OWS Parking Schadenfreude
An Old West Side resident is not happy with the way that the residential parking system is being implemented in his neighborhood. “[H]ow highhanded to nearly quadruple the fee ($25 for sticker and guest tag versus $40 for the sticker alone) and replace the guest hanger with a clumsy, unworkable mechanism of begging the authorities for permission every time I have a guest or contractor…It should be noted that we, the residents of the Old West Side, initiated this program in order to help us with a difficult parking situation.” Unfortunately, they don’t have absolute power over how the program is carried out. “Most of us would be better off with the situation we had before we chose residential parking.”
“Funny how our granting of the power to ease and protect the parking situation has become their perk to give or withhold at their whim.” Well, it’s one of the most hilarious things we’ve read in a while, anyway.
I was still living in Ann Arbor, on Third Street, when they first implemented this policy. I went to the hearing they had about this and caused a big stink… I thought it was a load of crap. My favorite part of the plan was that you had to have a parking permit to get a *visitors* permit… that meant since I didn’t have a car, nobody could come visit me. There were a lot of other problems with it, but mainly it was just an unnecessary hassle. I strongly argued that the plan *not* be implemented, but the only person who agreed with me was a cranky old man, and everyone else seemed very angry with us.
I live in Chicago now, and I’m very happy to see that the people of the OWS are now getting screwed with this ridiculous plan that was only instituted because they insisted on it.
posted by Kim Scarborough on December 10th, 2005 at 2:00 pmThe city, even with an 80 dollar renewal fee, is STILL subsidizing this service on the OWS and other neighborhoods.
I call on all the city councilmembers who described themselves as “fiscally responsible” (aka all of them) to abolish this ridiculous system, or make the residential parking permit programs pay for themselves. Webb is right — this ludicrous subsidy should have been eliminated long ago.
posted by Dale on December 10th, 2005 at 4:07 pmNothing like a little Schadenfreude to spice up your Saturday, eh Kim?
The editorial from Webb, with a little modification, could read like one of those editorials at the Onion website.
The time to write up exactly how the system should work would be during the proposal process, or am I missing something here?
posted by daniel on December 11th, 2005 at 3:41 pmDaniel, the OWS’s parking system was implemented a few years ago; over this past summer, I believe, the RPP system as a whole was revised at the same time that NoBuPa and Oxbridge’s zones were introduced. Some of what the writer is complaining about, I expect, is a result of this change.
posted by Murph on December 11th, 2005 at 6:23 pmNoBuPa…I still laugh everytime I see that one.
posted by OFWinsurgent on December 12th, 2005 at 4:26 pmThis is absolutely hilarious. A summary of Webb’s write-up is:
After we, the OWS, so generously granted the city the power to prevent everyone else from parking in our neighborhood, they stabbed us in the back by making the policy enforcable and then sticking us with a bill to try to cover some of the cost of the program.
Furthermore, the old system didn’t work because all my guests and carpenters got tickets but it worked OK because I could give the guest pass to anyone I wanted and at least I never had to walk anywhere but they never enforced the rules so cars parked for weeks without tickets except for anyone working on my house who always got a ticket.
Finally, I don’t know anything about selling guest passes to commuters and if I did I know of such activities I would not be at privilege to discuss them. If the city wants to address this problem, hire more police to enforce it. That way the OWS can continue to live the privileged lifestyle that it deserves at the expense of the rest of the city.
Generally I’m more even-headed about these topics, but this is just a joke. Had Mr. Webb looked into it a little further, he would have found out that the enforcement is not run by the same body that administers the program. To anticipate his next request, no, the rest of the city is probably not willing to subsidize a OWS RPP SWAT team.
A good discussion on the issues associated with RPP in Ann Arbor is at arbor update. http://arborupdate.com/article/836/north-burns-park-and-oxbridge-seek-residential-parking-districts
posted by Scott TenBrink on December 20th, 2005 at 7:32 amI completely agree. I find that the whole thing insults my giant over-sized pseudo-intellectual ego. As a transient resident of the city I find the goings on in areas that don’t relate to me infuriating. If everyone were to simply submit to the painfully forced dry humor of my solutionless rantings I might finally have a moment to analyze myself with the same blind criticism I level at Ann Arbor and its residents.
posted by Marc on December 20th, 2005 at 10:42 amThis is a very current issue as residents of the westside north of miller are campaigning for residential parking as well. As I have said in earlier comments, RP zones are neither needed nor appropriate for these neighborhoods, cost the city money, inconvenience the residents themselves and are based on the false assumption that the residents own the street parking. A bad idea all around, pushed through by activists with louder opinions.
