00 PM
Vicupstate - are you aware of any local discussions about charging for on-street parking there?

Are you?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on October 31, 2019, 02:29:55 PM
Not sure where Uptown Greenville is in relation to downtown Greenville but found this.

https://wcti12.com/news/local/paid-parking-proposed-in-uptown-greenville

Quote
Aug 21, 2019 GREENVILLE, Pitt County — Visiting the uptown area of Greenville could soon cost more money.

The City of Greenville recently proposed a plan to replace its free street parking with paid parking.

The plan proposes charges $1.75 an hour for parking with the first hour being free.

On edit - this is Greenville, NC and not Greenville, SC
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 31, 2019, 03:31:27 PM
Vicupstate - are you aware of any local discussions about charging for on-street parking there?

None currently. There was a study done about 5-8 years ago that recommended it and it went nowhere.  The mayor is very much against  charging for on street parking.       
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: fieldafm on October 31, 2019, 03:41:52 PM
Vicupstate - are you aware of any local discussions about charging for on-street parking there?

None currently. There was a study done about 5-8 years ago that recommended it and it went nowhere.  The mayor is very much against it charging for on street parking.     

Wait, what? They have a City Manager in Greeneville, no? How can this sort of travesty happen in that type of superior structure, in a place where sprawl does not exist?  Has the City Manager not watched YouTube?
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Charles Hunter on October 31, 2019, 04:14:46 PM
Just curious, how do the Greeneville parking folks keep track of vehicles to enforce the 2-hour (or whatever) limit?  I ask because I remember from earlier this year that a court has declared "chalking" to be unconstitutional.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716248823/court-says-using-chalk-on-tires-for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: vicupstate on October 31, 2019, 05:02:05 PM
Just curious, how do the Greeneville parking folks keep track of vehicles to enforce the 2-hour (or whatever) limit?  I ask because I remember from earlier this year that a court has declared "chalking" to be unconstitutional.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716248823/court-says-using-chalk-on-tires-for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution

The parking attendants use a hand-held device to key in the tag numbers. 
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Florida Power And Light on October 31, 2019, 08:18:57 PM
Relax!
This is all so easy.
Simply shift this to US Army Corps Of Engineers, in some form or fashion, place in the laps of Corps Jacksonville Office persons ( Including former River Keeper ) handling Fishweir Creek Restoration.
Parking/ Meters DIA and River Advocacy quite similar digestive.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Peter Griffin on November 01, 2019, 07:44:45 AM
Relax!
This is all so easy.
Simply shift this to US Army Corps Of Engineers, in some form or fashion, place in the laps of Corps Jacksonville Office persons ( Including former River Keeper ) handling Fishweir Creek Restoration.
Parking/ Meters DIA and River Advocacy quite similar digestive.

I almost never have any idea what you are saying on this website
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Kerry on November 01, 2019, 09:29:26 AM
I think he is saying even if it gets approved it will take years to be implemented.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: bl8jaxnative on November 05, 2019, 11:11:55 AM

Parking that is free but limited in time does not result in the same behaviors as parking that has a fee up front.

For those on the Shoup bandwagon, not charging a fee upfront is bad.

As for tracking, even if the anti-chalking ruling holds up as is, I'm not sure it matters much. 

 If it's not already on the market, we have the pieces of tech to have smart meters that do things like give the first 30 minutes free and auto bill for the rest.  And / or they could alert people when their 3 hour limit is approaching.  Etc, etc, etc.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Peter Griffin on November 05, 2019, 11:55:43 AM
Having visited the Riverside area for nearly a decade now, and lived there for about 18 months I can see a major unintended effect of this very clearly:

If you charge for parking in "the squares" like 5-Points, King St., San Marco Square, people will try to evade the paid parking by parking street-side in front of the residences around the area, which already causes a lot of headache for residents in the areas and would likely only be made worse by making the "best" spots paid. People will walk blocks to avoid paying a couple of dollars for parking, and the residents may be unable to find parking for their own homes as a result.

Riverside and San Marco differ substantially from Downtown in that they are residential areas with commercial blocks. I don't think the residents are being considered here (of course they aren't, this is about money nor public service)
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: Des on November 06, 2019, 08:09:34 AM
Having visited the Riverside area for nearly a decade now, and lived there for about 18 months I can see a major unintended effect of this very clearly:

If you charge for parking in "the squares" like 5-Points, King St., San Marco Square, people will try to evade the paid parking by parking street-side in front of the residences around the area, which already causes a lot of headache for residents in the areas and would likely only be made worse by making the "best" spots paid. People will walk blocks to avoid paying a couple of dollars for parking, and the residents may be unable to find parking for their own homes as a result.

Riverside and San Marco differ substantially from Downtown in that they are residential areas with commercial blocks. I don't think the residents are being considered here (of course they aren't, this is about money nor public service)

Key West marks the residential spots, maybe implement that? Just a bit of paint.
Title: Re: Riverside & San Marco Parking Plan Draws Opposition
Post by: bl8jaxnative on November 13, 2019, 10:54:49 AM

Areas reserved for residential parking only are pretty common in cities.     That shouldn't be an obstacle.  In fact, if it's a problem for residents today it's something that needs to be implemented.   

That would also go to show that demand is outstripping supply.