Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Plan to restrict Second Saturday street parking causes stir in Midtown
by Melissa Corker, published on May 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
A city plan to extend parking restrictions during Second Saturday has split opinion between Midtown residents who see the plan as a solution to some of their parking problems – and those who believe it will only create more.
The proposal is to create a pilot program that extends the hours of “residential only” permit parking areas from 6 p.m. to 12 a.m. on Second Saturdays, which have been a boon for Midtown businesses but an annoyance for some residents who have to share limited parking spaces with visitors.
The pilot program wuold cover 16th Street to 29th Street, and the south side of G Street to the south side of I Street.
If the response seems positive, the city would initiate a three-month trial period with restrictions in effect only on Second Saturdays, according to Parking Services Manager Howard Chan. After that, Chan would discuss results with neighborhood groups before moving to put the plan in place permanently.
According to Midtown Business Association Executive Director Liz Studebaker, visitors to the restricted areas will be able to park without a problem for two hours, but would be cited by parking enforcement if they park for longer amounts of time.
The upside of the program for residents is that Second Saturday visitors won’t be able to take advantage of free parking on some residential streets, keeping rowdy late-night revelers away from residences.
“Partiers return to their cars after 12:30 a.m. or 1 a.m and they are drunk,” said Midtown resident Dale Kooyman. “Vandalism, broken bottles, trash and debris, people urinating against the house – those things are not unusual.”
In addition to the bad behavior of some Second Saturday visitors, Kooyman said the inconvenience homeowners face when they leave their house and return to find no street parking is another problem he’d like to see resolved with the pilot program.
There is a downside for residents, however. The extended time limits would force homeowners to provide visitor passes for their guests staying longer than two hours and the city may not be able to hand out as many passes as residents would like.
“I think this is a horrible idea,” said Midtown resident Rob Sperling. “It limits your ability of how you can use your home.”
Sperling said that neighborhood events with lots of people attending would make the lack of multiple passes a problem.
“Folks that come to the event would either have to park a long distance away or they couldn’t park across from their homes when they need to,” Sperling said.
The idea for the program started as a request from the City Council District 4 office in response to phone calls and emails from residents asking for help with problems related to Second Saturday parking and traffic, according to Chan.
“People are feeling it the most in the zones where we see a fusion of homes and nightlife – bars, restaurants and so forth,” Chan said. “As the downtown and Midtown becomes more vibrant, we get more calls from folks who feel the impact.”
Chan met with Studebaker and members of the MBA transportation committee for “brainstorming sessions” in March and April to define the idea before going to the residents to get input and more fully develop a plan.
The proposal, which is still in the early stages, took some members of nearby neighborhood associations by surprise, according to Marshall School/New Era Park Neighborhood Association Co-Chair Julie Murphy, who first discovered the plan mentioned in a recent MBA meeting agenda packet.
“To my knowledge, the plan had not been disclosed to any neighborhood associations,” Murphy said. “We wanted a chance to speak up and say, ‘Hey! We need more time to review this idea.’ ”
But Chan said Wednesday that residents will get that opportunity before a pilot program gets off the ground.
“I think some people may feel like they are being railroaded, but that is not what we want to do at all,” Chan said. “There was never a danger of this pilot moving forward without sufficient outreach to find out if it’s what people really want.”
Chan said he will be meeting with each of the neighborhood associations for the area that would be impacted by the program to get feedback.
Editor's note: As a Sacramento Press readers pointed out in the coversation below, there are parking garages in Midtown and downtown. The East End Parking Garage on 17th Street between Capitol & L, for example, charges a flat $2 rate for Second Saturday visitors. The Sacramento Press is working on a follow-up article about the garages and the city's efforts to better promote them.
Editor's note: Changes have been made to the article to reflect that the proposed pilot program is an idea that is in the early stages of being vetted.
Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for the Sacramento Press. Follow her on twitter @MelissaCorker.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Theynhave made me feel totally unwelcome so I spend my money ELSEWHERE .
If these neighborhoods are going to continue as places to live, not just places of commerce, these reductions in parking requirements must be accompanied by protection for the people who live there, in the form of restricted parking off the commercial corridors.
This test program is not full-time--it is one day a month. It has just recently been introduced, which is why Julie Murphy apparently hadn't heard of it (or she missed the NAG, MBA and Planning Commission meetings where I have heard talk about the idea for months.)
A neighbor of mine told me that when she moved downtown, some of her friends didn't want to visit her anymore because they were afraid of downtown parking. So she got new friends!
Second, good luck with the NIMBYs of Midtown, who won't even let people build 3 story homes on vacant lots, let alone high-rises. This has been covered at length in the Sacramento Press before; do pay attention.
