Max Allstadt: Grandstanding at the Grand Lake Theater
On Thursday, Grand Lake Theater proprietor Allen Michaan hosted a meeting at the theater to protest recent increases in Oakland’s parking fees and fines. I attended the meeting, and frankly, there was so much bluster and vitriol in the theater that afternoon that the one or two accurate criticisms I heard were completely lost in a sea of loopy rhetoric. Mr. Michaan’s ideas about Oakland politics are reckless, grandstanding and naive.
In his opening remarks, Michaan called the fee and fine hikes extortion. He then launched into a screed in which he declared that he was prepared to recall every sitting Oakland City Councilmember if his demands weren’t met. There were unofficial recall petitions in the lobby, and he asked guests to sign them.
A few reactions to this: First, it would be an obscenity if Michaan was able to run a successful recall campaign…because he lives in Alameda and he can’t even vote in Oakland, let alone sign or initiate an official recall petition. (That’s why the petitions at this meeting were unofficial). Second, the number of signatures he needs would be impossible to obtain. Even if he did succeed in that phase, three of eight council seats are up in 2010. Is it even legal to have a recall election coincide with an ordinary election? In short, the recall idea is grandstanding and nothing more.
Mr. Michaan believes that the new fees and fines were hurting local business. They have been in effect for barely two weeks. Any observations he has about his own business slowing down are purely anecdotal and premature. My personal theory is that he’s been showing the new Harry Potter movie, which has been widely panned by critics and the public.
Allen Michaan himself is a bigger threat to local businesses than the new parking fees. He tells us he’s afraid that the fear of getting a ticket will scare away his customers. His solution was to call the local TV news stations in for a field day, and talk about how horrible the fines are. The message that got on the local news and reached the suburbs was “If you come to Oakland to see a movie, you’ll get a horrible parking ticket!”. His solution to fines which scare his customers was to get on the news and scare his customers some more? Anybody else see a flaw in this plan?
It gets worse. Michaan has suggested that Oakland businesses close all day this Thursday in protest of the parking fee hikes. This is the single most idiotic and reckless idea he has proposed. We are in the middle of a recession and he is asking thousands of business owners to forgo a day’s worth of income!
What about the employees of these businesses? Will they get a paid day off, or will they lose a days work and wages? What good would a one day strike do, other than to bolster Mr. Michaan’s ego? Council is in recess and it will be at least six weeks before they can respond to the parking grievances at a meeting. By that time any silly little strike will have been forgotten, but anybody who participated in the strike will still be out hundreds if not thousands of dollars. For nothing.
This short-sighted and reckless pursuit of self-interest is nothing new for Mr. Michaan. A few years back, he organized an attempt to shutdown the Grand Lake Farmer’s Market at Splash Pad Park. Why? I am not making this up: because the patrons of the market were using too much parking, and he saw this as a threat to his business!
In a campaign related to his attempt to shut down the Farmer’s market, Allen Michaan successfully lobbied the council to remove fees for parking in the city lot under 580. He managed to get subsidized parking for his entire commercial area. So not only is he screaming all the wrong tactics to his followers, he also is complaining of persecution when his area already has a parking subsidy provided by the city. In fact, the Grand/Lakeshore area has more available parking than any other neighborhood retail district in all of Oakland.
So if Allen Michaan has little factual basis for complaining, and if his tactics are ham-handed at best, why is anybody listening to him? Why did 84 people show up at his meeting? Why did guest after guest at that meeting step up to the mic and scream and yell about how much they hate parking tickets.
Easy. They hate parking tickets. I do too. There’s a sense of powerlessness you get from them. You can’t blow up the DMV, and you can’t refuse to pay, or the ticket goes up, and if you wait too long, they’ll boot you. It’s frustrating as all hell. Believe me, I’ve been there.
I believe that the increased fees are necessary, and that the increased fines may also be necessary. But I also believe that the head of the parking department bungled the transition to these new fees and fines by going on an enforcement bonanza the day after the new rules went into effect. A better council resolution would have issued a directive to phase them in gently to avoid a political backlash.
I don’t know if the enforcement blitz was a departmental decision by Noel Pinto or a directive from City Administrator Dan Lindheim, but either way, someone in a non-political job made a decision without weighing the political consequences. This has given Allen Michaan a great deal of ammunition. Michaan, regrettably, is using that ammunition to shoot himself and his neighbors in the foot.
What to do about all of this? Well for starters, if you’re pissed off about a parking ticket, take a few deep breaths before you hop on Allen Michaan’s bandwagon. His proposed strike will do more harm than good. I strongly urge local businesses to completely ignore the strike and to stay open. Please realize that Michaan’s proposed recall of the entire council is an empty threat and is so naive that it seriously damages his credibility as a leader.
I also urge folks who were upset by the initial parking blitz to realize that the City apparently got the message. When the meters were extended to 8pm, parking enforcers handed out warnings instead of tickets for quite a while. There also seems to be consensus that for 1 hour and 2 hour spots, after 5pm you will soon be allowed to buy the spot all the way ’til 8 when the meter closes. There are other possibilities for practical reform that I’ll discuss in a post when Council is back in session and something can actually be done. It will be a little while before any parking issues can come before the council, so there’s time to think, get it right and make it workable.
But for now, lets all chill out and realize that Allen Michaan is a pied piper who isn’t going to lead us anywhere except to bitterness and disappointment. His tactics are crass, his logic flawed, and his motivations seem selfish. I urge the council to ignore him completely and tell his followers to pick another leader with some manners if they want to be heard at all.
Max Allstadt is a Carpenter, Musician and Activist living in West Oakland
Get Updates
Newest Comments
- len raphael: Unconfirmed that MJQ laid off 100 employees today, blaming RDA court case. How much did she and the CC waste in legal fees betting against Jerry’s lawyers?
- ralph: No, Livegreen, Occupy Oakland is doing plenty good. They are the poster children for the new, “This is Your Brain on Dope” Campaign.
- Livegreen: They seem to b determined to shut down Oakland and little else. They’ve forgotten Wall St. I can’t help but think the Officers who were preventing them from breaking in to City Hall could have spent...
- gregory mcconnell: The Occupest disrupted City Hall today. They managed to make it difficult, but not impossible, to go into City Hall. They demanded that people who accosted cops on Wednesday should be released. I was out...
- livegreen: I watched the M-Y mtg last night, & it was painful. Jose is a nice guy, but he has difficulty running a meeting that gets anything done. They debated for about 1 hour whether they should discuss recommendations...
- len raphael: The murder of 5 year old Gabriel Martinez. Got a call from an acquaintance who lives in East O and often gets supper at his family’s taco stand. She asked where she can sign up to help on the recall.
- Ravi: I’m sure that all of those Quan diehards (“a recall would be a waste of time and too expensive”) are very gratified that this lovely and deserving woman is having such a good time. No doubt they prefer...
- len raphael: JQ “”I’m actually having a lot of fun,” she said after rehashing many of the lower moments from her first year in office.” “http://www.insidebayare a.com/news/ci_19651889R...
- Ravi: And regarding police reform and the crime thing, Judge Henderson could decide to put OPD under Federal jurisdiction because the terms of the NSA haven’t been fulfilled by the City Administration. Those folks in City...
- len raphael: Harbinger of things to come to the City Council when they eventually have to make similar decisions. But they won’t. The Fed bankruptcy judge will do it for them.
- livegreen: Yeah, but OUSD has to do something. There are way too many schools for the school population. There’s simply no choice. At least they’re willing to make the tough decisions. Unlike the City of...
- len raphael: Are those school board recalls entirely over the school closing decisions? Different groups or one umbrella?
- Ravi: Two recall petitions for Quan; five recall petitions for five school board members.
- len raphael: City says there are now 7 concurrent recall petitions. Not clear how many are for Quan and how many for Council Members. Direct democracy at work.
- Ravi: Can the Oakland City Council lead? Nope, nor can the Mayor. It’s up to the citizens, who are deeply divided and have been for a very long time.
- len raphael: Oakland Local is the only on or offline general circulation media that shows understanding of the depths of our fiscal situation and understands that it’s causes precede the real estate crash. One of these...
- Mkilian: Related to the Cal Supremes haircut to Oakland with respect to RDA and the immediate need for a “fiscal operations plan” is another issue put forth in Oakland’s internet newspaper, Oakland Local, is...
227 Responses to “Max Allstadt: Grandstanding at the Grand Lake Theater”
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
August 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
OK, I disagree with Mr. Michaan about calling for a strike, and I have disagreed with him on other issues. I especially disagreed with some of the messages he has used his bully marquis to broadcast (but I have to admit, I agree with most of them).
I’m uncomfortable with Mr. Allstadt’s suggestion that because Mr. Michaan can’t vote in Oakland, he doesn’t have a right to initiate or participate in a petition drive. Mr. Michaan has earned the right to both comment and participate in the Oakland discussion, and might still be living in Oakland today if he hadn’t become disgusted with Oakland politics.
He almost single handedly saved one of Oakland’s greatest icons, the Grand Lake Theater, and then watched helplessly as the Jack London Multi-Drex drained off his customers and increased costs on first run movies. This was patently unfair, and while I can’t speak for Mr. Michaan, I think seeing the increased parking fees as yet another wrong headed move by the city which hurts his business, and the entire Oakland business community, is very reasonable. I applaud him for providing a forum for doing this (not the first time the Grand Lake Theater has been used for any number of free community forums).
It is Mr. Allstadt’s final paragraph which I find overly personal, and wrong. Allen Michaan a pied piper who isn’t going to lead us anywhere except to bitterness and disappointment?
Uh, have you followed his business career? With a grubstake meant for college, he built a mini-theater empire. He lovingly restored many of the run down theaters in the Bay Area, and built new ones with classic themes which had been ripped out of theaters and replaced with paneling and plastic. Those signed Tiffany windows in the lobby are his “seconds,” and the beautiful Grand Lake Theater sign, front marquis, and the Wurlitzer organ must have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate.
If his tactics are crass, his logic flawed, and his motivations seem selfish, I urge other business leaders to emulate his crass, flawed, selfish motivations which have contributed so much to the rich history of Oakland. And made him wealthy enough to move out of Oakland, something a lot of people are thinking about.
