My city is working harder to harass and gouge people who need cars to get around town: "Parking violations bring in big bucks for the city of Seattle"
Naturally, it's about generating revenue for essential services. I was ticketed recently after the solar-powered parking meter couldn't contact the bank to approve my credit card. Suspicious, I requested public records on the frequency of such incidents. "No responsive records", they replied. I assume it's a policy choice to ignore such failures revenue opportunities.
The parking policy is also about punishing people for driving:
"The paradigm has to shift at some point," said Bryan Stevens, spokesman for the Department of Planning and Development. "People will change their patterns as it becomes more difficult to drive and park. Then there's a tipping point as transportation becomes easier to (access)."Bureaucrats will also change their patterns as it becomes more difficult to arbitrarily inconvenience the citizens.
Tar. Feathers.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 27, 2010 05:55 PM | Email ThisDo any of them have families with children? How do they get a weeks worth of groceries home on the bus or by bicycle, (in a city where it's rainy and dark most of the year)?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2010 06:22 PMseriously, doesn't Seattle have a huge free parking problem with all the thousands and thousands of handicapped parking passes?.....don't they get to park just about anywhere at anytime?....I'm sure the city loses tons of money on this scam, I mean this problem...
Posted by: lee on August 27, 2010 09:40 PMHairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on August 27, 2010 09:55 PMAnd while your solution of tarring and feathering public officials is tongue in cheek, it's typically juvenile of your political philosophy. If people don't like what their elected officials are doing, an intelligent blogger might wonder why they re-elect them.
Posted by: Bruce on August 27, 2010 10:50 PM100% subsidized......what are you saying? that a company would be dumb to pay for parking so there customers can enter and buy the other products? My god....next thing you know....they'll price milk at cost just to bring customers in. Damn you market force and consumer buying paterns....you are scourge on us all....all = union.
Posted by: Dengle on August 28, 2010 01:07 AMThe problem right now is that the resource is not made available to users for a price.
If I want to go take Sound Transit, I can't pay the city to park on the street near the station for as long as I need to because homeowners, through the Neighborhood Associations, have essentially adverse-possessed city land for their own exclusive parking convenience.
This actually helps private-sector providers of parking spaces and helps rationalize the market and make it more efficient.
--new left conservative
The problem right now is that the resource is not made available to users for a price.
If I want to go take Sound Transit, I can't pay the city to park on the street near the station for as long as I need to because homeowners, through the Neighborhood Associations, have essentially adverse-possessed city land for their own exclusive parking convenience.
This actually helps private-sector providers of parking spaces and helps rationalize the market and make it more efficient.
--new left conservative
The problem right now is that the resource is not made available to users for a price.
If I want to go take Sound Transit, I can't pay the city to park on the street near the station for as long as I need to because homeowners, through the Neighborhood Associations, have essentially adverse-possessed city land for their own exclusive parking convenience.
This actually helps private-sector providers of parking spaces and helps rationalize the market and make it more efficient.
--new left conservative
The problem right now is that the resource is not made available to users for a price.
If I want to go take Sound Transit, I can't pay the city to park on the street near the station for as long as I need to because homeowners, through the Neighborhood Associations, have essentially adverse-possessed city land for their own exclusive parking convenience.
This actually helps private-sector providers of parking spaces and helps rationalize the market and make it more efficient.
--new left conservative
I think three (3) free parking spots equals one service/retail job in downtown Seattle.
The number might be 2:1 or 5:1 depending on the type of business.
Consider the corner diner. Five parking spaces for one hour is 2/3 of a waitress and 1/3 of a cook. Etc.
Also, if more cheaper parking was opened up by the stadiums, retail (and sales taxes) would not suffer a much on game days.
Posted by: gregg on August 28, 2010 01:43 AMI still want to see elite Seattle liberals take their significant others downtown to dinner on the bus. Bet that doesn't happen.
Actually, I walk to downtown. We enjoy the views whilst walking. (Could Bill have been right about something! ZOMG!)
Do any of them have families with children? How do they get a weeks worth of groceries home on the bus or by bicycle, (in a city where it's rainy and dark most of the year)?
"A week's worth?" What a piker. Zipcar. Costco. (Why would anyone want to shop for food every week?)
I understand northern Mississippi has free parking, and a properly conservative view of such things as gay marriage. Time to vote with your fe-- er, wheels. (And don't let the door spank you on the way out!)