Third, "halting new suburban housing development within the city limits?" Just *try* that with the Natomas developers, who are just about the only source of new housing, and commercial revenue, for Sac City proper as it is. Otherwise, the rest of the county which surrounds Sac City proper, and has already surrounded most of it with development, will simply take advantage of Sac City proper shooting itself in the North Natomas foot.
Fourth, it doesn't occur to you that Vancouver has completely different demographics, does it? There are no Oak Parks or Del Paso Heightses in Vancouver.
Fifth, again, Canadian provincial governance is different from U.S. City/County governance.
I know you have wet dreams of creating New Urbanist Trolleycar Man, but it won't happen. It hasn't even happened for most parts of Greater Metro Vancouver.
As Mark said, "And we can thank (or curse) former councilman Jimmie Yee's task force and the city council for putting the kibosh on a central Midtown public parking garage some years ago."
Parking:
East End Parking Garage
(17th Street between Capitol & L)
$2 flat rate now available nights and weekends at East End Garage. Conveniently located and easy walking distance the Central City.
It's mentioned on the Midtown Business Association's website, the city of Sacramento's website, Downtown Grid, and even sacramento.about.com. Why is this not mentioned in the story? I think if more people knew this existed, they'd cough up the measly $2 and park in a convenient location that doesn't force them to circle midtown for a coveted spot.
@Carlos - Thanks for the tip. A follow-up story has been assigned. (Though if you'd like to write about it, just let us know).
Thank you both for the feedback.
If you live in Midtown, part of the attraction is the vibrancy and availability of resturants, bars, theaters, stores, etc... That occasionally brings noise and traffic. It is part of the deal. If you want to live in a quiet oasis, I would recommend looking in other neighborhoods. I have even heard about a magical land called Roseville where parking so plentiful that there are more parking spots than people.
Obviously, there are some issues that must be addressed: noise issues, drunk d-bags, litter, etc... But those things are part of the deal that comes with living in a vibrant area.
The problem with the tired old "live somewhere else" argument is twofold. The first is that some of midtown's residents are pioneers who've lived there for twenty or thirty years and made it desirable for businesses by engaging in the hard work of saving the area from urban blight. So their reward should be that they now have to move?
Second and most important, what's best for business and the community is whatever it takes to make the area a desirable place for people to live. A free-for-all "adult entertainment" district that consists of bars will not attract the stable and diverse group of residents that are good for all businesses and the community.
This parking proposal isn't just about parking spaces for residents. It's also about limiting the adverse impacts of the adjacent bars in an area that's essentially 100% residential. It's a three month pilot project in a limited 26 square block area. To my knowledge, the two residents who commented negatively in the article don't even live in the proposed pilot zone.
How can you be opposed to people who actually live in the area trying something to improve their neighborhood? Whatever happened to people who live in a community deciding what's good for that community?
and businesses
To get shared interest-- and maybe some more widespread brainstorming--on the parking situation, it might help to begin presenting it as a shared problem, and to disseminate the useful suggestions about available public parking to the visitors who might use the parking. (The banners-- a fine idea! Every little bit will help.)
I know the issue here is parking and not necessarily the disorderly drunks in general but you bring up a great point! It bothers me that everyone has this mentality that all of the people vandalizing property, throwing up on their lawns and even parking on their streets don't live on the grid.
The majority of people I know that party downtown also live downtown. I also know many that will drive (and search for parking) just several blocks from their home.
And sure, a lot of central city residents also go to clubs and shows in the central city (heck, I'm one of them.) The point isn't to make the neighborhood deathly silent, but to manage it--keep it to a dull roar. And while drunk logic is a precarious thing, people walking home from a bar through their own neighborhoods (where they may have to deal with their neighbors later on when they're sober) tend to be a bit less obnoxious than non-residents.
Reducing visitors drunk-walking through residential neighborhoods also has other effects--most of the muggings that take place in the central city happen on the darkened, residential side streets where it's darker and there are fewer witnesses. Keeping visitors on the well-lit business streets keeps *them* safer too!
This is not just a Midtown issue so any solution will probably have to be considered for the entire area. It doesn't do any good if these people just get pushed out to my area or Alkali Flat.
2. Our legal source for our efforts is the 1977 U.S Supreme Court decision, which gives residents who own property and live in areas highly impacted by commuters (customers and employees) the right to preferential parking on their residential streets. Those who live outside the area have no authority to deny those inside the area this right. They can however, if feel they are or will be also impacted adopt the same or similar plan,
3. There are 20 Residential Preferential Parking Programs throughout the city with varying hours to meet residents’ needs—one of the most restrictive is the street immediately adjacent to the east end of McKinley Park Mercy Hospital, etc., so this is not new or unique to the city. Check them out.