Mr. Michaad has earned the right to express his opinion, and in my humble opinion, he is more often right than wrong when it comes to Oakland issues.
And beware of people who advise you to mind your manners. If you’re not mad as hell about what’s going on in Oakland today, you’re just not paying attention.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
As the unidentified speaker quoted in the SFBlog post on this meeting, I am flabbergasted that these business owners fail to understand simple economics. The Lakeshore shopping district is something to be treasured but it is hard to treasure it when parking is hard to find. The solution, I shop elsewhere. If the city were to give away parking, have you any idea how many people would just squat a spot. Less turnover means fewer shoppers. Michaan is overly concerned about a handful of customers who do come versus the busloads who opt to stay away because it is impossible to park.
How much is parking at Camp Max. Sounds like a place I want to be.
PS: As for the multiplex, if they draw the hoi polloi and unwashed masses and places like GLT draw adults, then I am for it. But I am guessing there is more than one factor that has impacted places like GLT and parking at it. If I recall correctly you pay for parking at JL multiplex.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:36 am
here is the letter to the editor re-posted from the Montclarian, which I think best sums up what is wrong with the system that is evolving here. This one really stood out to me. Another was about a ticket levied at 7:52 PM in front off the Longs. People are ready to throw the tea in the harbour over this.
check this out….
Costly meters ruin day’s outing
Last Friday, three of us ate lunch, then went to a movie on Piedmont Avenue. We first parked in the lot behind Cesar, and paid the max, $4, for two hours. After lunch, we moved the car and sat in it with the remainder of our earlier receipt in the window until we decided we could buy another $4, maximum time ticket which would get us through a movie. Alas, the movie ran over. $8 in parking, time spent sitting in the car waiting, and a $55 ticket is what we ended up with.
We have been going to Emeryville, which although is farther away, has a garage.
We’re all in favor of taxes, and don’t mind doing our share, but we don’t want to feel like we’ve been trapped. Maybe an increase in available time on the meters would be helpful.
Sandy Bulman
August 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Since when is competition “patently unfair”?
Lovelle Mixon contributed quite a bit to the “rich history” of Oakland through his crass, flawed and selfish motivations as well, but I’m not rushing to put him on a pedestal either.
If you’re not mad as hell that a non-citizen of Oakland is rabblerousing while he clearly enjoys the most favorable parking situation of any Oakland business district, you’re just not paying attention.
I’ll tell you what:: why don’t we work out a deal? The parking around Mr. Michaan’s theater can return to the way it was. In return, Mr. Michaan will agree to forgo police and fire services (which will be trimmed due to the shortfall) for his theater and patrons. That’s fair, isn’t it?
The problems facing Oakland are very real. Oakland is severely limited in the ways that it can increase revenue. Unless Mr. Michaan can come up with a reasonable alternative, I’d rather he just stick to sounding off via his marquee.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Definitely agree with Ralph on Grand Lake parking—if anything, raising the parking fees ought to make it less of a headache if in fact Michaan’s fears that people won’t come pan out! (I haven’t seen evidence of this yet, though—still a pain to get a spot last time I drove there.) However, I’d be fine with metering the lot under 580 and the covered parking behind TJ’s (assuming that’s not protected by some sort of agreement with the store) in exchange for dropping meter rates across Grand Lake back to $1.50, since I expect that would net the City as much or more in revenue. (And yes, I do park there from time to time—and find it somewhat appalling that it’s free.)
But I do think Sandy has a good point—this has always been a problem during the day (so her particular problem isn’t actually new, for what it’s worth; it’s just trickier because there’s heavier enforcement) but I think it’s been exacerbated by extending the meter hours into the evenings, when many more people are trying to do dinner-and-a-movie, etc. I’d actually have no problem with extending the meter limits to four hours; I expect it actually might benefit the city in that people would pay the max and then might not actually stay that long. Since the primary reason for time limits is to keep the spots turning over—and the primary danger to not having limits is that employees or residents might park there—four hours could be a good compromise, particularly if coupled with residential parking zones in any residential areas adjacent to metered commercial districts to protect those spots.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Patrick on Today,
To answer your question, this competition is “patently unfair” when it is subsidized by taxpayer dollars. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Michaan was not subsidized like the Jack London Multi-Drex (though I agree with a previous poster, siphoning off the hoi poloi seems like an advantage which should not be underestimated, although Mr. Michaad would probably disagree).
As to your comments about contributing to the “rich history” of Oakland by comparing a psychotic killer to Mr. Michaad, I think I will limit my dignification of that comment with this one mostly unresponsive sentence.
I agree that Mr. Michaad has lobbied hard and gotten a more favorable parking situation than many other Oakland business districts, but if you’re paying attention, that seems like a good argument for lobbying hard for your business district. His is not the only business which benefits, and he is THE anchor business of the entire Grand Lake/Lakeshore business district.
I have a counter-proposal for the deal you proposed: Whatever you do about the parking situation, every citizen in Oakland can agree (and so far has agreed) to forgo the police and fire services they have already lost, but no one has noticed yet because of the shell game the city is playing with the budget. Their solution is to make sure that the only people who are part of the “game” are the shills and the rubes, while our “independent city auditor” gets a 50% cut to her budget. Step right up folks, it may be crooked, but it’s the only game in town.
The city budget passed last Tuesday has not yet provided the 739 officers the city is required to fund in order to collect Measure Y taxes, which pay for 63 officers, a matching amount for violence prevention programs, and $4M to OFD. Those officers are now not just un-deployed, they are unfunded as well, and the longer this situation continues, the more the city risks losing the $18-$20M revenues provided by Measure Y for police, fire and violence prevention programs.
As of today, the city has no legal right to collect Measure Y taxes. I urge anyone and everyone to PLEASE refute my claim, if you can. So far all I have gotten is snoot full of venom and vitriol from the usual suspects and camp followers of the council member cheer leading squad, but no substantive arguments that refute my assertion.
Thank you in advance.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
“Lovelle Mixon contributed quite a bit to the “rich history” of Oakland through his crass, flawed and selfish motivations as well, but I’m not rushing to put him on a pedestal either.”
This comment is not germaine to this topic and crosses the line as far as I’m concerned. There were many names you could have chosen besides Mixon’s.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Clarification: Mr. Michaan cannot legally file an Oakland recall petition, nor can his signature legally be counted in the total, nor can he vote. It’s about what’s legally permitted. I believe it’s likely his petitions were unofficial because he didn’t want to explain to the media that he couldn’t sign an official petition because he doesn’t live in our city.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I think as a business owner, Mr. Michaan has every right to complain. Even if he doesn’t live here, his business contributes to the Oakland economy and if Oakland wants to increase or even maintain its tax base, it must be willing to listen to the voices of business owners as well as residents. I think that the issue most people are mad about is the increase in hours of operation to 8:00 p.m., not the extra dollar or two people might have to spend. I think there were lots of people who really hadn’t heard about the change and were shocked to get the tickets. I also think that the idea of having to run out in the middle of dinner (or a movie) and feed a meter is very unappealing and definitely could have an impact on business. The fact that people are thinking of solutions to this problem only now is an example of how short-sighted the thinking was to begin with. Just curious – how many other cities have meters that run until 8:00 p.m.?
The reality is that all the noise Mr. Michaan has made has gotten people’s attention, including the Council’s, and that’s not a bad thing.
While the budget crunch is impacting lots of government agencies, Oakland really is in a class by itself with how bad things are, and our ineffective and wasteful leaders are largely to blame. Nickel and diming the residents and punishing business owners is not the answer.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I work and live in Oakland. I make fairly decent wages, and I thank the good Lord everyday that I still have a good job. I walk, I ride, and I drive. I am not usually one to complain much, but mostly, because I believe that things always manage to work themselves out. Call me an optimist. Regardless, there are just things that the CC approves that are thoughtless or downright stupid. But, hopefully, some of these idiotic ordinances could or should be be reversible.
Raising the meter rates is one thing – most of us who need access to businesses during the business hours are likely able to afford an additional 50 cents. I am not complaining about this. If it helps the City raise another $0.64M, I’m all for it.
Extending the parking hours is another. From 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. is when families are able to get together. This is when mom and dad get home and are able to spend some time with the kids – maybe go out and eat at some place reasonable (small business), or maybe go and and watch a good independent movie (small business), or who knows, comic book store, pet supplies store, frozen yogurt shop — all small businesses. These small businesses often front the streets that require metering. They’re not located in strip malls or cineplexes or any other huge developments that offer parking garages.
I go to the Y on Broadway. I used to pay $112 a month for a two-member family rate. I get off work around 6:00 and can usually find one parking spot somewhere nearby. It takes us around two hours or so to do our thing…so, let’s see, my gym membership is now at least $192 on a short month, or an additional $960 a year.
The YMCA is family-oriented establishment that offers healthy living standards to everyone from the young and old. The staff there had already started to notice a drop in the number of participants during the traditional “free parking hours”. And, yes, they will start to look elsewhere for their membership. Or worse, they could forego that healthy lifestyle and stay at home and watch TV. At least Comcast hasn’t raised their rates.
I am not politically savvy enough to respond to the many issues you all brought up. I am not an activist or am I that passionate about anything that could change with the next round of shoe-in candidates. But I care deeply about this city and its denizens, whether they are “from Oakland” or not. I would prefer to eat, shop, visit, patronize small local establishments because I believe that these SLBs are what build and shape and define this beautiful city.
On a recent post (07/25/09) on budget cuts:
Begin peak hour parking pilot program: $0.64 million
Raise expired meter parking fee $10: $0.53 million
It seems that a little over $1.1M will be raised over these meter rates/penalties. I’m no economist, but a million dollars would hardly put a dent in our City’s deficit (yes, yes, I know, every little bit helps.) But has anyone look at how much our local businesses would stand to lose if people stop frequenting their establishments?
I already started to look around for another gym membership. After going to the Y for the past eleven years, it seems almost sacrilegious.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Art,
I agree Sandy has a valid point. I even emailed members of city council to let them know I agree with the rate increase, but they could have done a better job rationailizing the max hours.
The example I used with council is Center Stage West a hair salon on Lakeshore. I do not need to tell you that women can easily spend half a day in a salon, but if parking is an hour max we have a problem. The hour max and stepped up enforcement on the TJ could be a problem for their business.
