Recently a DT business owner told me about a meeting he had with the city about parking for DT business owners and their employees. His beef first off, is that the parking ramp fee is outrageous. Over $700 a year. Secondly, he feels that parking should be either FREE or heavily discounted for DT business owners and their employees. Why? first off because DT business owners collect sales taxes for the city, and secondly, city employees who work DT have FREE parking. So while the city requires all other DT employees to pay for their parking (or their employer), city employees do not. So while DT business owners collect sales taxes for the city, we subsidize the city employee’s parking.
I am not sure where I stand on the issue, but I have often said, to promote DT we should make all of the parking ramps DT free all of the time, and just have metered parking on the streets.
I asked him how the meeting went, he said something like,
“I was the last person in the room when it was over with.”
“he feels that parking should be either FREE or heavily discounted for DT business owners and their employees.”
Of course he does… because business owners always feel they are special and should be on the receiving end of a taxpayer subsidy.
Why should we reward business owners with free parking? They opt to place their businesses in an area that is know to have shall we say a well known issue with parking availability (or at least convenient parking), and they want the advantages of being downtown with none of the negatives.
Meanwhile, businesses that have a lot of employees spend millions building their own ramps so they don’t need to lease space from the city. So if you start telling downtown businesses that they can have free parking… I’m guessing the city ramps would all fill up while the private ramps start charging higher rates as they force employees out into the city ramps.
Stupid, stupid idea. If you don’t want to pay for parking downtown then by all means relocate elsewhere. I hear there are quite a few strip malls along 12th that have available space and they all have parking lots out front.
Now about those city employees getting free parking – yes that is accurate, but not really any different than larger private companies. Most of the larger companies downtown give free parking to their employees, or if they don’t have a ramp of their own, they offer reimbursement for the expense.
I’m sure the smaller businesses don’t offer this benefit and they don’t care if the employees have to park ten blocks away, but it is what it is.
So if the city didn’t give free parking to city employees but instead reimbursed them for it, they would effectively just be paying themselves. Does that make any sense?
Finally… about that $700 a year. That works out to be $58 a month which in the scope of things isn’t really a killer. Try paying parking fees is a larger city which will often be hundreds of dollars a month and let me know how bad we have it.
Besides, some of the lots/ramps downtown cost as little as $32-44 a month, so if money is tight they can always opt for a lot that isn’t so convenient… or they could even park a dozen blocks away and hoof it I suppose.
What’s next… they demand we offer free Dr. Scholls inserts for their shoes due to all the increased walking they have to do back and forth to their cars?
The city always decides against you. It’s not that they decide before you arrive. Have them schedule then leave them there without appearing. If you’re looking for fairness, it’s an 8 year process and $50k through state Supreme Court. Parking is a civil procedure. The courts dismiss city fine cases because ordinances do not comply with state law. Collect tickets and flush them with your sump pump water. If they tow your car, you can’t sue them. Rather, sue the tow company for the value of your car. Tow companies will refuse city calls & go for other business where they don’t have to pay kickbacks.
“I have a dream”. Someday citizens will not suffer from fine harvests. Someday it will be possible to trust the city more than the mafia.
No free parking! Free parking encourages lots of driving – it’s downtown! If you want free parking, go to the mall.
“Of course he does… because business owners always feel they are special and should be on the receiving end of a taxpayer subsidy.”
Really. Who pays for the streets and parking spots maintenance DT? We do, as taxpayers. It’s no different then if I worked for a business on a residential street and parked there, or in front of my house. So why treat DT employees any different?
“Try paying parking fees is a larger city which will often be hundreds of dollars a month and let me know how bad we have it.”
But this isn’t a ‘bigger city’ we can do better.
“What’s next… they demand we offer free Dr. Scholls inserts for their shoes due to all the increased walking they have to do back and forth to their cars?”
No. That’s the meter maids that asked for scooters.
Rumor has it, there will be a petition drive on this issue.
I’d be willing to bet those Segways pay themselves off in spades. They improve productivity and will ultimately reduce the number of employees the city needs to be checking meters.