4. People who fail to inform themselves about the details of a change nearly always object to that change. There were those opposed to the K Sticker area parking, E Sticker, the Music Center parking, in fact some opposed nearly every one of these 20 RPPPs’. Those most impact are always the ones that must lead the way to obtain their constitutional right to that protection, and once in place, most reasonable people then support it because they see the benefits to ALL
5. The city has done an excellent job of crafting these plans with ways to adapt to nearly all resident varying needs, but no plan, law or code ever meets with 100 percent agreement and that is a reality.
6. The concept of a pilot was first presented at the March 2011 at the NAG (quite early). I am told that it was in a Marshall School NA email that was circulated over two months ago. I know that other neighborhood associations knew about it because some contacted me that they were pleased to know something was going to be tried to alleviate the damage and noise SS parking in front of their houses cause.
7. A pilot is just that—a pilot to determine how best to address a known existing problem. A very sensible way to find out impacts and taking corrective action
8. Mr. Burg correctly writes about the parking code changes that will have major effects on street parking in the central city. e changes introduce a whole new ballgame. The Planning Commission passed those changes recognizing that they could have major detrimental effects on residents and referred to extending RPPP hours as one solution.
9. I did tell Melissa about that $2 as well as several studies that show what other cities are doing about the same problem as we are experiencing here, but perhaps she had a word limit for her article.
And no one in the comments seems to be talking about the residents who are against it, and the apparent shortage of parking permits there will be for residents' guests.
As to Roger's concerns--they aren't very clear. This program will only take place on Second Saturdays, and if you're a Boulevard Park/Marshall School resident planning a big dinner party on Second Saturday, you will have other problems to contend with, like the 10,000 or so other people who also want to park in your neighborhood at the same time. And if what Roger is talking about are neighborhood events, then the people attending those events are people who already live in the neighborhood--they don't need to drive there, and even if they did, they already have residential parking permits!
If, for whatever reason, the program was instituted full-time, then how hard would it be to figure out a way for residents to get enough temporary parking passes for their guests? If the city can provide guest passes on demand, wouldn't that solve Roger's problem--and also ensure that there are enough parking spaces on the street to accommodate them.
Parking passes would obviously be limited by the supply of parking spaces. Each central city block has room for about a dozen cars on either side, so no matter what, you're not going to be able to fit more than about 24 cars on a single block. If there are 20 residents with permits on that block, there won't be more than four open parking spaces on the block for guests or visitors.
The problem isn't a shortage of parking permits--the problem is a shortage of parking spaces. The only way to make more parking spaces would be to demolish entire city blocks--which has the unfortunate side effect of ruining the neighborhood!
There are lots of possible reasons for all this- a lack of off-street parking. And we can thank (or curse) former councilman Jimmie Yee's task force and the city council for putting the kibosh on a central Midtown public parking garage some years ago. And the lack of effective, safe late-running public transportation. But there is an obvious solution to the problem- and no it's not prohibition.
As to "not having spaces for their company to park," each individual who can show with a utility bill or rental agreement that they live in the RPPP area is entitled to a visitor pass--one to each address. The same residents, for numerous reasons, can obtain additional temporary passes. It works in all RPPP's for day hours and it can work in any extended hours too. So again, people need to educate themselves before they speak out so strongly against what when done right has been shown to benefit all.
Dale if you and your neighbors are all for this pilot project and you think it might help your parking issues I could care less but since parking is generally not that big of problem where I live I would not want it on my block. And if you are trying to also get rid of the problem of rowdy drunks by this measure I hope it works out for you. But again I think you might be just pushing the problem onto others. Kicking the can down the road sort of speak.
Dale I have a lot of respect for you and all that you've done for Midtown over the years so I am not about say you are wrong on this one. I am just going to wait and see what happens. And I don't think there is a 'magic bullet' solution. Rather it will take a multi-pronged strategy.
We have three businesses within half a block that have no off-street parking and perhaps 10-20 customers each at any given time with high turnover- plus employees. Those businesses have enough curb space for nine vehicles. Many of their customers drive to those businesses. You don't need calculus to figure out that there's a problem or why.
Businesses without off street parking have almost always asked for and obtained a waiver from the city to bypass the requirement that they have adequate parking for their employees and customers. In economics this is known as taking from the commons- i.e., taking more than your share of something that belongs to everyone. With all those waivers, what might otherwise be a trivial problem has impact. At some point that impact meets resistance.
Any guests that we have over already have to deal with that. There have been many times when our guests have to park elsewhere. Throw in Second Saturday or some other special event and you can be certain that it doesn't matter how many parking permits I or my guests have.
To those who say this is part of living in the central city, I'd like to point out that this is not a unique problem. Central cities that are truly "vibrant" actually have much more severe parking restrictions than those currently in place in Midtown- for example, no on street parking for nonresidents, time limited meter parking 24/7, and public parking in garages that start at $5/hour and $30 for 24 hours.