You give people 4 hours at mkt rate maybe they pay for the max and shop in the district the entire time. Maybe they only use 2 hours but at least they are less stressed about getting in and out to beat the ticket. (I’m betting shopper x would rather pay for unused versus a ticket.) Shopper shops a little more, business collects more revenue, employee keeps a job, no one has to take food from baby’s mouth, the city gets a transit friendly area and increased sales tax revenue, the spot still turns over, everyone is happy and then we repeat.
And as to siphoning off the hoi polloi, Mr. Michaan might want to take note, just like I am willing to pay more for leg room in an airplane, I will gladly give you a buck or two more to avoid having to sit among a bunch of less than well behaved teenagers. Now if you could just get Hollywood to produce a move I might actually want to see.
Marleen,
Denver runs their meters until 10. It did not stop people from meeting me in LoDo for dinner.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I think part of the problem around the theater does relate to Harry Potter — not the quality of the movie, but the length. It’s 2 1/2 hours long. Doesn’t match with 2 hour meters. I wish they’d increase meter times to 3 hours all the way around, then people would have time to run errands and have lunch, or see a movie and grab a bite. I don’t think the rates are really the issue — it’s the extension to 8 pm and the one and two hour meters . . .
August 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I think as a business owner, Mr. Michaan has every right to complain. Even if he doesn’t live here, his business contributes to the Oakland economy and if Oakland wants to increase or even maintain its tax base, it must be willing to listen to the voices of business owners as well as residents.
Nobody is saying he shouldn’t be allowed to say what he wants. Max was pointing out that what he’s saying is silly. Different.
I would be a lot more sympathetic if Mr. Michaan were getting upset about the situation that brought us here, not the desperate attempt to fix the problem. He is, effectively, complaining that the cast itches when he should really be thinking about how not to break his arm again.
He’s also very much overstating the case. I think Max made the point very clearly that he doesn’t really know if it’s going to hurt his business or not. He’s just assuming it will, and in protest trying to get his neighbors to hurt their businesses as well.
I’d also be more sympathetic if he hadn’t gone on at some length about “no blood for oil.” One of the easiest ways to put an end to wars for oil is to stop using it. Cars are currently subsidized in our country because they’re the assumed mode of transportation, and I think owning and operating a car should be much more expensive than it currently is. I have no illusions about everybody leaving their cars at home, but I do think raising the costs will make people reconsider. It’s worked pretty well with smoking.
He’s operating on the assumption that the city is going after his money, and from what I’ve read on his marquee I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks it’s literally directed at him personally. That’s great fuel for his personal fire, but it’s not particularly realistic or useful.
If you’re upset about parking, why not look at how it got that way and start addressing those problems. That would be a hell of a lot more useful.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Mr. Allstadt,
I think we understood what you were saying in the original article, but your clarification is helpful. I was only trying to point out that whether or not Mr. Michaad has a “legal” right to file a recall petition, or whether his signature would be counted, or whether he can vote or not, he has the right to make his case and put it before the citizens of Oakland as an Oakland business owner.
I was making more of a first amendment case, as well as a “paid his dues” case for Mr. Michaad’s right to be pissed off at the current state of affairs in Oakland. Those of us who do have the right to initiate such a petition, sign it, and vote, may want to consider the pros and cons of this course of action. I’d hate to see it done over the parking issue, especially when there are so many better reasons to recall some council members, but if that’s what it takes …
Keep in mind that the citizens of California were upset enough that their precious cars were going to be taxed at the original rate they had been paying for years, that they went to the trouble of recalling the governor who suggested it, and elected a more “manly man” who did exactly what those who elected wanted him to do. Hardly anyone noticed that the VLF and the VLF backfill was what Oakland used to pay for vital services out of the general fund, which is why California doesn’t have a pot to piss in right now, and why Oakland is getting that streaming video directly from the state.
You are probably right about the difficulty of getting enough signatures on such a petition, the sheep will continue grazing contentedly while the shepherds take their ten week break. One last hurrah as they try to hit as many NNO parties tonight as they can. I just want to know who drew the short straw and has to come as McGruff.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Bob: Isn’t the city subsidizing JLS and free parking for Mr. Michaan the same thing? If either is “patently unfair”, then both should go.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Widely panned?
Regardless of his other issues, I can see his point about extending the meters until 8pm, even if the cost increase is justified. 2 hours is not enough time to go see many movies (including the 2.5 hour Harry Potter).
August 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
What I am wondering about now is the enabling legislation that gives the City the right to “control parking…”. Has this potentially been misappropriated so as that it is now in effect a form of taxation? If so, is that permissible per the municipal code?
If the legislation that granted the City the right to control parking is in fact based on its ordering flow and ultimately, in the theory, for the benefit of its citizens, is it possible that this [code] has therefore been violated?
Shouldn't the mission of parking control also be sensitive to the merchant community and public at large, not to mention adaptive as things evolve. Isn't the prime mission to aide in the creation of a more robust, pleasant, vibrant experience for all those who interact in our neighborhoods through the control of traffic and parking?
Somehow, I think the plot was lost along the way, and if they [traffic control] were to be honest, they would have to admit, that their mission is revenue collection and taxation - not making our neighbors more vibrant and pleasant and controlling traffic so as to be more orderly.
so the question is - is that fair and is that legal?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Colin – Complaining about the cast that itches? How not to break his arm? Are you implying it’s his fault that the City is on the verge of bankruptcy? The analogy hardly fits. Also, let’s not pretend that this is about environmentalism and encouraging people to walk and go green and heighten awareness about public transit yada yada yada. It’s about a bunch of bozos who can’t balance a budget and are biting off their noses to spite their faces. While it might be early to say whether increasing meter fees/hours will really hurt business signficantly, from some of the anecdotal posts here, and elsewhere, I think that is a real possibility and it shouldn’t be disregarded. I don’t think the gist of that message is silly at all. While there may be a lot of bluster and hyperbole that goes a long with it, sometimes that’s what it takes to get attention in this town.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
While my post was mainly about objections to Mr. Michaan’s tactics, I will posit the following technical question to those who agree with him:
Where will we find 4 million bucks to cover the budget hole that we’d get if we reversed the parking hikes?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
CC and some Measure OO people broke the arm through a number of boneheaded decisions. The cast is council’s fix. What we all should be doing is figuring out how to avoid this situation in the future.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Mr. Allstadt,
Another question is where are we going to find the $20M to cover the budget hole created by not being able to collect Measure Y funds, but I realize this is off topic. Perhaps I can post something later that will bring this issue into focus, and put it in both historical and contemporary perspective.
Patrick on Today,
I guess I am looking at these “subsidies” as apple’s and oranges, but you may have a point. I would have to look into what the subsidies were to the Jack London 9 Cinemas (I remember it being VERY generous), and what the “subsidy” is for free parking under 580.
I would argue that once that area that is now a free parking lot stopped looking like a dump and a homeless encampment, local citizens started to realize that there was actually a park there (who knew?), revitalized that park (you know who you are, you incredible splashpad park people!), and that in turn contributed to the parking problem that exists down there, certainly during the Farmers Market on Saturdays, if not at other times.
Bennet,
I wouldn’t bothering going down that road, the city has the right to collect parking fees, they can raise them as high as they want them without running afoul of any enabling or tax limitation regulation. I can’t cite chapter and verse, but your other points about being fair have merit.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
It’s about a bunch of bozos who can’t balance a budget and are biting off their noses to spite their faces.
If he were upset about this I’d be right there with him. But he’s not. He’s upset because it’s going to cost an additional $1 for someone to be able to spend $12 to see a movie at his theater.
While it might be early to say whether increasing meter fees/hours will really hurt business signficantly, from some of the anecdotal posts here, and elsewhere, I think that is a real possibility and it shouldn’t be disregarded. I don’t think the gist of that message is silly at all. While there may be a lot of bluster and hyperbole that goes a long with it, sometimes that’s what it takes to get attention in this town.
Yelling doesn’t make it any more true. I think Max did a fine job taking apart his argument, and until you give a more solid basis for why he’s right I’m not going to be persuaded. Anecdotal arguments are one thing, but I don’t think anybody’s going to “throw the tea in the harbor” because it now costs them $1 more to go out at night.
If he wants to get riled up over the real issues I’d be supportive. But he doesn’t. His engagement in it begins and ends with what he perceives as his own self-interest.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The reality is that most people don’t get riled up about most things unless they are personally affected. Who do you think lobbies the hardest to change laws? It’s just a political reality and I’ve learned to accept it. Bennett and Bob – actually there are laws about how high meter rates (or any “fee”) can go. There have actually been lawsuits over meter rates. (In the only case I could find the taxpayer lost). The general gist is that the fee cannot be higher than necessary to run the program that is being regulated. How you define the “program” is probably open to debate. But this whole idea that you can jack up fees to any point you want to cover a budget deficit that has nothing to do with meter or street maintenance is legally unsupported. Anybody who wants to sue the City and prove that the meter fees and recent increases are not related to the actual cost of running the program is welcome to give it a shot.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The reality is that most people don’t get riled up about most things unless they are personally affected.
If the city made parking free anywhere within 300′ of the Grand Lake he would drop it. The problem would still be there, and worse, but he would have achieved his goal.
I’m not concerned about his problem (which may or may not even exist), I’m concerned about the bigger problem. He’s doing nothing to address the bigger problem, and likely is uninterested in addressing it.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
MarleenLee,
I said I didn’t want to cite chapter and verse, but I don’t believe parking meter fees fall under the “general gist” (or even the plain text reading) of the law I believe you may have referenced, which is Proposition 218 from 1996 (please correct me if you were citing a different statute or ordinance). Even if it did, I would venture to say that any municipality would have a pretty good case for saying that the parking places (and the streets that are used to get to them) cost the city more than they collect in parking fees.
The “whole idea that you can jack up fees to any point you want to cover a budget deficit that has nothing to do with meter or street maintenance…” has complete legal support, I stand by my original statement, they can raise parking fees to any level they want. Anyone who wants to try to sue the city over this is welcome to give it a shot, then you can be the second person to show up on a google search of people who have lost such a case. Try Lexis/Nexis if you really want to do the research.