Lessons should be learned from the West Side complainers—resist residential parking!
posted by Buzz on December 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmWho are these campaigners and who would I talk to to counter-campaign? I don’t want to pay extra to park, especially since there’s no problem on my street.
posted by Dave on December 22nd, 2005 at 10:52 pmThe city seems very willing to subsidize future downtown parking, for residents and business parkers, to the tune of $35,000 to $40,000 per space in a structure. What’s the diff if they do it in a residential neighborhood or downtown? I am not in favor of subsidized parking in structures or on residential streets. The city nor the DDA has any business being in the parking business. Developers should pay for their own parking, regardless of the location. Pay to play, I say. I don’t live in the OWS or own a car.
posted by A new A2 resident on December 25th, 2005 at 10:44 amI disagree. The high cost of new parking is discouraging new development — developers don’t want to pay the upfront costs to provide it and potential residents don’t want to pay the costs passed along to them. That’s a market failure; sounds like a good time for the city and DDA to get involved.
The diff on residential parking permit programs is that long- and medium-term parking is only available to certain residents. Downtown parking is available to everyone (and has a net economic benefit).
I live on the New West Side and my car died.
posted by Dale on December 25th, 2005 at 1:36 pmDale, The developers of the new 10 story on Huron and First are putting in underground parking without the help of the city or the DDA. I don’t have any compassion for the poor developers (hah!) or future residents who “don’t want to pay the costs passed on to them”. Don’t want to?? Aww. My heart bleeds. Smacks of a taxpayer subsidy for hipsters and their BMW’s. I guess if I built a house I could forego the garage and just park in the street at taxpayers expense. But if I wanted a bedroom for my car at my house, I’d have to pay for it myself. Maybe the city should give homeowners or renters who don’t have off street parking some $$ to build a garage?
“Market failure?”. For who? In whose opinion? Sounds like social engineering at taxpayer expense.
New West Side?? I checked out the NWS web stuff. Lame. Reactionary.
posted by A new A2 resident on December 26th, 2005 at 10:23 am“Social engineering.” *I’m* reactionary?
“Upfront costs.” Anyone who wants their own parking spot in a garage will pay for it, month by month.
posted by Dale on December 26th, 2005 at 11:13 am“The city seems very willing to subsidize future downtown parking, for residents and business parkers, to the tune of $35,000 to $40,000 per space in a structure. ”
Parking structures will turn a profit, so I don’t really see this as an evil subsidy. The residential parking permit program is another story.
As to asking developers to build parking structures….they would, if they were allowed. Zoning, and an unwilling City Council and downtown citizenry keep this from happening.
You’re new to the area. There’s a lot more to this than meets the eye.
As to the ten story building with the underground parking, I can assure you that every developer in town would jump at the chance to install underground parking *if* you allowed them a full ten stories above ground. And BTW, there isn’t enough underground parking to service that building. There will be spillover.
The problem is that a scant few citizens don’t like tall buildings, so the developers are out of luck. They would love to provide it if the city would get out of their way.
posted by todd on December 26th, 2005 at 11:47 amI’d wager this is an old resident with the initials DC posting under a pseudonym.
posted by Dale on December 26th, 2005 at 1:29 pmWhy would he bother with a pseudonym?
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 27th, 2005 at 9:48 amGood point, Larry. It is curious, though, that a “new” resident has such a formed opinion on such pertinent Ann Arbor topics…
I live in Kerrytown and my car runs on soy bean oil, but I pretty much walk everywhere.
posted by FAA on December 27th, 2005 at 11:57 amI just discovered another side bennie for the city in all this, which admittedly should have occurred to me prior, that is when you apply for your permit they check for outstanding parking fines owed. Therefore if you want to park legally you must square up first. Saves them some costly mucking about I’ll warrant. But not in my case of course….
posted by stella on December 29th, 2005 at 11:20 am