Posted by: tensor on August 28, 2010 02:06 AMThe system in general is one that incentivizes inefficiency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html
Posted by: AD on August 28, 2010 03:40 AMBesides, avoiding Seattle means I also avoid all its creepy leftists.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 28, 2010 06:56 AMGood.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 28, 2010 07:06 AMNo one is forcing you to do anything. There are many advantages to living in a big city like Seattle, but parking is always going to be scarce when you pack a bunch of people together. People get to make their own choice of whether the advantages outweigh the inconveniences -- no force involved.
Stefan's just whining because someone doesn't provide him with a free parking space for his every errand or whim within the crowded city where he chooses to live. He tried to take something for nothing and got caught. Too bad.
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 08:04 AMThat's good!
Especially the part where you leave the reader wondering just what type of reunion a writer of your superior intellect attends annually.
All hat and no cattle. All leftist and no integrity.
Posted by: Smokie on August 28, 2010 09:56 AMNot sure what any of this has to do with Stefan's parking ticket.
PS: Good luck in Alabama. We'll try to carry on without you.
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 10:06 AMMetro Transit is mainly funded through sales tax and fares.
Be honest, Scott; Metro Transit is predominantly funded through sales tax, the fares covering about 24% of the cost of operations.
If you want to deride Viktor for his statement about MVET funding of Metro, then you should also admit - at the same time - that fares don't even cover 1/4 the operating costs. Taxes and excise fees on other vehicles are the predominant funding of Metro.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 12:11 PMOn the other hand...
Taxes and excise fees on other vehicles are the predominant funding of Metro.
Be honest, Dan. Motor vehicle excise fees do not fund Metro.
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 12:35 PMYou criticize Viktor for his inclusion of excise fees, focusing on that (and ignoring the first half of what he stated - taxes). Then you do the exact same thing he does by bringing up fares and making them sound as important as taxes.
So, just so everyone here is on the same page:
- General tax revenues fund 76% of Metro.
- The fare box funds 24% of Metro.
Agreed?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 01:15 PMYou don't need to leave the great state of Washington to do it.
I offer you Liberty, Washington as the site of your limited government paradise.
Go on. Show us how it is done. Heck, you can't argue the name.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 28, 2010 01:34 PMBut let's get back to the point of Stefan's post. He seems to have a problem with Seattle enforcing its parking laws, especially against him. I guess conservative values of personal responsibility, paying your own way, and obeying the law don't apply to him when he's in a hurry.
How do you feel about that?
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 01:39 PMFares are a VAST minority of the funding for Metro.
and MVET was a big funding source for Metro until 2000, when I-695 eliminated that. And Ron Sims was pushing hard in 2008 and 2009 to bring it back. Not sure if it's back yet, but MVET had been - and is being pushed again - a big contributor to Metro transit.
By the way, you're lying about me. Please quote where I stated MVET was part of the current funding of Metro. Barring that, you can publicly apologize for lying about what I stated.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 01:53 PMNow that I've looked further into it, Metro Transit IS funded (approximately 5%) by Sound Transit, which does collect MVET taxes. Thus some MVET taxes DO end up funding Metro Transit (albeit a small share). Additionally, King County sends a small portion of its Roads funds - predominately from MVET - to Metro Transit as well.
So, scottd, you're wrong about your statement:
excise fees on other vehicles fund Metro. They don't.
Sorry, you can admit you lied about me earlier, admit that Viktor was correct, and that you are wrong.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 02:02 PMHere's what you said:
"Taxes and excise fees on other vehicles are the predominant funding of Metro."
Here's what I said:
"Be honest, Dan. Motor vehicle excise fees do not fund Metro."
Later, I said:
"And, though you weren't gracious enough to admit it, you were wrong in saying that excise fees on other vehicles fund Metro. They don't."
So, are you saying that when you said "excise fees on other vehicles" you didn't mean "motor vehicle excise fees"? OK, which excise fees were you talking about?
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 02:14 PMMVET fees are funneled to Metro Transit by Sound Transit and King County directly.
You're wrong. But you'll never admit it...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 02:17 PMMost folks think it is far more practical to drive a car than ride a bus, or pedal a bike in a city that's cold, wet, and dark most of the year.