I see both sides of the meter thing. But a petition drive? Barf. The last thing this city needs is increased used of the referendum process by citizens hawking pet causes. Ask California how well that works out in the end – a state that’s beyond broke with an insanely underfunded pension system, because for two generations state residents have been busy telling government all the ways it has to spend money and restricting all the ways it can raise it.
So let’s have a referendum to make the ramps free. Everyone likes free. Then let’s get rid of the parking meters, permitting fees, and the city sales tax. And then when property taxes go up, we’ll cap those too.
You want to see the city’s credit rating go in the crapper at warp speed? More direct democracy.
Any downtown business owner is free to offer free parking to his employees. He could just pay for it as a benefit. Simple solution if he is so concerned for his employees.
“It’s no different then if I worked for a business on a residential street and parked there, or in front of my house. So why treat DT employees any different?”
Well there are rules behind having businesses in residential areas and rules behind how many parking spaces they must allocate to their employees. However, if for some reason there was a business in a residential area that continually filled the parking spaces to the point paying customers couldn’t actually come to the business, you would find one of two things. Either (A) the business owner would start requiring employees to park further away to allow customers ample space for parking, or (B) the city would install meters in that area.
The one and only reason we have meters downtown is to discourage people who live and work there from parking on the streets non-stop. If there were no meters, you know employees would park right on the street rather than walking a block to a ramp or a surface lot… and then customers would have no place to park. Same with ramps – if you make them free, people will adjust their parking habits and soon you will find those companies that lease parking would simple stop as their employees shift to the “free” ramps. Soon enough there would be very little parking available to the public and they would stop coming downtown to eat and shop. Any business owner who suggests free parking downtown is essentially shooting themselves in the foot.
“Rumor has it, there will be a petition drive on this issue.”
That would be disappointing, and very short-sighted. Anyone who attaches their name to an idiotic idea like this will soon find their business suffering. The public surely won’t support a handout for business owners knowing full well if they themselves go downtown they will still have to pay for ramps and meters. In fact, the public would probably end up paying more to offset the costs from business owners. Someone has to pay for maintenance and upkeep of those lots and ramps… and if it isn’t those who use it every day as employees – it will be the public.
Also, ask Don Rose how someone’s business can be impacted when they step out against the public. I know of people who haven’t set foot in Shenanigans since he was so vocal about the smoking ban, so his statements and actions have probably cost him thousands if not tens of thousands in lost sales. Same goes for someone who tries to push forth an idea for free parking for himself and his employees – people remember these things, and they don’t tend to do business with people who they feel are selfish and only looking out for themselves.
Most small businesses cannot afford parking for their employees on top of trying to provide any other sort of benefits. I’m sorry – if the city is going to set a precedent that parking is free for city employees – you better offer that as well to other DT businesses. Your goal shouldn’t be to screw those that pay your paycheck – but obviously it is when we added a whole new sense laziness with those segways.
“That’s the meter maids that asked for scooters.”
On this issue I actually recall that they claimed the scooters would save them money in the long run simply due to a decrease in workman’s comp claims. At the time I thought it was pretty sad that we had a problem with too many workman’s comp claims from people who have to WALK as part of their job, but that is the world we live in.
I will agree that they cover a lot of ground in a day, so this probably does speed up their enforcement and prevents us from having to hire more meter maids (and yes I know they hate the term meter maid… but I don’t like having to type parking enforcement officer more than I have to).
However do you remember the cost for one of those little scooters – it was insane! If I recall correctly you could purchase a very nice car for the same money – or five Segways. I suppose Segways don’t work well on ice and snow, but it surely seemed like there should have been a better option.
I guess if I was doing the petition (which I am not involved with) I would make it simple. Eliminate metered parking in all of the ramps DT and leave all the meters on street parking. People who patronize DT businesses will still park on the street, because, quite simply, people are lazy, and they are not going to want to walk from the ramps, even if they are free. DT employees most likely will use the ramps instead of parking in the metered spots, thus leaving plently of parking for patrons.