What raising parking fees doesn’t have is public support. The comments the council members are getting, plus the cautionary tale I alluded to earlier about Gray Davis, demonstrates that messing with people’s belief in their right to drive and park can cost them their office.
You can ask Americans to give up their sons and daughters to fight for the oil it takes to run those cars, but don’t ask them to give up their cars. Or try to raise the cost of driving and parking them.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
My chief complaint with Mr. Michaan he wanted to complain and despite claiming to want a solution, he and the many others at the Business Owner Revolt offered nothing. Per their logic, the rate increase is bad for business a rollback would be better. But if you follow this argument to its logical conclusion then free parking is the ultimate solution and would result in the most business.
Just one flaw in his logic…assume you commute to SF for work. You previously drove as you were nowhere near public transit. You paid the toll, sat in traffic and parked for 8 hrs in SF. You are out of pocket $25/day. Tomorrow Grand Lake parking is free. Smart commuter decides that instead of driving or risking life in the casual carpool, now park at GL, take the bus to Bart and travel to SF all for a fraction of the cost. So Mr. Michaan has won the battle but lost the war.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Forget legality, supply and demand will find a market clearing price which I guarantee you will be significantly less than the amount needed to close the deficit.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
MIchann has every right to complain because he does operate a business in this city. And frankly, the cc is little concerned with the viability of businesses in the city. Is he right about the impact? Hard to know yet. But I think people are foolish to think that there is no impact, even without the tickets.
I am not sure that anybody here actually lives with an actual budget for expenses, but if you do you know that spending more on parking does mean spending less on other things. Maybe it means eating lunch out only three times a month instead of four, or skipping going to the movies this month. And if getting back to the meter before you get a ticket means skipping coffee and desert, that is a loss to the business, and the service people employed by the restaurant. While those may all seem like minor things, but a 5 or 10% drop in business is enough to sink some business in good times, let alone times like now where everybody, even the financially secure, are cutting back spending. Is this going to be the end of the world? No. But will it mean that a few more business in Oakland fail that might have survived without the parking changes? Probably.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Here’s chapter and verse:
Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 (Sinclair Paint): (California Supreme Court:) ‘to show a fee is a regulatory fee and not a special tax, the government should prove (1) the estimated costs of the service or regulatory activity, and (2) the basis for determining the manner in which the costs are apportioned, so that charges allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on or benefits from the regulatory activity.’ ” (Sinclair Paint, 15 Cal.4th at p. 878, quoting San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego County Air Pollution Control Dist. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1146, fn. omitted. (SDG&E).)
(Somehow I doubt that the City has tried to figure out the costs involved here).
If you want to read the one one parking meter case that went up to the court of appeal (in an unpublished case) google
RICHARD RIDER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT
Just because there’s one (unpublished) case out there where the taxpayer lost doesn’t mean that what the City is doing now is legal.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
And Max, maybe the fact the he raised a ruckus and got the free paring earlier validated, in his mind, that being loud and obnoxious would be a successful strategy in getting the parking rates changed. Can’t blame somebody for trying an approach that worked before.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Problem is, that the conceptual design and methodology of the parking control system and its operations are not designed to optimize the experience for the shopper, movie goer, diner, nightclub goer, or those commercial establishments.
However, they SHOULD be.
It [appears] that they are organized to maximize the revenue extracted from the people who CHOSE to shop, dine, or patronize the neighborhood. It seems to me that this runs contrary to the best interests of the merchants, their sales in general, e.g. collection of sales tax, personnel tax, etc., which makes the Meter-ops run contra to the collection of other taxes. Also, this potentially leads to the destruction of small businesses who may already be on the edge of doom as a result of the “universal no-spend” that has taken over the consumer mind-set.
I would pick vibrant businesses and more employees over $100 fines and $10./hour meters (which I suppose is where this is headed)
It [Traffic control] is not even run like a business – eg – in Montclair, they have “blight conditions” wherein the abandoned meter poles remain litered everywhere as physical hazards, that depending on your height, can impact your body with very painful consequences. A litigation is certainly a possibility – so you have to ask – why have they not pulled the poles?
bottom line is this:
Unless you have the handicap “Gold pass” – there is just no way to have a leisurely outing/ “shop-till-you-drop” experience, because the background-pressure-fear-factor of the aggressive “Enforcement operations”, who effectively lie in wait to fine you, quash your consumer enthusiasm.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The reason the city limits people’s time at a parking space is that, with on-street parking priced far below the market rate, people will waste it (ie sit there longer than necessary). I support relaxing the time limits, but it would take a price higher than $2/hr to be close enough to the market price to ensure turnover. Extending meter times until 8pm will help ensure less waste and more parking availability, and in San Francisco meters now run until 9pm, with the support of merchants. Some Uptown merchants have been agitating for the city to extend meter times there until midnight or later to ensure availability and push off the street cleaning. And why is parking free on Sundays? That makes it really hard to find a space on that busy shopping day.
For all of those who want free parking, have you ever noticed that the BART stations with free parking never have any, while the stations that charge even a dollar for parking seem to have plenty despite having more users? Food for thought.
Street parking poses enormous costs to the public – not only does the street have to maintained, but street parking causes huge amounts of traffic congestion and delay, and necessarily precludes wider sidewalks and bike or bus lanes. The city would have to raise its prices to $10/hr or even higher before anyone could make a plausible argument that it’s a tax and not a user fee.
There is no free parking at malls. The stores pay for it through their rent, and consumers through their purchases. It is expensive and also very inefficient, and risks encouraging unnecessary driving.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
dto
this is about public perception and brand impressions – and, in general, who pays for the cost of parking is not something a customer thinks about then set out on a buyer trip ( assuming that still happens in 2009).
However, the quality of experience weighs on the decision as to where to go. Hence, as the burbs, the Creek, Emeryville, Montclair with its parking lot, or, even in SF where you can simply pay Sutter Stockton, a large garage, etc. offer a “fear-free” experience. You do not have to worrry about tickets. The aggressive strategy that is now deploying here, has the potential of swaying buyers away from certain neighborhood- towards areas where they can simply “shop in peace” and whether they lot-pay or not pay – being at least the RISK of $100 tickets is gone.
Tickets impact people, albeit more subtly, a bit like crime stats.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
MarleneLee,
Outstanding post! There’s the difference between a bunch of opinionated people whining in our cradles waiting for our mommies to come and soothe us, and a group of people who are trying to educate and learn something from each other (with one exception, I put everyone who has posted so far in the latter category). I guess I need to read the case now.
I suspect that Sinclair v. State of CA is a prop 218 case, but I confess that is because of the timing, I have no further basis without going to the Law Library and accessing the commentary on your citations. I concur that the city probably has decided that this case falls their way, so they haven’t made the calculation you referred to. And when I say the city, I mean our esteemed City Attorney from Dewey, Foolum and Howe.
Agreed. Just because there’s one (unpublished) case out there where the taxpayer lost doesn’t mean that what the City is doing now is legal. All my spidey senses tell me that this is the case and no citizen would prevail in such a case, but I concede your point for now and withdraw my snarky comment until I have read both cases. Congratulations on finding my weak spot: facts and logic.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Robert and Bennett – I’m sorry, but I call bullshit. You’re both doing what Michaan is doing – ratcheting up an inconvenience into an outrage based on dubious assumptions.
Maybe it means eating lunch out only three times a month instead of four, or skipping going to the movies this month. And if getting back to the meter before you get a ticket means skipping coffee and desert, that is a loss to the business, and the service people employed by the restaurant. While those may all seem like minor things, but a 5 or 10% drop in business is enough to sink some business in good times,
$.50 an hour has magically turned into 5 or 10% of all business income across the board? Never mind that the meters end at 8, so you’d have to catch a 6 o’clock movie to be stuck paying after your film (and not parking across the street, where the theater’s own website directs people to park). You’re doing your best to compound problems that just aren’t there.
Is this going to be the end of the world? No. But will it mean that a few more business in Oakland fail that might have survived without the parking changes? Probably.
Give me a single reason to assume “probably”. I don’t know anybody who’s said, “I’d like to go spend $10 to see a move, but that extra $1 I would have to spend to park is too much.” People don’t generally think like that. People don’t generally go to movies that early, either.
Bennett, you’re operating on the assumption that parking’s going to be $10/hr tomorrow, for reasons I can’t fathom. Then there’s this -
Unless you have the handicap “Gold pass” – there is just no way to have a leisurely outing/ “shop-till-you-drop” experience, because the background-pressure-fear-factor of the aggressive “Enforcement operations”, who effectively lie in wait to fine you, quash your consumer enthusiasm.
I’m quite sure nobody is going to be cowering in their basement because they fear $.50. If so, they would have become hermits long, long ago, when parking was no longer a nickel. People don’t do that. Show me any evidence that that’s changed in the last 2 weeks in Oakland, or in any of the places where the fines are higher and enforcement stricter (SF, NYC, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland…). Your assumption of generalized paranoia doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Really. Get a hold of yourselves. I was down on Grand yesterday and it was all parked up and doing fine. The tempest remains in its teapot, and there is no “Oakland parking crisis”, no “war on merchants”.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
public perception, really?
council, although their basis and logic was totally wrong, did something that actually makes sense. could council have implemeted better probably. but at the end of the day I prefer a parking policy that encourages the most people to frequent while discouraging the least. the new policy while not perfect is a step in the right direction.
High ticket prices discourage squatting but if your max time does not permit you sufficient time to shop then I can see a conflict. So in that respect, relaxing the hours makes sense.
Call me crazy but it isn’t the parking fee that discourages people from shopping in Oakland, it is the lack of Crate&Barrel, West Elm, Target, A&F etc that force people out.
And can someone HABO, how are parking fees a regulatory issue like cable?
August 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
@bennett – Exactly! If parking’s costs aren’t borne by the consumer, then people don’t understand the real cost of parking and waste it / overuse it. I agree the city should be getting its revenue from the meters, not from tickets – it’s unfortunate that the city decided to pair them in such a way that leads to public perception of a gotcha, rather than of sound parking policy.
Hopefully passions will cool by the time the Council returns from recess and there can be some good discussion of parking policy. There’s a win-win solution here, that benefits merchants, consumers, and the environment.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
dto510,
Also an excellent analysis of this situation. I think we need to find a balance between the free parking/free lunch dichotomy and the needs of our merchants.