Even out here in Lake City we are about to get bike lanes on NE 125th St, where virtually no one rides a bike, or would ever want to. Ken Schram of all people has weighed in against this dimwitted proposal.
The left can go too far, as our mighty fine President has so ably illustrated. A couple years ago the city proposed a ban on beach fires at Alki, and Golden Gardens parks. The uproar was immediate and the city quickly realized tabled the idea.
Leftists can sit carless and smug in their Capitol Hill apartments thinking that they are leading the way to an America without cars. I hate to burst their fantasy bubble, but they are but a tiny minority. We drive in this country, and it beats the heck out of any alternatives.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2010 02:32 PMdan: Metro Transit IS funded (approximately 5%) by Sound Transit,
Wrong again. Sound Transit does not fund Metro services. They contract with Metro to operate the ST Express buses, but those are not Metro services. That funding is for Sound Transit services.
But really, Dan, show some consistency in your argument. Earlier, you took me to task when I said Metro was funded by sales taxes and fares. You seemed to think there was something dishonest in that statement because fares only comprise 24% of Metro's budget. I guess you missed that I listed sales tax first and fares were indeed the second largest source.
Now, you're trying to make a point because ST provides an amount equal to 5% of Metro's budget for them to operate ST's own buses. 8% of ST's budget comes from the MVET, so that would mean the MVET portion of the amount paid to Metro is equal to less than 0.5% of Metro's budget -- and it isn't even part of Metro's operating budget. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's a point worth raising.
But I'm still curious about what you think about Stefan's rant. Do you think Seattle should enforce its parking laws?
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 02:39 PMIt is practically your Utopia already!
Don't wait or hesitate! Show the western Washington 'liberals' and 'Communists' how it is done, and move their TODAY.
Every June there is a huge car show in Greenwood. Greenwood Avenue is lined with cars for a mile. In Seattle!
Not everyone in Seattle rents a Zipcar when they need a vehicle. How convenient.
I can't imagine not being able to walk out my door, turn the key and go wherever I want. Most Americans would agree.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2010 03:47 PMYou've lied about me, and refuse to acknowledge your blatant error. No need to discuss anything further...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 03:47 PMI said Metro was funded by sales tax and fares.
You said this was dishonest because fares only provide 24% of Metro's budget.
On the other hand, ST pays Metro to operate ST buses on ST routes. Part of the funding ST uses to provide this service is MVET-funded. If it was used to provide Metro services, that MVET funding would amount to 0.5% of Metro's budget, but it's used to provide ST services. Somehow, you think this shows that Metro is funded by the MVET.
Recapping your math:
24% -- not significant
0.5 % -- significant!
I don't expect you to understand how ridiculous this makes you look -- but I'm not the one being dishonest.
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2010 04:28 PMIs Metro Transit funded by MVET? Yes or no...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 05:13 PMIt happens on nearly every topic. Soon it becomes about personal insults and long ago sleights, both real and imagined. I am among the guilty.
Is it entirely boring? I would say so.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2010 07:16 PMTo the original story, though, Stefan's right. Seattle is not driver-friendly, meaning most people living outside the city limits will have a tough time coming into town.
More and more areas are being restricted with "resident permit parking only" making it hard to go and visit friends or family or non-downtown businesses.
Light rail has exactly ONE park-and-ride, and it's at the very end in Tukwila (actually, closer to Seatac than the icon of Tukwila, Southcenter Mall). No parking anywhere along the line, meaning if you want to take the light rail into downtown Seattle, you either take a bus (if you can find one) to the line, or drive to the park and ride and park (if you can find an empty spot after 9 AM).
I've seen the broken meters that Stefan mentioned, too... If the meter is busted, Seattle should do what most other cities around the nation do: parking is free until the meter is fixed. But in Seattle, it's all about collecting the fees.
And now, reducing lanes of traffic to create bike lanes (which will be rarely used) is the ultimate final assault.
Oh well, just shut up, pay your taxes and fines, pay for ever-reducing benefits, pay for ever-increasing civil "servant" wages and feel lucky you live in a "World Class City"...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 07:27 PMOf course, I get to go to the BIG CITY when I want - Shanghai! Doesn't get much bigger than that (and - surprisingly - no parking meters!) And when I like, just a short flight down to Bangkok, a few hours travel by bus, and I'm in the paradise that is Subsitong, Chaiyaphum, Thailand.