Small businesses I’ve worked at in both SF and in larger cities (LA, San Francisco – the other SF- Newport beach, Santa Ana, Phoenix, etc. etc.) all either built and owned private lots for employees, or in cases where the office space was leased – the rent included employee parking. Why should SF businesses be any different to the rest of the real world? Oh – I get it – this is just another opportunity to gin up some anti-government ranting, in reality.
These people are lucky they don’t live in a real city. These parking fees are pennies compared to what even Minneapolis charges for long-term downtown parking.
Craig says without meters people would park 24 hours and there’d be no parking for retail. Rufusx says this topic is an opportunity for anti-government ranting. Good points. I feel free parking at the mall is an unfair advantage and this city government deserves lots of dissent. I say someone should use a pipe cutter on the meters. Those who are fans of Channel 16 can put coins in the hollow pipes. Police can chalk tires and fine those parked more than an hour. Forget petitions, Huether wipes with them. I can’t wait to buy a Sedgeway at the next surplus auction.
“Oh – I get it – this is just another opportunity to gin up some anti-government ranting, in reality.”
Nope, just fairness. Like I said, I don’t mind paying for parking DT. I don’t have to be to work until about 15-20 minutes before 5, so the most I would put in a day is 25 cents. That, and I try to ride my bike to work as much as possible. The metered parking actually encourages me to do that. I guess I just don’t understand the argument about ‘hurting’ business if we made parking free. Give me a f’ing break. Just listen to that statement.
I actually think DTSF would be thriving more if they eliminated the parking meters.
Garage sale prices on red light cameras, Sedgeway, & scooters. When’s the courthouse steps auction on the Washington Bazillion?
They already tried to turn DT into a suburban mall. It was called urban renewal. Parking issues are so overblown in this city – if you want SF to be a real city, then traffic comes with the package. Traffic is a positive indicator of strong economic activity!
Did you know that the Argus Leader published an editorial in the early 60’s advocating tearing down the Old Courthouse for … a parking lot? It’s easy to lose perspective when parking within 10 feet of your final destination is your number one priority.
Some community issues rise to the level of a petition drive…..
This is not one of them!
As the push for residential living DT continues, I think offering free “on street” parking would become a big issue for DT business owners.
I pass through DT around 7:00 every morning on my way to work and you would not believe the number of vehicles sitting in metered spaces. I assume that the majority of these are DT residents. If the “on street” metered parking became free DURING THE DAY, where do you think DT residents would be parking.
“If the “on street†metered parking became free DURING THE DAY, where do you think DT residents would be parking.”
Probably at their employer’s parking lot? You act like these people don’t have jobs they drive their cars to. That is why they park overnight on the street, because when they are NOT WORKING is when the spots are not metered. As for living DT, most of the apartments offer parking to their residents, not all, but most. Most people would not rent an apartment DT if they couldn’t have off street parking.
BTW, Ruf, do you ever get tired of being a big-government apologist?
Instead of a petition drive, I would suggest the city try FREE parking DT for one month, advertise it, and see how much increase in business DT business owners would have. I am willing to guess they would probably see a 20-40% jump in that month. Even if it was a winter month.
Another thing the city doesn’t supply is a change machine DT on Phillips. You don’t know how tiresome it gets for DT business owners constantly having to make change for people who are not patronizing their business. They literally have to bring a bag of quarters with them everyday.
I really like your idea of continuing the meters on the streets and the ramps are for free or at least much more affordable. I have worked DT and we had to pay for our own parking in the ramp which back then was like $55/month (15 years ago). With an office of 5-8, they are not going to pay for your parking. For the most part, those ramps DT should pretty much be paid for by now and I don’t think they even have them staffed anymore. Outside of lighting, security, and minimal maintenance – these ramps should not cost what they do. Oh wait – I stand corrected. We need to build a $10million ramp out at the new EC that will collect zero fees during the day for the most part. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
“I actually think DTSF would be thriving more if they eliminated the parking meters”
You admit people are lazy right? Do you really think employees for all of those DT businesses aren’t going to suck up all those metered spots? Let’s add up how many employees at working at Minervas during the lunch hour and then take away one parking space for each of them that actually drives to work – that is about half a block of parking right there – for one single business and its employees.