I personally believe that gas should be artificially maintained at $5.00/gallon by the government (with any excess going to mass transit, bike/pedestrian ways and mitigating the damage done by our addiction to gasoline). I don’t have a problem with driving to your destination being the most expensive, least environmentally responsible, and most difficult choice of last resort. I doubt there is much support for this position, but there it is.
Benet,
Continuing in a similar vein, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that “there is just no way to have a leisurely outing/ “shop-till-you-drop” experience, because the background-pressure-fear-factor of the aggressive “Enforcement operations”, who effectively lie in wait to fine you, quash your consumer enthusiasm.”
Not if you’re walking or on a bike.
I live in Glenview, and I consider Glenview, Montclair, Lakeshore and Grand all within walking distance, to say nothing of bicycle distance, which broadens my range to Piedmont Ave, Rockride, Eastlake and downtown. I can walk or bike to all these destinations in less than half hour, and it saves me a gym membership where I pedal a bike that goes nowhere. I might even win a door to door race with someone who has to find parking at their destination.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Colin – thanks for pointing out those aspects, however I think you have missed my point – which centers entirely on customer experience and branding. I assume, for now, the city is not silly enough to raise the rates to $10/hour, nor Steve Martin;s theory that we could solve crime by legislating “Death for parking violations”.
That said, each ticket creates a negative impression. Yes, the person should feed the meter, they are guilty as charged if it runs out early, they fail if they get caught in conversation or have an extra latte, or fail to pay the amount in advance based on how long they think they will stay and play. Or maybe the meter only accept an hour. Point is that I still cannot have lunch on College without breaking the meal and feeding the meter. And, if I get caught up in a store buying, I have to race out and plug the meter – or maybe instead just skip the purchase and just leave. This effects people by design and cuts stores revenue. The chump change required for the meter is not my point – it is the hassle and the stress.
Sidebar to this – and sorry if you sniff more BS as you call it, but sadly, Oakland is not like Palo Alto, which is sans meters altogether, and this somehow works. Yes, having Facebook et al helping paying the City coffers makes a diffference. But, It would nice, to see the Chamber and others, find a way to convince the next Twitter or Facebook that Oakland should be the place to launch from.
Again – the point is quality customer experience – sorry if you think that is BS
August 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Bob –
While your point is well intended, and I would love to walk and bike like I used; however I will be honest with you about walking and biking. While, I would love to, my hip is shot, no joint space, and I am in chronic pain 24/7. Therefore, that is not an option. I could simply buy on line and avoid sales tax altogether ( yet another layer to this at 9.75%), but I would like to shop local, and keep our purchasing in the community
Further, I have no vested interest in this discussion whatsoever, as my handicap allows me to park free. I cannot tell you how much I would prefer to pay for parking, and risk the tickets, if that were an option, and therefore did not have to live with the chronic pain. I hope that helps put my positions in perspective for you.
Therefore, my comments are not personal, but the echos of my friends commentaries and my reasoning on how to improve experiences in local neighborhoods – nothing more.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Back and forth, back and forth. Seems to me all the CC needs to do is raise the time limit to 3 hours after 5PM and problem is solved.
As much as I appreciate all that Mr. Michaan has done with the Grand Lake, I don’t understand this particular tempest in a teapot. I know of no other neighborhood shopping district in Oakland with as much free parking, i.e. the under 580 lot. SF has gone to $2 an hour on Polk/Bush for example, and there’s plenty of places in SF that although parking is “free” have a 2 hour restriction until 10PM. I’m thinking of the Castro in particular, and there’s never a lack of people out and about there.
If you’ve got something people want to see, buy, or experience, parking isn’t going to keep them away, IMHO.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
For everyone who keeps talking about how the parking hours should be longer – the City is working on this issue already. Kiosks are going to be reprogrammed so you can park for 3 hours between 5 and 8.
If I had it my way, there would be a 4 hour limit all the time, but you would have to pay $3/hour for the 3rd and 4th hours. Or maybe $2.50 for the third hour and $3 for the fourth. Anyway.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
This is being put out in various forms on neighborhood groups around the city, this is just one of the better versions from the MSIC:
Bob LaMartin
We’ve just learned that one of our concerns about the new parking regulations has been addressed. Jean Quan has written to say that the following information is being made official today:
* The parking receipts issued by the new kiosks are good for the full time no matter where they are bought. This means if you buy a two hour receipt in Montclair and then go to the Dimond within the time period your receipt will be accepted.
* If you are parked at a meter but have a timed receipt from a kiosk that is still good, the receipt will be accepted. This came up when some of our constituents bought kiosk receipts but were ticketed because they did not plug the meters.
* Not effective immediately but in process, the kiosks will be reprogrammed so that at the end of the day tickets may be purchased for up to 3 hours, 5-8 pm. This is to allow more time for shoppers who want to catch dinner or go to a dinner and movie without worrying about parking meters.
So now you can purchase a ticket from any kiosk in the Village and use it not only anywhere in the Village (including those two stand-alone meters on Mountain at La Salle), but you can use left-over time on a ticket anywhere in the City.
The 8 PM situation remains for now; we’ll continue to work on that one. Thanks to all who’ve offered help and support.
Roger Vickery, MVA Executive Director
August 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Boy are we bringing extraneous issues into the conversation! Yes, the city should do a better job managing our money. Yes, the city should be luring new businesses (both of Twitters’ founders lived in Berkeley until recently, yet the company is in SF, and we totally blew our chance to land Levi’s). Yes, the city should be cleaning up commercial areas more. But parking policy can be, and should be, discussed discretely (and not discreetly).
August 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Bennett,
Yes, of course, there are many people who do not have the luxury to walk and ride as I do. I think we would have a higher quality of life on so many levels if we all drove less, but that is not an option for everyone, and we must make sure that everyone has mobility and access. The day will come, and it’s not far off, when I may not have the same mobility that I have now, and none of us should forget that (especially me!). I think my main risk right now is getting doored when I ride in the “bike lane” around Lake Merritt, which has happened more times than I can count.
Having said that, I think that there are more creative options, admittedly long term, that we can apply to this situation. I don’t think parking fees are that big an issue in the great scheme of things, but they provide an easy issue that impacts everyone, and an issue that is relatively easy for people to get their minds around and hot under the collar over.
I also want to add that if we did make it easier and safer for people who did walk or ride bikes to do so without risking their lives because of vehicle traffic, many solutions would become much more obvious, very quickly.
Bob LaMartin
August 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
so if i am reading this correctly, I can buy a kiosk ticket on Lakeshore do my thang and travel up to Piedmont Ave and waste my remaining minutes. Call me crazy but I see potential issues with this concepts and neither business nor driver is going to be happy. I see this being a problem should the city and merchants ever get their acts together and commence with Business Improvement Districts, which would be direct beneficiaries of parking revenues.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
This discussion, which certainly has aroused people, points out a couple of important things I think.
First, that perceptions are very important and that the city of Oakland has not (and largely does not) manage perceptions very well. Parking policy and pricing needs to seem fair to all parties and communication about policy needs to done really well. When there is economic stress, perceived threats can be as upsetting as real threats.
Second, whether or not specific parking rules and prices by themselves actually affect the economic climate of a business district is arguable and I don’t think can be easily settled. There are too many other factors to include such as the overall neighborhood environment and the mix of activities, economic and otherwise. My guess is that Lakeshore/Grand is going to be economically relatively healthy independent of parking policy.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Changing the kiosk to give 3 hours is actually incorrect. The current parking restrictions as posted are 2 hour limits up until 6 PM, which means that you can park at 4 PM, pay 2 hours, come back at 6 PM pay another two hours and not be in violation of the 2 hour limit. So the metering system should be changed to go up to the max time starting at 4 PM.
Allowing the kiosk tickets to be used wherever is a bad idea, because it eliminates the ability to charge different parking rates in different areas of the city.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Colin, please don’t put words in my mouth. And please don’t assume that everybody is as free with your money as you are, or that they think like you do.
If you ever had to live within a budget, you might realise that at the end of the month, after paying the extra $10 for parking around town 50 cents at a time over the course of the month, you no longer have money in the checking account to pay for that movie you wanted to go to. Many people are skimping now, business are failing because folks aren’t buying, and adding disincentives will make things worse. The only speculation is how much worse.
There are indeed people who go to the movies during the day, and there are people who head out to dinner before 6 PM.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
That said, each ticket creates a negative impression. Yes, the person should feed the meter, they are guilty as charged if it runs out early, they fail if they get caught in conversation or have an extra latte, or fail to pay the amount in advance based on how long they think they will stay and play. Or maybe the meter only accept an hour. Point is that I still cannot have lunch on College without breaking the meal and feeding the meter. And, if I get caught up in a store buying, I have to race out and plug the meter – or maybe instead just skip the purchase and just leave. This effects people by design and cuts stores revenue. The chump change required for the meter is not my point – it is the hassle and the stress.
Nobody wants to get tickets, it’s true. But people still speed and go through stop signs. Getting a ticket doesn’t deter them from that behavior.
I’m just not buying your hypothesis that this will cause people to become so afraid and paranoid that they won’t go out. You’re making a lot of speculative assumptions that just don’t bear any resemblance to the human behavior I see. Time will tell, but I don’t see the fear of a ticket breaking the local economy.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Personally, I would like to see escalating rates. You want to park for 6 hours? Great. The first hour is $0.75, the 2nd $1.25, the 3rd is $2.00, etc. This addresses the concern about getting a ticket because people are free to pay for the time they actually need without being restricted by a completely arbitrary 2 hour time frame – just like in a parking garage. In that respect, I will agree that a 2 hour limit is unfair to a business owner who provides a service that requires longer than 2 hours. Escalating rates will still encourage turnover, but alleviate concerns about getting a ticket.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Alternately, why not set up toll booths in and out of Alameda? Virtually all vehicles entering or exiting Alameda travel on Oakland city streets at some point, without paying for their upkeep or mitigating their pollution output. This is a subsidy that is “patently unfair”.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Colin, please don’t put words in my mouth. And please don’t assume that everybody is as free with your money as you are, or that they think like you do.
Like most of the people here, I live on a budget an am not as free spending as you assume I am.
