Is it really an agenda according to the template provided in the council's own rulebook? For the first time in years? Gads. Am I awake?
For the moment, lets's focus on residential parking, truly one of those ordinances out of nowhere, which appeared and was approved on January 4 in two readings before being chucked to a committee that will meet prior to tomorrow's session. To be exact, it's G-10-01, an Ordinance Establishing Individual Resident Only Parking Areas.
G-10-01 was briefly outlined in the Tribune (scroll down for reader comments), and was discussed at greater length by Bluegill here at NAC. Here's a reprint of his thoughts, which are indicative of my own.
The residential private parking permit request is somewhat confusing. I'll try to provide more in-depth analysis in future but, from looking at aerial photos and driving the neighborhood, it appears as though the large majority of property owners in the Uptown area have sufficient room on their properties to accommodate private, off-street parking if they so desire. There are already so many driveways and garages that having private parking, rather than suffering from a lack of it, is evidently the norm. And, again, most who don't have it could.Because several council persons apparently view this as a (purportedly) pain-free means of collecting a bit of revenue, it would seem to have sufficient support to pass. I personally believe that would be a mistake, because with the Board of Works and Police Department both highly dubious, the ordinance as currently formulated looks, at best, like just another unenforced ordinance in neighborhoods that have more important issues to resolve.
As an initial question, why would New Albany citizens want to give over the public street space they finance to restricted, private use in order to appease private property owners who are unwilling to give up their own privately held resource for the exact same purpose?
One suggested answer was that providing additional parking for a particular property would increase its value. I can't argue with that. That's why people spend their money to build driveways and garages on private property. But, each time a single property value was increased with an additional parking spot taken from the shared pool on public streets, there would be a corresponding decrease in available parking for surrounding properties, thus lowering their values with little to no compensation for those who chose to invest based on that pool.
Does it make sense to use public funds to marginally increase the value of one house on a street at the expense of decreasing the value of several others? I don't think so. It goes against the very notion of shared resources and public spaces that define city life. That notion is the reason many of us have chosen to live here and is what will attract many more to do the same.
But feel free to disagree. What do you think?
Addendum: As an example of what other communities have enacted, go here for Bloomington's program ... and note the many differences.
25 comments:
Perhaps worthwhile if considered in targeted areas where commercial business parking makes it impossible for residents to park near their homes.
But examples of that type of situation here in New Albany are VERY few and far between.
Drawing on previous experiences, (admittedly not knowing if it is still such an issue), I can remember a lot of time being spent on neighbor disputes over parking, and then returning later for either physical fights, or the next day for vandalism reports.
Next question of mine, how loud are leasors of public streets going to scream when they get ticketed for parking in their privated held swath of a public right of way when its street sweeper day?
Next would be, what happens when persons buy exclusive rights to a public right of way, and decide to park their broken down, busted up 1978 ford granada on their reserved space, cause it was cheaper than continuing to get fined for having it parked in their yard?
How many man hours will be spent with Police Officers, traffic enforcement officers being dispatched when someone parks in house #1's reserved space?
How much will it cost to purchase the sign posts, and signs and paint, then the man hours to install those items, verses the $100 or $150 per year. (then transversley to remove said items if the person decides not to renew the "permit", or will it just stay there after paying for just one year?
I had mentioned this before, I know Jeffersonville has a similar program, but I dont recall seeing any of the reserved spot signs anywhere outside of the neighborhoods surrounding Jeffboat and ACBL.
When one considers the costs in man hours for the development and implementation of the propsed ordinance, the cost for materials and manhours installing the materials, the cost in man hours for enforcement, (property values will be a wash, as mentioned I feel as the price of one house marginally increases other will remain the same, and with a referendum vote obviously coming for property tax caps, what impact will it REALLY have)
When all of these factors are taken into consideration, do we really stand to net a profit from this? (or are there other avenues we can go to reap more funds from all ready existing ordinances?)
Chris,
Is there anything that you don't know about? (VVBG)
How's your snake?
That reminds me Mark, time to update my icon photo!
There thats more fitting!
Who is going to keep up with it? One year after the signs(and whatever else)goes up, who is going to check to make sure the "rent" is paid and take down the signs(and whatever else)on those properties that did not renew. Will this be done on a calendar year basis or a 12 month basis?
2 or 3 years from now, there will be old signs and paint. No one enforcing and very few paying. All for people who probably preach "personal responsibility" except when it comes to the decision to have purchased property with no off street parking. I know, it's human nature...
LOL, Chris.
I'm happy that John Gonder is doing his duty as president and attempting to make the council follow procedural and scheduling rules.
Apparently, though, they were generally unprepared to do so.
One short, last minute, largely unadvertised meeting to discuss the seizure of publicly owned and maintained property for private use on a citywide basis? Really?
If the committee structure is going to work as it should, we need better leadership from the committees and their chairs than that.
This private parking issue was brought before the council (including several current members) by Randy Bulleit as early as 2006 with no action taken. One would think that three to four years would provide sufficient time for substantial discussion to take place.
But, since that hasn't been the case, it would seem a more responsible course to table the ordinance (following proper procedure for that, too, of course, which would be another first for this group), allowing a realistic amount of time to assess public concerns.
Whats wrong with giving the property owners some space to park? A special bike path was created for a few individuals on a public street, seems to me a bit of hyprocracy going on here.
Chris, you need to update your screen name too--how about 'Puff Daddy'?
Eco...there are a number of issues, but I'll bring up just one. An already stretched thin police department will have to answer calls at 2am from people complaining about someone parking in their spot. We only have 3 officers per zone (as is my understanding) per shift. Two would be required to handle a call like this. That leaves one officer patrolling while the other two are dealing with locating the owner, waiting for a tow truck, etc...
