OPINION
Two Irrefutable Reasons
the D.C. Council’s Decision to Increase Parking Fines is Dumb
By Patricia Ellis
Mitchell, Community Activist, Entrepreneur
The DC Council’s recent decision to increase the penalty for
parking violations, as well as, increase the time that paid parking is required
is short-sighted at best or indolent at
worst.
Here’s the deal: Why
would you try to sustain the current business model – one that projects
revenues based on motorists disobeying the law – that collapses if the habits
of the customer (read, folks who park cars on the streets of D.C.) change, even
slightly, not to mention the sea-change that has occurred since the arrival of
the parking app, the bike app, the car app and the Uber app?
Well, that’s exactly what the D.C. Council, in all its
wisdom, is trying to do. And how do
they propose to sustain this obsolete business model? By increasing the fines for citations, increasing
the hours of operation and oh, yeah, presumably increasing the overtime or the
number of employees required to carry out this misguided mission; that’s how. Makes sense, right?
Not only is the current business model unsustainable, if for
no other reason than changing habits, the revenue
projections for the department, instead of being based on the finite number of parking
spaces, the cost of parking per hour and the number of daily hours of paid
parking, has been based on a year-over-year increase, which is solely dependent
on the ability of the department to continue to rack up citations (unwarranted
and otherwise) through a system that has dramatically changed – forever! Gone are the days of lugging around a sack
full of quarters to feed the hungry beasts of the DDOT’s parking system. As well they should be. After all, this is the 21st
Century.
The real question is how has the initiation of the parking pay-by-app,
the increase in bike ridership, the convenience of the ubiquitous and
relatively cheap car-to-go, not to mention the tech-friendly, every-ready Uber,
contributed to the decline in citations and penalties collected by the
District? Could it be that more motorists
(especially D.C. motorists) are simply choosing to use other forms of
transportation to avoid the District’s parking hawks? You can’t blame the entire decrease in
revenue on the parking app.
Newsflash: Lifestyles in D.C., like
it or not, have changed.
The D.C. Council should be called-out for being so
unthoughtful, if that’s a word, for not coming up with a better way to raise
money. Could it be that some councilmembers
have been in office so long that they are clueless about the struggle D.C.
residents and others who drive go through on a daily basis just to get around
in this city?
Here’s an idea that businesses use all the time when
revenues decline: They decrease
personnel, decrease hours or a combination of both; not the other way
around. And before I get accused of
having a Republican mindset (not that I care) in a Democratic city, let me just
state that I am a business owner and a Democrat. What I do know is when revenues shrink and
costs continue to go up, I’ve got to either cut pay, cut staff, cut hours or a
combination of all three. And before
anyone goes off half-cocked that I’m suggesting they fire people, there are any
number of departments within D.C. Government that are based on need – rec
center employees, like lifeguards, parks maintenance workers, school bus
drivers and crossing guards, come immediately to mind – so certainly the case can
be made that parking employees ought to be cyclical or as needed. If demand goes down, manpower should go down. It’s not rocket science.
The real tragedy is that sooner, rather than later, drivers
will get fed up with this parking vulture-like atmosphere that the current
system has created and choose to rely on other options even more heavily or
simply forgo parking on District streets altogether. I know I have. I suspect that then and only then will the
Council be forced to come up with more thoughtful and sustainable solutions to
a problem that’s only going to get worse if current trends continue, and start
managing city funds as they have been elected
to do, without taking the easy way out – sticking it to the residents once
again.
4 comments:
"The real tragedy is that sooner, rather than later, drivers will get fed up with this parking vulture-like atmosphere that the current system has created and choose to rely on other options even more heavily or simply forgo parking on District streets altogether."
God forbid we have fewer cars on the streets, that would be really quite the tragedy. Less traffic, fewer pedestrian accidents, less impact on the environment, all those things sound terrible!
Ms Mitchell apparently wants the government to provide free parking so it's easier for people to have cars. I would rather the government charge full price for street parking spaces (which are currently priced well below the market rate they could charge if they wanted to, especially in places like Adams Morgan where there is a dearth of street parking), at all hours. Making it harder to drive in the city actually benefits all of us, and if it happens to raise a bit of revenue in the process, that's just a side bonus.
Not all of us can walk or bicycle or want to brave the uneven Metrobus service (especially in bad weather, hot or cold), and there are significant numbers of elderly residents in the city who essentially need to use their cars to do essentials (shopping, medical appts, socializing) and many others who don't use or can't use the new uber/wireless systems or who are not eligible for paratransit buses, etc. Demonizing car drivers is not a solution!
Sure-- but increasing fines for expired meters doesn't demonize drivers. And disabled residents don't even pay at meters if they have a placard (and do get four hours of parking in two-hour spots), so this isn't really a change that applies to them. Making it more expensive for people to park illegally is exactly the kind of thing that helps drive out the most disruptive kind of driving (the kind where people take up parking spaces longer than their allotted time, or block important pedestrian ways, etc).
If what Ms. Mitchell says about decreasing citations due to people using other kinds of transportation, avoiding parking illegally, or using apps rather than quarters is true, I see that as an unalloyed benefit. Fewer illegally parked cars is a good thing for our streets, and even helps those residents who really need to use parking spaces, as it means fewer people taking up spaces for more time than they need them.
I could cut and paste the entirety of my comments as the opening salvo to a rebuttal of your arguments and nowhere would you find the statement or even the suggestion that I want parking in D.C. to be free. Nowhere. You missed the point entirely. I don't know for sure, but I would guess your opinion is of one who doesn't own a car...
Post a Comment