If you ever had to live within a budget, you might realise that at the end of the month, after paying the extra $10 for parking around town 50 cents at a time over the course of the month, you no longer have money in the checking account to pay for that movie you wanted to go to.
If things are so tight that you have to choose between parking or going to a movie I think you have a lot bigger financial problems. When I’ve been in that situation, I didn’t go to the movie. If ten bucks would have made or broken me, I wouldn’t have spent it regardless.
But that case is so extreme that it likely represents a minor fraction of the Oakland population.
You’re trying to frame the problem in much more dramatic terms than reality will bear. Businesses aren’t going to suffer massive losses because parking meters got more expensive. There are plenty of other cities whose example proves this is the case. I think Mike d’Ocla is right that there are a lot of factors that could be involved, but that $.50 an hour cannot be conclusively cited as the cause of financial ruin of the Grand Lake district, or that there is a pending financial collapse there.
Michaan does the same thing when he claims that there are empty storefronts all over Grand because parking has gone up from $.50 to $2.00 over the last decade. Reality does not bare this out. Not only aren’t there any vacant storefronts in Grand Lake, but there’s no evidence of a causal connection between business revenue being down and parking rates being up. You’re speculating, and your doing it based on your worst assumptions.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Colin, there actually are several vacant storefronts on the block of Grand stretching alongside the GL Theater (the block between Lake Park and Mandana), on both sides of the street. Some have been vacant for months now. I disagree with Michaan about parking meter rates, but he’s right that there are a lot of empty storefronts on Grand — I haven’t counted, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are 4 or 5 on that one stretch (I can think of 3 off the top of my head). The corresponding stretch of Lakeshore also has 2 or 3 empty storefronts, and Lake Park also has a couple at the moment, between Lanesplitter and the Serenader.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Colin, you continue to misstate/misinterpret/misrepresent what I say. You also are speculating, in your case that nothing bad will come of the hike. And you are refusing to acknowlege that other people may respond differently than you do.
There is at least on empty store front on Grand, and I think several more. There are 8 listed on Lake Park and lakeshore, athough one may have been recently filled by Lanesplitters. I will see if I can get addresses tomorrow.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Lanesplitter actually took over the 4-star pizza (or was it 5-star?) location almost immediately, so it never really stood vacant in between. But the storefront immediately to its left is vacant (a Rotisserie place of some sort that was being renovated for a little while, but seems to have been abandoned months ago) and the storefront to the left of that, where the Grand Lake Neighborhood center was located, is also sitting empty as of a couple of weeks ago.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
<iThe reason the city limits people’s time at a parking space is that, with on-street parking priced far below the market rate, people will waste it (ie sit there longer than necessary).
Maybe someone can help me understand this.
They will waste it… doing what?
If I pay for parking, do an errand, and realize I have time left, I might… buy a coffee or a drink at a local business. I might stop in a store I’ve never been to before. I might window-shop for a while.
Those are activities that are benefitting the business district, and the tax base.
If I pay for parking, do an errand, and have to move my car, I will get in it and go home 99 times out of 100, rather than walk back to wherever I parked it, pay more at the meter (which technically is illegal – I should move it), and then go do some leisurely something-or-other.
This is bad for the business district, and the tax base.
What is the assumption that people are doing when they are “misusing” these metered spaces?
August 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I wouldn’t go so far to say there are no vacant storefronts in Grand Lake – Baby Gap and some store on Lakeside come to mind. But BG has been shuttered for quite some time and that other store (by Lanesplitter) probably a victim of the changing neighborhood. Still the case of the death of Grand Lake has been greatly exaggerated.
I would be in favor of graduated rates. It is a balancing act. I don’t think the city wants to live off the fine as much as it wants to discourage a certain behavior, which is achieved with graduated pricing.
Assuming I have two classes of shopper, turbo and casual, Turbo shopper will pay the additional amount for the 3rd and 4th hours, because he is going to shop away. He continues to shop and bring in more sales tax revenue. Mr. Casual shopper is just wandering about and never had any real intention of buying. He doesn’t want to spend the add’l dollar + to park so it moves along to make way for another shopper.
We are all on fixed incomes, or so I believe, but to set prices at what you think people can pay is not sound economic policy.
Council fumbled the ball. When they come back in September they should just contact us re: parking policy. I am pretty sure we can figure it out for them and explain our new policy in a way that is easy to understand and for people to accept.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Addendum to my comments just above this one. The blogger at New Oaktown counted the empty storefronts or “For Lease” signs on Grand and Lakeshore in the last day or two, and my estimates above were even more conservative than I thought they were.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I disagree with DTO510 that parking policy needs to be viewed discretely. I think it is inextricably intertwined with a lot of the other issues people have raised here.
I don’t necessarily think it is fair to compare Oakland with the Castro or with the price of gas. Yeah, the Castro has a lot to see and do, and people want to go there. Oakland already has a horrible image and there are lots of people who don’t want to live here/come here. Making it even more inhospitable by its parking policy was hardly a good move. And if you raise the price of gas, it probably would be a good source of revenue because of relatively inelastic demand – people just don’t have a lot of options, and will continue to drive. But shoppers in the East Bay have lots of options, in lots of towns of which offer free and readily available parking, or on line (oh, and there goes the green argument – people will get in their cars to avoid the hassle of Oakland).
One of the arguments is that Mr. Michaan is motivated by self interest. Well, so are shoppers,as are people in general. No crime in that. And if people are afraid of parking tickets, high prices of meters, not to mention crime, they’ll just stay away from Oakland, period, and who can blame them?
As for graduated rates – I think that’s probably too complicated. Who wants to pull out a calculator to figure out how much they’re going to need for parking? The City was horribly short-sighted and out of touch with huge segments of the population on this issue, and who would want to run a business or live in a town where officials are so out of touch? Tactics like this drive down property prices, deter business, force business to move elsewhere etc. Is it worth it?
August 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
SA, assume parking is free all day and there are two stores on the street – a 1700 sq ft Peets and a 300,000 sq ft IKEA . Everyone who comes to the district drives. You are either a coffee drinker or an Ikea uyer and no one is both. Coffee drinkers like to get up early drive to the Peet’s and enjoy coffee, the paper, and hours socializing with friends. Ikea shoppers tend to get up a little later.
By the time the furniture shoppers are up, Peets customers have occupied all spots. 100s and 1000s of drivers coming great distances because they love this Ikea but hard to find a park. Every so often, a driver may snag a parking spot freed up by a departing Peets customer but it is infrequent. Eventually because there is some value to the driver’s time, and it was not meant to be spent driving around the block looking for a park the driver goes elsewhere.
Average sales per sq ft Peets $765 at IKEA $310. So during the course of the year Peets does $1.3M in sales. Ikea would have done $90M but lack of parking resulting in $0. Tell what would you rather have free all day parking and $1.3M from Peets or market priced parking and $90M from Ikea and $1.3M from Peets
The parking space was wasted.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Colin, there actually are several vacant storefronts on the block of Grand stretching alongside the GL Theater (the block between Lake Park and Mandana), on both sides of the street. Some have been vacant for months now. I disagree with Michaan about parking meter rates, but he’s right that there are a lot of empty storefronts on Grand — I haven’t counted, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are 4 or 5 on that one stretch (I can think of 3 off the top of my head). The corresponding stretch of Lakeshore also has 2 or 3 empty storefronts, and Lake Park also has a couple at the moment, between Lanesplitter and the Serenader.
You’re right – there are vacant spaces. My mistake. But the only ones I can think of on that stretch of Grand have been there for a long time. 3-Day Blinds, which has been vacant forever, and the matress place that used to be CycleSports and has also been vacant for a long time. I know a bit about the building CycleSports used to be in, and I’d say the landlord has a lot to do with that space being vacant, but that’s another story.
Maybe I’m missing some buildings somewhere? I’ll go down Thurs and check.
I’d call that a relatively low vacancy rate. 2 spaces out of dozens. Michaan said the following about the situation:
Years of escalating parking fees and fines have succeeded in driving away many of our customers. Today, storefront vacancies abound on Grand Avenue. There are always many unused parking spaces on the street during daytime hours as our customers have gone elsewhere.
I would say that’s a huge overstatement, in fact, and his diagnosis of the cause doesn’t make sense. In the decade of increasing parking rates, I would say that the situation has gotten better, not worse. I moved into the neighborhood in 2000, when parking was $.50 an hour – the rate he’d like to see it returned to – and there were more vacancies then, in addition to flimsier businesses. I’d say the block has stabilized as well, with some long-running businesses that have kept at it.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Colin, you continue to misstate/misinterpret/misrepresent what I say.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting what you say. Perhaps I don’t understand your points as you’ve made them, but I’m not trying to misrepresent you. As I understand what you’ve said, I disagree with you, and don’t see the data to back up your point in the same way I don’t see the data to back up Mr. Michaan’s point. I also see it as a less-than significant issue.
But I think I’ve been pretty clear about that.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
@davec – i’m the blogger.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@marleenlee
When the double decker embarcadero freeway was removed from san francisco’s eastern shore, property values jumped 300%+.
So I don’t think that removing parking or raising the cost of it is lowering property values. Quite the opposite. (can you say that Tokyo, London, NYC or SF have low property values because parking is uber expensive there?)
You all should check out the book “The high cost of free parking.”
“Free” parking is like “free” ways. Neither is free and there are (negative) windfall consequences to offering both. I’d call it a shitfall in an urban core area. “let them take the transit they’ve boohooed for decades.”