I like Lake City, Bothell, and of course Edmonds. Everett's also pretty nice. But as a "big city"? Seattle's definitely lacking...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 28, 2010 08:43 PMIf you visit a store, and you don't have cash, and their credit card machine isn't working, do you feel free to leave with your purchase anyway?
Posted by: John on August 29, 2010 01:39 AMWow, you think Seattle is a 'big city'? You need to do more traveling, scottd.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 29, 2010 07:22 AMSeattle streets are "Public" property not a private enterprise. Parking fees were created not because there is a product being sold buy to control access to a resource. If the city is going to "manage" that resource, they have an obligation to maintain the means of that management. If a private lot failed to provide you proper means to pay your fee, they would, in almost all cases, allow you an appeal and the ability to pay your appropriate fee without penalty, or they would waive altogether in some cases if you had a good case that they were at fault. Not so with the city, which charges penalties immediately with a rigid appeal process that is often more costly than the fine and a poor record of granting an appeal.
Posted by: Eyago on August 29, 2010 08:46 AMLet's find out once and for all if a carless, public transit society is truly eutopia.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 10:04 AMYou do not need a car to survive in Shanghai as taxis are cheap and plentiful and the subway system is new, clean and efficient. ... Driving in Shanghai can also be particularly stressful due to most motorists flouting any kind of traffic regulations. Plus, the traffic is particularly bad during the rush hour times of 7.30am-10am and 5pm-7pm. However, a determined few are willing to take the expensive and complex route involved in buying and running a private vehicle in order to feel that sense of freedom that driving can bring. (http://www.entershanghai.info/shininfo/car-driving.php)
Shanghai badly needs multi-story parking garages to cope with the increasing numbers of cars being made and bought by its citizens. The vehicle-to-parking space ratio is 5:1, so it's very hard to find parking spaces now. (http://www.cityguideshanghai.com/city-information/car-parking-and-car-hire-in-shanghai.html)
The cost of parking is more than the cost of your chauffeur... (http://www.aboutshanghai.com/arts/1017-driving-in-shanghai.php)
Sounds lovely, Dan. I'm looking forward to your next post in which you'll praise China's embrace of free speech and political dissent.
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2010 10:19 PMThey don't just have a shortage of parking places - but also of gas stations. (I know this because I occassionally do work for the largest producer of gasoline station equipment in the country.)
Their problem is not with a lack of parking by design - as it is in Seattle. Their problem is that they have so many people who are experiencing new wealth that they can't keep up with demand.
China is embracing free markets and therefore suffers from a shortage of parking places and gas stations people want but they are trying to fix it. Seattle is moving away from free markets and is purposely limiting the freedom of movement of their citizens. From my standpoint at least, I see China as being the better competitor here.
China has so much more freedom than it did the first time I visited it in 1985. I can't even begin to tell you all the ways they've improved. The United States, on the other hand, seems to be on the decline.
Whatever you think you're accomplishing by comparing Seattle to Shanghai, you should probably rethink. Seattle is going the wrong way and Shanghai is going the right way. Unless things change, Shanghai is the winner hands down.
Only the (un)Sound peanut gallery could go there.
:-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 30, 2010 07:29 AMWell then, what did we expect when we turned our public schools, universities and now our government over to a clique of poorly educated, anti-American collectivists...most of whom have never created a dime's worth of anything...except grief for others?
Posted by: Saltherring on August 30, 2010 08:18 AMYou hit the nail on the head. The issue is that other countries which are up-and-coming are actually working to make their infrastructure and systems BUILD their economies.
Seattle's going the exact opposite way. Witness the fiasco of the Viaduct replacement, for example. Or the elimination of traffic lanes for ghost-bike-riders.
Bruce and MikeBS don't - and won't - get it, ever.
China - and most of SE Asia - are moving to where the US was in the 50s and 60s. We're moving to where China was in the 60s. It's not a fair trade.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 30, 2010 08:26 AMThey say the Seattle is among the least Trucker friendly cities in the country.
And that's before the tunnel and road diets.
They half joke that the cost of goat cheese and free range chicken eggs will triple in Seattle in the next ten years.
I've been driving NE 125 near Lake City at least twice a week since 1978.
I've never seen a bicyclist between Lake City Way and 15th Ave NE in all that time.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on August 30, 2010 04:42 PMTake your business elsewhere whenever possible.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 31, 2010 08:00 AM