What that has to do with bike lanes is...well, it obviously has nothing to do with bike lanes.
One would think that a true Ecology Warrior would be for safe bicycling.
Hypocrisy, indeed.
Chris, respectively most of your conclusions I see differently.
If the police are called to the scene I would assume it is to write a ticket and it would make up for the cost to do such. If the police are called to tow a car there will be a fee attached to the towing, paying for the officers time. Yes, the police have more important issues and they are handled accordingly but there is time when they‘re not doing anything.
You label the space as leased but it is just a designated space which the home owner would have to comply with all other street rules and requirements.
The Jeff program does bring in a small amount of money and if New Albany has one it may as well.
The largest thing dissenters are missing is the street department will review each request and if they find that the request isn't worthy they can and should deny the request.
It will be the street department’s responsibility to keep up with collecting fees.
Mark, if you are objecting to Mr. Bulliet’s efforts because of fear the street department will not do their job; I would encourage you to work in making the street department more accountable.
The Eco Warrior has a very valid point about the bike lanes.
And Jeff, now you know how I and many others feel about the time given to the dicussion about two-way traffic on Spring St.
I can't even get the street department to pick up the yard waste that I've been calling about for 3 months, I have my doubts about adding more responsibilities.
The bike lane comment has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It was just an attempt to take a jab at those who favor such improvements for an urban area.
RemChar,
I humbly beg to differ with you.
Having nearly 10 years experience in this, I can assure when the police are called it is hardly a matter of simply writing a uniform citation for a city ordinance violation.
The police will become involved when it becomes a neighbor dispute, which is particularly nasty.
And for the most part if there is an altercation, whether verbal or physical, there is typically a minimum of 2 officers dispatched.
I had worked unpteen calls like this over handicapped reserved spaces in front of homes, and they got real ugly realy quick, and as previously stated, it generally did not end with a nice police officer politely asking a neighbor to move their car, and the erring neighbor humbly moving their car, and then all was right in the world.
Generally it was a shouting match between the neighbors who felt once the police arrived they would exercise their rights to free speech by arguing about everytime fluffy went poo in their yard for the last 20 years, all the way to the bumber of the neighbors car overlapping the painted line on the reserved space.
And later on we would be back, called for a increased level of hostility, vandalism to one or the other cars, etc.
And I might be so bold as to add, an officer on duty NEVER has nothing to do. "down time" should be spent being proactive, and a preventing crime by patroling neighborhoods, enforcing state and local traffic codes and ordinances, engaging in community policing by establishing rapport with area businesses, residents, etc.
I am sorry, but the old addage the cops werent doing anything anyway is a complete misunderstanding used primarily by those who have no understanding of what an officers job actually is.
My opinion stands, the, at best small, profit margin possible by the enactment of this oridinace is NOT worth the expenditure, especially in a climate where current code enforcement is lacking. Why add more ordinances in the name of possibly raking a few nickles when we have a gold mine of current enforcable ordinances sitting unchecked.
Understood Chris
Thanks
RemChar,
Hopefully I didnt come across as sexist, racist, elitist, or insultive to 7 generations of your family! (VBG)
No I didn't get that but I'll read again :)
RC - Potential equal protection and due process problems with having the street department decide who does and doesn't get a permit. It might make more sense to have the board of public works decide at regular public meetings. Either way, it can be done.
I really don't have an opinion on the issue as long as the permits are limited to problem areas and the applicants are treated fairly.
I guess Mr. Bulliet and the commission will work what details need to be taken care of.
I think you have a good point with having public comment.
I don't see what bike lanes have to do with this. Every single person that rides a bike can use them so I don't see how that only benefits a few individuals. If people choose not to use them that is there own choice. As far as parking permits i just don't really see a need.
RemChar,
I agree, which is exactly why I started attending meetings the past few years. I was not an "informed" voter. However, do you really believe that it will be kept up with?
I've said it before, this is no make or break issue with me. It's just not the slam dunk that some think it is. Ring a bell?
Mark
I can't say if it will work right or not. If it works as well as everything else in this city then, no.
If bike lanes are use by motorist then they will be ticketed.
Not everyone has a bike, rides a bike, or wants a bike.
Bike lanes are a good thing when planned correctly and maybe parking spots will be too. As for me I will not be asking for a space anytime soon but I'm willing to support or stay neutral for someone who may need one.
Does New Albany have greater problems? Yes, but I don't see any plan to support.
Trying to compare bike lanes to parking space permits is apples and oranges. Bike lanes exist for anyone to use. The same way that parks, playgrounds, boat ramps etc exist. I don't have a boat or want one. Other people don't have children or want them. should boat ramps or playgrounds not be built? The parking permits would be renting private spaces on public streets. That's a major difference. I understand it in a situation where a residence is in a commercial area with a lot of parking issues but in a residential area I just don't see the need.
Some residential areas have several homes that have been converted into apartments and a high concentration of parking. If you are the lone homeowner and everyday you come home, and you don't have off street parking available, Mr. Bulliets ordinance may help. In Mr. Bulliets case there is a business that he is having issues with and this would be a legal way of helping it.
Playgrounds are oranges but I can drive my car through community park without getting a ticket, I can drive my car on a boat ramp without getting a ticket, but I can't drive in a bike lane just the same as I can't park in a designated parking spot. It is different in the degree and falls down to personal limitations.
Don’t worry Randy Smith is on the committee and I’m sure he will see to it that everything will be taken care of.
(Gently said with a smile)
Not everyone walks, either. You will get a ticket if you drive on the sidewalk. You against sidwalks, too?
Post a Comment