A trip to the City to get extra visitor passes will leave you nostalgic for your last visit to the DMV where they treat you better.
Let me break it down for you. If you drive then try and find a place that will let you park for more than an hour. This “simple” trip will take at least an hour of your time.
Bring something to read while you wait because there is always a very long line. Why is there a line? Parking passes are issued by the same folks that take your money for utility bills and traffic tickets. Yes, there lots and lots of people who pay utility bills and tickets in person.
Better plan on going in the afternoon because that counter is only open 12:30 to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. So, there will be no last minute attempts to get passes for a 2nd Saturday because unless you plan ahead, you are out of luck.
Hope and pray that you do not get in line behind a bunch of people crying about parking tickets. The “criers” test the patience of the counter people and they will take it out on you when you finally get to the counter.
Once at the counter, the examination of the paperwork begins. I think the counter people were trained by former Soviet Union border guards. Next is the prolonged examination of the data on the computer and then the questions. “Why are you getting another visitor permit? You just got one two months ago. Why do you need another? ”
You are then treated to more tapping on the computer screen by the clerk and more examination of the paperwork. It feels like they are searching for a reason to say “no” and send you away empty handed. For example, if all of the utility bills are in your spouse/partner’s name and you get “parking permit duty,” you are out of luck. No visitor parking pass for you. If your bills go to a P.O. Box instead of your home address, again you are out of luck. All and all it is a miserable process.
I cannot support this “pilot program” without the City first committing to overhauling of the current system regarding visitor passes. The City treats Midtown residents like criminals when we want extra visitor passes and that is not acceptable.
This pilot program is only a small part of the problem in Midtown. The lack of communication and cooperation among residents is the bigger problem.
1- Wasting Tax Dollars. As a taxpayer, I would like to know how much it will cost to implement this test program. The City of Sacramento is considering raising the sales tax and yet they can waste my hard earned money on this nonsense? The problem with the homeless at Marshall Park is a bigger issue. The City can’t address the homeless problem at Marshall Park, yet can waste money on this idea?
2- Poor Notification. The Neighborhood Advisory Group has admitted to discussing this issue but failed to communicate with the neighborhood associations in the area. NAG has been around a long time and really needs to join the 21st century. How about someone create a Facebook page? That way NAG could properly disburse information to the entire neighborhood, and not just those like-minded souls who go along with their ideas and thoughts. Oops - - that could be a downside if you are trying to backdoor “pilot programs.” The City needs to hold NAG accountable in the future. I believe they need to either restructure it or dismantle it. What’s the point of NAG if only those who know the secret handshake get information and the City is made to believe information is being shared in the community.
3- Moving the “Problem” Along. This “solution” only diverts the alleged “parking issue” to other part of the neighborhood and puts cars further into the neighborhood. So people will still walk by the proponents’ houses, vandalize their plants, and make noise both coming and going. What “problem” has been solved?
4- Unhappy People. I think the real problem is that we have people living in Midtown who are no longer happy living here. So instead of finding their utopia, they try to exert their will on the masses. There is a saying "craving is suffering." Why not think outside the box and explore different options i.e., other cities and neighborhoods that might make you happier. If nothing else, it might help you make peace with your current existence.
5- Is it a Real Problem? How many people really complained about this issue? Are hundreds of people complaining to the City or is the City just taking the word of six people that this is a problem worth devoting precious resources towards? Second Saturday is an event I enjoy and have attended on many occasions. It has kept many businesses (retail and food service) alive in this horrible economy. If you kill Second Saturday then you are killing tax generating businesses and the employers of many Midtown residents.
Just because people here want to make their neighborhood better doesn't mean they are unhappy living here. Just the opposite. And some of us enjoy hashing out the issues that concern us all instead of sitting on our collective lotus blossoms spouting high-sounding philosophy which basically just amounts to the old 'love it as it is or leave it' nonsense.
As to notification--this program hasn't started yet, and people immediately started griping about not being notified IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY HAD FIRST BEEN NOTIFIED. People had been talking about it for a while, but actually turning it into a plan is a very recent discussion--and as soon as that discussion started, neighborhood leaders were notified--immediately followed by howls about how they hadn't been notified. I'm not sure how they could have been told any earlier--were they expecting to be told before the idea came up?
About NAG: The mysterious method needed to determine what's going on at NAG is called "signing up for the email list they hand around at NAG meetings." The way to find out what goes on at NAG meetings is called "showing up and paying attention." NAG is a meeting, not a decision-making body, and its meetings are open to everyone--no secret handshake is required, other than "getting your hiney up off the couch one Monday a month."
Double thumbs up to JWS--I love living in Midtown and wouldn't want to live anywhere else--including a big home in Land Park or East Sac. I'd have to walk a lot farther to my favorite clubs!