PPIC’s latest CA survey on environment shows that ever more Californians support investing in public transit. up to 70% or so now. and boy is the age of the car ending sooner than we think. adapt or die.
we need more bike parking. in one car space, you can fit how many bicycles? seattle does this, portland does this. it’s a voluntary program and cafe owners really dig it.
welcome to Calimbodia.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
various ppl say the ONLY reason you “need” a car in oakland is for security reasons. and sadly that’s true.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Yes Marleen, Michann is motivated by self interest as we should all be and are if you ever took Poli Sci 1A. You will be more self interested about parking when you have two kids and work and have a spouse and need to pick up some vacuum bags after stopping at a grocery store and picking up the kids from day care and going to the ATM to pay the baby sitter for tonight’s rare outting with your tired and and overworked spouse. Try leaving your car behind and biking or taking AC Transient under those circumstances. And if Michann decides to leave the Grand Lake because too many environmental studies and armchair urban planners are hammering him then bye -bye neighborhood. Maybe an evangelical church which only holds services on Friday night and Sunday morning at that site would be appropriate, but then churches don’t pay taxes. Now that would be true enlightened self interest but not the kind the City is looking for.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Michaan isn’t going to leave. That’s just more bluster. Remember, he couldn’t take his sign with him! And despite what people say about the Grand Ladke being the anchor of the neighborhood, it isn’t. It’s a beautiful theater, a triumph of restoration and preservation. But the anchors are Trader Joes and Safeway. They’re daily/weekly use places for surrounding neighbors.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I don’t see how graduated meter pricing would be confusing. At the kiosks, you enter the amount of time you need, not how much you want to spend. The computer figures out the cost for you.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:52 am
just spoke with a Fire Dept inspector – who reported another layer of problem with the CIty on the machines –
1) they cost10K each
2) they are being vandalized and having all kinds of repair problems – each problem is at least “hundreds of dollars”
3) in other cases, people are ramming them to make off with the cash or just “because”
4) The abandoned poles are causing other concerns – and some injuries
does seem logical that they could manage the parking more like the way a parking garage does – which includes the graduated rates – penalizing people {via ticketing} for “making a day of it” in a shopping district is not the ideal strategy for the merchant community.
Union Square works in part because there is ample parking – and, it is graduated – cost more as you stay longer – but you can at least go there, get lost for the day and “shop till you drop” and dine away – if that is your thing…
August 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Here’s a link to a an interesting article on how parking meters are so antiquated, and how other countries have systems that are cheaper, more efficient and much easier to modify than these clunker parking meters. How much is it going to cost to reprogram them for three hour time limits? Or reprogram them all back to 6:00 p.m. when the council realizes this was a dumb idea? Remember Edgerly’s nephew the parking meter repairman who made $70k a year? Get rid of the meters altogether and adopt one of these European systems and save a fortune. http://www.sddt.com/commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=141&SourceCode=20090121tzc
August 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
The Grand Lake Theater is, in fact, the visual and aesthetic anchor for the Grand / Lakeshore Ave. commercial areas. Perhaps TJ’s and Safeway are economic drivers in the area, but comparing the theater in this way is an “apples to oranges” comparison that misses the significance of the Grand Lake Theater for Oakland.
The visual aesthetic of the Grand Lake Theater provides an undeniable and unique sense of place for the Grand Lake area, and for Oakland generally. There is only one Grand Lake Theater and it is here, in Oakland. People are endlessly attracted to the large neon signs and the quirky political messages. This is why there are more than 750 pictures of the theater on Flickr but only 75 or so of Trader Joe’s (many of which have nothing to do with TJ’s.)
The theater provides a sense of place and history to Oakland in ways that Safeway and Trader Joe’s simply cannot.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:45 am
You *need* a car in Oakland due to the paucity of walkable neighborhoods. The bus? Come on. Unless you make $5/hour, your time is worth more than waiting interminably for busses that never come. Never mind the whole grocery shopping + bus trip issue. Yes, if you’re single you can schlep it. The instant you have a family, no.
For all those who will disagree. yes, Temescal is walkable. Yes, Grand Lake is walkable. Rockridge? Sure. Now, how much of Oakland is not Grand Lake, Rockridge or Temescal…um..most of it.
D
August 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I support Mr. Michaan’s outrage at the parking situation. OAK is ripping parkers off in several ways and they are uncompetitive with other areas (Emeryville, the burbs) and make OAK an unfriendly place to patronize what OAK needs to vitalize: all businesses. How is OAK ripping parkers off? The kiosks generally say that parking is $1.25 hour in print but the rate is $2- there should be no contradictory instructions. Parking control officers will give you a ticket if you use a kiosk ticket that is not from the nearest kiosk- who would ever assume that and it is not stated on the kiosk- why is that OAK has derived the revenue who cares where you bought the ticket- this is just a blatant rip off. The kiosk’s (and meters for that matter) make you buy time in advance and doesn’t refund you if you buy too much (and penalize you way out of proportion if you buy too little.) OAK could use a system where you have a fasttrack like device in your car and start it when exiting your car and it would debit your account and stop it when leaving the space so you pay for what you use. It is outrageous that you should have to pay an hour forward only to find that your errand cannot be run or is completed in a much shorter time all under the threat of a $55 ticket. What are my other complaints- How is it that Administrative reviews of tickets take months while OAK expects its fees in 21 days- I would say that if the tickets are not reviewed in a timely manner like the 21 days they give you to pay then the tickets should be expunged. OAK is giving far too many tickets for their back office to handle. If you do happen to appeal a ticket it is my experience that they do not tell you the reason they have judged in their own favor. I am also pretty sure that if you do decide to contest that finding that it is a cumbersome process and will take time- it is an absolutely unfair and untimely system in OAK’s favor. Another gripe is the outsize fines- why should a fine on a $2 per hour item be $55? The penalty is not in relation to wages where min. wages are $8 an hour why should a fine be almost 7 times that amount? Outrageous.
The argument that it is either parking or police or fire is absurd- the argument should be that OAK City Council will have less to spend on something but not specifically fire or police protection. Why is it not higher parking rates or fewer mayoral staff or less city council members pay or fewer staff or reduced parking control officers? OAK government is not efficient, does not measure departments efficiencies, and does not spend our tax dollars getting the most bang for our buck.
I just went shopping in Emery Bay Public Market- meters on the street charge $1 per hour and they operate 24 hours a day, the street is clean and patrolled by security and the parking garage is $2 for the 1st 3 hours. A parking control officer once put a notice on my wife’s car that she had overstayed her visit and reminded her please not do that but there was no ticket or fine. How happy and good that made her feel. Just think when people visiting our city get a fine, they won’t be coming back so readily unless absolutely necessary and if we chase the reeason’s to return, like visiting unique businesses.
I predict that more handicapped placards will appear, business will have less revenue and the city’s retail business will suffer.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
here is something for perspective
Grand Lake Theater c1920 –
diagonal parking – seemingly no meters at all – such a different era –
http://californiaimages.blogspot.com/
August 5th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Sorry, y’all but installing failsafe kiosks will not solve the problem of non-competive parking with other areas…Alameda, Emeryville. In addition, the City or it’s sub contractors could not effectively maintain and monitor them. As an example, the median strip on E;18th by Lucky’s and Lake Merrit Bakery was planted and irrigation was installed some years ago. The system immediately broke or was not turned on; aftter the Merchants Assoc okayed $5,000 for the system. Upon complaining, the city ( through then Councilman Henry Chang) came up with another $5,000 for re-landscaping and irrigation. Three months after completion, the system failed again, the plants died and look at it now. Give me a break, the track record for the City is bright ideas and piss poor excution. I wish it were not so and I do believe the Council is generally well-intentioned. But they are swimming upstream against a bloated and de-moralized bureacracy….. “Don’t do anything well, work too hard or change the system, you might get punished.”
August 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I had been thinking they should just change it to 7 am to 7 pm, so people wouldn’t have to feed meters during dinner/movies.
Also worth thinking about, thank you, V:
If I had it my way, there would be a 4 hour limit all the time, but you would have to pay $3/hour for the 3rd and 4th hours. Or maybe $2.50 for the third hour and $3 for the fourth. Anyway.
David,
“For all those who will disagree. yes, Temescal is walkable. Yes, Grand Lake is walkable. Rockridge? Sure. Now, how much of Oakland is not Grand Lake, Rockridge or Temescal…um..most of it.”
you need to get out more. There are many more walkable neighborhoods than you think! Try the Oakland Heritage Alliance walking tours, or look at the Walk Oakland map.
What do you mean by walkable, I wonder? What about:
Piedmont Avenue, Old Oakland, Chinatown, Uptown, Produce Market/Waterfront Warehouse/Jack London area (if you watch the cars), Fruitvale/International Blvd., Fruitvale/Dimond area, parts of MacArthur near Mills, Laurel District, Montclair, Fifth Ave. artists’ colony, Glenview, Jingletown (if you like artists’ workplaces), Adeline/Alcatraz, Claremont Ave., and there are many more! Places become walkable when we walk to and in them. Let me know if you want to take a stroll!
August 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
According to the SFMTA, parking meters were invented in 1932 and not used locally until after WWII. http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pmeter/indxpkmeter.htm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I don’t mind paying for parking. I like the new machines, but dislike that paying at the kiosk will not work for a space where the coin-op meter is broken. I got a parking ticket for that and lost when I contested it.
I was recently in Calistoga on a Sunday afternoon. The meters were operative then and there was an officer walking the streets and ticketing for meter violations – yes, Sunday early pm.
The days of free parking in the City structure by TJ’s on Lakeshore Ave. are probably numbered…..
August 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Naomi,
I’m talking about a neighborhood where you can live and walking around will fulfill your every day needs, and preferably won’t get shot or mugged. That crosses out any of the art areas and Fruitvale, Uptown, MacArthur near Mills, and is dangerously close to crossing out the Laurel and Glenview.
Try walking to and from the Montclair shopping district with a couple gallons of milk and some cereal. Hills are lovely to walk in and around, but darned inconvenient for running errands on foot or bicycle.
As for Jack London, Old Oakland etc. Again, I suppose that’s walkable, just not many people living near there to walk to it and back to their abodes. Chinatown is walkable. I’m not Chinese and probably will never live there due to that fact.
Of all the ‘hoods in Oakland, I’d say the Grand/Lake is the most walkable…with TJ’s and Safeway you get your food, can walk to get some clothes, baked goods, restaurants, farmers’ market etc.
By way of comparison, in my old hood in Chicago there was a TJ’s almost across the street, a few bars, antique shop, a drug store, bank, library, ball park, kids’ parks, restaurants, a couple clothes & furniture stores, a couple cafes, and an actual commuter rail stop along with a couple ‘L’ stops. That’s a walkable ‘hood. Again, only thing that compares is Grand/Lake and Rockridge, and maybe Temescal (although Temescal is much less safe).
