Doubling down on parking-meter fees to address a $250 million budgetary shortfall, the City Council on Jan. 27 approved hiking rates from $1.25 to $2.50 an hour.
The City manages 3,811 paid parking meters, 5,332 total spaces, 4,449 of which charge $1.25 an hour. Those rates are now $2.50 an hour, except for those meters deemed to be in less-trafficked areas. Metered parking currently exists in Downtown, Uptown, Mid-City, and Pacific Beach.
The rate increase does not affect waterfront meters operated by the Port of San Diego. Those already charge $2.50 an hour. Estimates are the new parking meter rates will generate $800,000 monthly, about $9.6 million annually.
The City also waived a current requirement to share incremental parking revenues resulting from the increased parking-meter rates with Community Parking Districts, like the one in Pacific Beach. That revenue share will now go exclusively into the City’s general fund.
The City Council voted 8-1, with Councilmember Vivian Moreno of District 8 dissenting. The council vote followed the narrow failure last November of a 1-cent sales tax measure on the ballot that would have helped lessen this year’s City budget deficit.
Was this move justified and necessary? Or, should the City have done something else instead to cushion its sizable budget deficit?
San Diego Community Newspaper Group solicited public input on social media and email asking residents whether they approved of the parking-meter rate hike. Here’s what they said:
Frederick W. Kosmo Jr., chair of the Peninsula Community Planning Board, characterized the fee hike as completely offensive. “It is essentially a tax on people who park in San Diego,” he argued adding, “Nobody voted for that. [Mayor] Todd Gloria does not understand the message of the November election. His sales tax proposal failed because the people of San Diego know they are overtaxed, and they know the City has a real problem with irresponsible spending.”
Concluded Kosmo: “We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. It is also offensive that Gloria has been pushing high-density housing with inadequate or no parking. Now he wants to punish people in San Diego for trying to find a place to park. My suggestion is the City form an independent commission to review City spending and make recommendations on the elimination or reduction of irresponsible spending.”
“This might be a bad idea,” noted Denny Knox, executive director of Ocean Beach MainStreet Association. “The public doesn’t especially trust the City. Parking meter fines are already quite high. The City has a large budget deficit that can’t be solved unless they get back to basics. What is necessary for the City to provide? What investments in programs, projects, and real estate have a decent ROI for the City? What expenses are a complete drain on the taxpayers?
“The City has long-standing debt that prevents the public from getting the most from their tax dollars,” concluded Knox. “When you can’t provide the basics because of past/current debt, it diminishes the effectiveness of government programs. It’s complicated. Sometimes ‘pet projects’ get done. But basic needs for the City are left undone.”
“The City continues to make horrific mistakes with budget, housing, homeless, fire prevention … But expects the citizens to pay for their mistakes,” said Marie N. of PB.
Not everyone, however, agreed that what the City is asking with doubling parking-meter rates is unreasonable or unjustified, given the current circumstances.
“San Diego parking rates will remain a bargain, compared to many of our sister cities on the West Coast,” said Christian G. of La Jolla. “Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle (parking fees) are all more expensive.”
“I agree with the parking hikes,” agreed Bryan A. of Crown Point North. “Parking is not a right and should cost the amount of the opportunity cost (e.g. sidewalk or street dining extensions). Also, I hope that increased parking rates encourage people to take public transport.”
Brody Woehl of Point Loma had a more nuanced view.
“I wouldn’t be opposed (to the rate hike) if they had a plan to use the increase in funds towards something that would benefit us,” he said. “Possibly better public transport so we don’t have to rely on driving everywhere. I feel our metro system is incredibly lacking.”
The majority of more than 80 respondents however did not view the parking-meter hike favorably.
“I’d like to see them (City) cutting costs, instead of seeking more revenue,” said Frank Stauffer of Linda Vista.
“More revenue is the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a bottle of vodka,” argued Robert B. of Mission Beach. “The City has a wasting money problem, not a revenue problem.”
Barb Graham of Bay Park was concerned about meter rates being equitably applied. “Parking meters in many areas don’t take coins anymore,” she pointed out. “This will have a bigger impact on older folks who aren’t technologically inclined. I can see how older folks might not even be able to do this, which should be a defense against fines, as these meters were designed for ‘technolicious’ young ‘uns who are familiar with the process. I can play the ‘ignorant geezer’ card if I have to, but I shouldn’t have to.”
Peter E. of La Jolla felt it was wrong for the City to discontinue splitting parking meter revenues with parking districts. “I thought the point of parking meters was to create customer turnover for the businesses near them, and that any money generated was supposed to go into the business district, for example, Discover Pacific Beach, and not into the general fund,” he said. “All the funds should go into the business district since that’s who the meters are supposed to benefit.”
John MacIntyre of Point Loma contended the City’s action was “little more than looking for pennies under the car seat.” He added, “The City needs to take a complete scrub with expenditures and cut its spending. Small bits of revenue look nice. But that’s not the solution to the City’s problems. As others have said here, the city has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”
Wil Wakely of PB believes the City’s doubling parking fees “may backfire.” He reasoned, “People will find another way to solve their problem rather than parking. So parking income may decrease. Hope it happens and teaches a lesson: that raising prices may have the opposite result; loss of income.”
