ABSTRACT: Consensus opposition to the City’s downtown paid parking proposal was achieved at the Carmel Paid Parking Program Public Workshop yesterday, Thursday, 27 January 2011, at City Council Chambers. After Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy and Interim Police Chief Michael Calhoun presented the Community Workshop Power Point Presentation (see ADDENDUM), twenty individuals made public comments regarding the City’s downtown paid parking proposal; an overwhelming majority vehemently expressed opposition to paid parking. HIGHLIGHTS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS are presented. After public comments, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated that the City intends to have another workshop and there will be more discussion by the Staff Parking Working Group and furthermore there would be Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, if the paid parking proposal moves forward. City Administrator Rich Guillen admitted that paid parking is “easier” because it does not require a public vote. Near the end of the workshop, City Council Member Paula Hazdovac shamelessly attempted to evade council responsibility for providing policy direction to City Administrator Rich Guillen to investigate paid parking by stating that “We were asked to do this by citizens during our budget hearing repeatedly, so it was not a city council decision on our own part to do this it was because it was requested of us numerous times during public meetings” (1:10:45 – 1:11:10). Later, former mayor Jean Grace stated the public said “let’s look at everything;” but not specifically paid parking.
HIGHLIGHTS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS:
• “One of the worst ideas that I saw up there was numbering the spaces. We’re not allowed to have addresses but now we’re going to be painting the curbs. People are going to be coming in asking for money, asking for an explanation so our time is going to be taken up trying to help people trying to handle these meters." "I am totally against this.”
• “I have never, ever, ever, ever not been able to get a parking place in Carmel.”
• “All of these proposals, in my humble opinion, are insane because they completely destroy the character of a town...”
• “This is an idea that I thought had had a stake driven though its heart in 2002 and I am begging the city council to do this not without wasting further important staff time on it, we don’t want it...”
• “On an emotional note, in talking about impact on community character, I think that is the biggest part of this question, and I don’t think parking machines have a positive impact on the character of Carmel-by-the-Sea."
• “...they are going to be ugly...”
• “I think that the core issue here is since when has Carmel looked to another city how to do things...we do not want to be another Capitola or Cannery Row or Santa Cruz...”
• “Metered parking is not the answer.”
• Reference to an article in the New York Times, Travel Section, January 2009 entitled “36 hours in Carmel-by-the-Sea,” including “The one square mile village has no street lights, parking meters, or even numbered addresses.”
• “I think this is an incredibly bad idea...this is nothing but a proposed income generator.” “You are going to lose money.” “We’re not Monterey, we’re not Pacific Grove, we’re not Santa Cruz, we’re Carmel, we shouldn’t change things.”
• “...as a revenue generator, paid parking is penny wise and pound foolish.”
• “I’m frankly stunned to see this issue even brought up and I’m sorry to see staff waste valuable hours on it. I think we don’t have a problem and we don’t need to fix it.”
• “I just think this is a shame; there is never a time that I have clients that are not able to find parking...” “I just think this would be such a shame to ruin our little town.”
• “I think it would be a negative change.” “And I think you have heard enough tonight, without any further testimony, this isn’t really for us, this is not for Carmel-by-the-Sea.”
(Source: Archived Video Town Hall Meeting Parking Management, Public Comment, 27:15 – 1:22:03)
ADDENDUM:
Community Workshop Presentation
Paid Parking Community Workshop
City of Carmel
Staff Parking Working Group
Community Workshop Presentation
City Council Chambers
January 27, 2011
Archived Video Town Hall Meeting Parking Management, Community Workshop Presentation, 00:00 - 27:15
3 comments:
The problem with most of the business people is they squeal like stuck pigs at some idea like this, but never come up with any creative, constructive solutions to the city's budgetary problems.
The problem with the city is that they are not looking at all possible revenue generating ideas, only one right now: paid parking. They need to consider all. They cannot continue to cut and cut and cut. The city is at minimal staffing now and can't get the work done that is needed to be done. And the city's infrastructure in the residential neighborhoods is crumbling. (The business people wouldn't notice, because the commercial district gets all the upgrades).
Someone at the workshop suggested that the residents be assessed $100 each to help the city with its deficit. How insane is that? The city couldn't even get the residents to pass a $13 ambulance assessment or A $5 assessment for storm water runoff.
The problem is the residents feel that the burdens are not being shared equally. That is probably why a TOT tax on the ballot sometime back garnered 55% vote (but did not pass because of the required 66.6% needed for specific tax purposes).
The business community overlooks the fact that residents pay property taxes, assessments for school district, waste water, emergency system, etc. and that those taxes go up incrementally every year. The businesses pay a license fee.
Very few Carmel residents were in attendance. Most of them were at a CRA meeting to hear John Hanson, Carmel's Building Inspector, speak about Afghanistan. Vista Lobos was overflowing with a standing room only crowd. There had to have been at least 80 people there.
Too bad the city refused to select a different date, one that didn't conflict with a meeting they knew had been previously set. Then more of the residents could have had dialog with the business people at that parking management workshop.
I'm not saying that the residents would have been in favor of paid parking, but they could have at least set some of those crazy business people straight on a few things.
To advocate for more money (revenue) to be managed by an unethical, incompetent and compromised city administrator and a city council without the wherewithal to remove said city administrator or affect his resignation is a nonstarter. Because of the acts and omissions of this city council, this city council has not earned the publics trust and therefore this council does not have a mandate to enact significant changes, including unilaterally enacting revenue enhancement measures. Moreover, no ethical and fiscally sane individual would even attempt to justify revenue enhancements at this time given that this city council has authorized and approved roughly $200,000 in compensation to an unethical, incompetent and compromised city administrator for the period January 1 – December 31, 2011 and roughly $140,000 in compensation to “Female B.”
P.S. Both revenues and expenditures should be scrutinized, including expenditures for public safety, including the police department.
I'll take the "crazy" business people any day over the super crazy resident voters who have elected and reelected and reelected and reelected and reelected and reelected Mayor Sue McCloud!
Post a Comment