Oakland’s fine, especially now that buying a house is cheaper than in my old Chicago ‘hood, but I don’t consider most of it to be walkable AND livable for me…
D
August 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Grand Lake Theater c1920 –
I’m straining to read what it says on the far left of the marquee. I think it says “Justice Denied in Massachusetts. Free Sacco & Vanzetti Now!”
August 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Of interesting note – in San Francisco, on shopping mecca Union Street – known for both high rent, abundant meter maids, as well as the generally affluent – this post on SFCURBED blog – documents the TWENTY NINE (29) vacant stores fronts now available.
Point is that the small business/merchant situation circa 2009 – is truly on dangerous ground, hanging by a thread – and every form of “BUY LOCAL NOW” support is needed to keep the vitality of our communities intact as this economic storm blows through the Country.
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/08/05/entire_portion_of_union_street_basically_for_rent.php
August 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Izzy – I zoomed in on the file and does not seem to say anything about the Sacco case c1920 –
It does say:
“Com Sun Oakland Premier “The Goose Woman”
and
“Irma Falves on the Mighty Wurlitzer
not sure about the Markee “typo”…
here is the Sacco case info FYI
http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/sacco-vanzetti-case.jsp
August 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Ralph:
OK, your hypothetical about the IKEA and the Peet’s with free parking is interesting, as are your hypothetical shoppers. However it doesn’t resemble any of the retail areas in Oakland I can think of. It certainly doesn’t resemble Grand Lake.
And I’m not advocating for free parking, but perhaps for longer limits (3-4 hours?) to make a leisurely meal, or a long movie, or some window shopping, more feasible.
So can somebody talk about this “misuse” of parking spaces in a way that actually relates to the retail area under discussion? I’m still not seeing it.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
David, dude, I know not where you live. Not even sure it is Oakland, but if you don’t think Uptown is walkable, then it is clear that you have spent little to no time in Uptown.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I think Naomi is right that the meter hours should be shifted one hour earlier to 7am – 7pm. In fact, I mentioned the same idea just last night to some of the local rabble-rousers.
I think some businesses would see real benefit by having an earlier meter period. Back in my youth when I foolishly drove a car to work every week day, I would sometimes stop at a local java spot to grab a cup a joe to go. Many times, though, I would be unable to find close parking for a quick in and out because of all the overnight parking squatters.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Why is it that I knew that my simple example would be lost on the unwashed masses. Doesn’t anyone sit in an economics class. Ugh. The basic idea behind wasting a parking space is not all dollars and shoppers are equal. So I will try this with a more different example.
For ease of explanation, I am going to assume that all parking is free. Someone who drives to Grand Lake and spends all day in a parking space while sipping one cup of coffee effectively reduces the available supply of parking by one space. As more people do that, it becomes harder for people who drive to the district to shop The Gap to find a parking space. Sales revenue lost $4.2M (Avg sq ft of a Gap Store 12,500, sales per sq ft (2008) $336.
As people value their time more than they value free parking they will opt to go elsewhere. Does this help you?
PS: I use free parking because it is easier to illustrate the point.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I think bringing in Union St. is pretty far fetched, except for the fact that retailers are hurting and neighborhood retailing is hurting even more than larger stores. There is no doubt in my mind that Union St. landlords could rent their stores but the asking rents are extremely high- they could lower the rents. Union St is almost world class. You really only need to look here at Lakeshore, which is pretty fully tenanted, Grand which has too many vacancies and Piedmont Ave which also has too many vacancies. Bottom line retailers are hurting, so the city enacts a policy that clearly hurts retailers, even if it is only from the outcry of Michaan and the bad press OAK experiences but I think it clearly does hurt retailers. I have heard from several SF friends who have recently received tickets in OAK that they won’t return to OAK anytime soon They did not roll this out in a thoughtful way. OAK needs more unique retail stores that’s where jobs, revenues, positive lifestyle and exciting streets create demand which lifts us out of real estate depression. What CC did is covering up for their bad government policies of many years – like overspending, misspending bond $, bad union contracts, bad tax policy (why does OAK have a gross receipts tax where Emeryville does not.)
August 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Maybe everybody on both sides would be less worked up about the parking if there were still reliable streetcars running down Grand, that you can see the tracks for in the 30′s photo linked by bennett above.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
SA, this example may be easier for you to understand. You mentioned “window shopping” as something you like doing.
Using that as my jumping off point assume that you have two classes of shoppers window shoppers and buyers. Window shoppers do just that window shop; they never buy. Buyers spend hundreds of dollars on goods every time they leave the house.
No one minds spending a $1.50 to park so everyone floods to the shopping district. If 95% of the parking spots are always occupied by window shoppers at some point due to the lack of available parking, buyers are going to get tired of driving to the district, sales will fall and businesses close.
If you increase and graduate the rate, window shoppers will opt out of paying the graduated fees. As a result, parking space turnover and make room for buyers.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Pat Kernighan just announced support for rolling the end time for meters back to 6pm. The email is too long to post here, but I just posted it here: http://www.rockridgeresidents.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2413
August 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I am beginning to to believe it is not the lack of stores or the perception of high crime that will keep good people from moving to Oakland, it is the complete lack of council to do their duty. PK is right that council should not have used parking as a revenue generating measure. She should have womaned up and been honest it is good public policy and sad she will work with merchants to develop a better pricing strategy that works for all. But dog forbid the pinheads at FOP actually do something that makes sense.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Speaking of not making sense, there’s something awry with Ralph’s last post.
Further walkable neighborhoods: Adams Point. Lakeside Apt. District. And not true that no one lives in Jack London area. Haven’t you seen all those apartments and condos going up? And, I find it pretty useful to have Chinatown to shop in. We do own a car, but it sometimes sits for a week because from our “unwalkable” neighborhood we can do so much of our activity on foot, bus and BART.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Vivek, Thanks for posting this. Though I’m not sure I get the impression that IDLF might be moving towards some compromise too. I think they’ve heard the public loud & clear.
On the other hand I think it’s ridiculous that people say they’ll drive to Emeryville, Berkeley, or Walnut Creek to shop or eat because they have to put an extra $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, or $3 in the meter. Compared to the budget problems Oakland is facing, as well as local merchants and their employees, for people who have that option to say that shows an utter lack of understanding, caring or compassion. (Esp. given the free parking that abounds, and that they’ll have to pay that much or more driving there, and finally that in the end it’s a small % of their total expenditure).
That said, the City Counsel poured a lot on at once, and the enforcement has been getting a little over-the-top. Ticketing people on narrow streets where people can’t park on either the sidewalk OR in the street creates a Catch-22. Many meters have broken credit card machines. & when there’s a broken meter kiosk there’s nobody at the other end of the tel. line, and the appeals get rejected.
IF the City Counsel addresses these issues, along with at least a partial rollback of the hours, Oakland citizens should be willing to do their part and contribute to the public good. Those that aren’t should examine not just the City Counsel’s but also their own priorities…
August 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
For all the progressives out there who are mad about the increase in parking fees:
Everyone does realize that the entire car-based economy is subsidized in every way, right? That the cost externalization associated with auto use is tremendous? That if we wanted to pay the real price for gas (including all the costs we pass on to the environment, to people’s lungs, etc) the cost would be way above $5 per gallon.
And parking would cost a hell of a lot more than it currently does.
It drives me crazy when “progressives” sell out their values when it conflicts with personal comfort and their wallets. Want to save the Earth? Don’t just talk about it, or pick up littler on Earth Day, or put some BS feel-good slogan on your marquee! Pay the increase in parking fees without complaining, in recognition that we must start paying the real cost of driving if we’re ever to move away from a car-based reality.
I say we boycott the Grand Lake Theater. I, for one, won’t go there anymore.
Council, raise our parking fees to $3 per hour, and make it Monday through Sunday, 7 AM to 8 PM, and then fight to get our gas prices raised after that!
Come on folks. Let’s get real.
Carlos
August 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Naomi, what is awry? Including the Measure OO debacle, it seems like council has a tendency to make policy based on public sentiment, not what is sound policy.
No council member supported Measure OO but no council member actively compaigned against for fear of being seen as being against kids. They need to man or woman up. A while back council wanted to identify what should be the city’s core services. if they keep bending over to the unwashed masses they will do everything nad nothing.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Y’all are missing the point, increased fees for lousy city services (even during boom times) is not going to cut it. While many people who post on these blogs appear smart, they merely tested well in college and never got over their pedantry. My neighbors in the flatlands shop in Alameda, Berkeley and Emeryville. they long ago gave up on Oakland ‘s restrictive and punitive poilicies with regards to parking and access. The fees for parking garages in the downtown wasteland is a joke. And now the meters are going up as well. It’s why the sidewalks roll up at night, if anyone would venture there. Try hanging near AC Transient bus stop at 12th or 14th and Broadway or the nearby Burger King after City Hall campuses shut down at 5 pm and all the “smart people” employed there go home. Want your out of town friends to hang out at the Civic Center Bart station at night while you go to pick them up? The point is, I would support higher fees if we the citizens could be sure we were to get the service other commnunities receive as a matter of course. This has not been historically the case, nor will it be in the future. And for middle- aged posters, anti car dreamers, picture yourself an attractive 20 something woman walking in downtown Oakland or exiting BART and walking home about 10 blocks. Do you appreciate the subtle violence towards women which the English language can conjugate? But then, y’all tested well in college and remain oblivous to the cold hard facts of Oakland’s streets. To many young women in our “community” to feel safe, they need to drive in a car.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
How dare you say such things, Carlos?! Don’t you know that the right to drive and park one’s automobile inexpensively is enshrined in the Constitution?
August 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
BiO, I think it is possible for Oakland to get the services that it deserves, however, the electorate has to vote for people who have the courage of their convictions to do what is right when every numbskull disagrees with them. So far they haven’t. We don’t have leaders. With few exception, we have elected voters who bend to the ill-advised will of the people. I will omit my usual rant about the stupidity about voting for Dellums. I lived in DC when those whack jobs re-elected Barry. I saw what a trainwreck that was and I saw this one coming. We need new leadership, leadership that actually leads. Dellums for his part is just trying to collect a pension to replace his Fed pension which was decimated by his first wife.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I get it now, higher fees and an anti-automobile stance will discourage the great unwashed and uneducated masses from frequenting the new urban hipster and elderly hippy enclaves of Oakland. Sweet ploy!
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All