In response to the people who live down there, some of them also work down there. You can bet if given the choice between parking in front of their building, or a block away they will park in front of the building – and their car may sit there all day long even when they are at work five blocks away.
Some smaller towns that don’t have meters have had issues with cars parked downtown for days, so instead they mandate no parking overnight. So now you have all of these spaces that can’t be used which forces people into surface lots and ramps at night. The only other way to police it (if you don’t have meters) is to pay meter maids to chalk tires and record license plates and then ticket them after X number of hours.
You also have people who own more than one vehicle. If someone owns a motorcycle they will leave the car behind on some warm days – and if there is no meter they will leave it whereever it is convenient. Either way if you give employees the option of parking downtown for free all day – they will abuse it and shoppers will go elsewhere when they can’t find spots near the store or eatery they wish to frequent.
Also L3wis – do you think the future tenants of the old CNA building will lease parking if the city gives it for free? Heck – why would US Bank or Wells Fargo pay the premium to have their own ramps when they could just force their employees to park in a city ramp for free? Then the owners of those ramps could tear them down and build new office buildings while demanding the city build more ramps.
What could possibly go wrong with that idea?
Of all the lame ideas I’ve heard recently this one is near the top. Think of all the benefits the city offers to downtown businesses such as operating a free trolley to shuffle people around – nice benches for them to rest on – artwork on almost every corner to appeal to the eye – trash cans and recycle containers to keep things looking nice – outdoor patios that reside on city land – even the increased expense of stamped and colored concrete to enhance the appearance of the crosswalks and streets… and now you have downtown business owners demanding free parking?
Talk about being selfish and elitist. If they want free parking… there are 174 strip malls which will be more than happy to offer them the benefit.
Reread my comments. All I have said was to have the ramps free and leave the street parking metered. This would alliviate any problems business owners would have with patronage.
Tell you what… I’d support them trying this little plan for a month, and I’d put money on the fact that business owners are begging the city to start leasing space in the ramps again.
Back in the 50s when I worked in a retail store in Madison, SD. none of the employees of any business on the main street or side streets, could park closer than a block away. Then if you wanted to park half way close to the business you worked in, it was a matter of first come first served. I didn’t have to worry about that, I walked a mile to and from work, unless my uncle could pick me up and that happened during inclement weather and for my one hour lunch break. Back then people got an hour for lunch.
Oh – so now parking regulation is “big government”?
Meanwhile – government (tax-payer) funded parking “freedom” is not?
Yeah – right.
Amen, rufusx.
Is taxpayer funded parking in a ramp DT any different then taxpayer funded parking on a side street? Nope. And everyone comes on here and calls PL the crazy one. Jeez.
I don’t know – is a freeway any different to an alley?
You get the idea that it isn’t “big” government your attitude has evolved to become opposed to since I started coming here DL – it’s practically ANY government of any kind lately. It really seems to be general anarchy the tone of this blog has leaned more and,more toward. Rabble rousing in the language of ye olden days – or in modern-day ‘net terminology – trolling.
The city has plans for a DT ramp between Phillips and Main on 8th street. Cost as I recall over 10 million. Now the same for the white elephant in west sioux. Parking, city style, is going to keep climbing. Read the parking study. The city has it’s eye on your wallet.
Should city employees pay to park like everyone else DT? When you have the kind of perks they have….you betcha.
I think it is ironic the meter maids and lads get FREE DT parking.
Ruf, I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist, but have labeled myself as a Liberalchist. The US constitution in it’s simplest form is just that, simple. Government over the years, including our own little dictatorship right here in SF has created way too many rules, laws and regulations, so many, the SDSC has found our city charter unconstitutional on several fronts. So I guess you have to ask yourself – Are you pro-government or pro-constitution. I know what I am.
The constitution delegates authority to regulate whatever it (the Federal government) doesn’t to the states – so long as they (the states) don’t get into areas covered by the constitution directly. The city is acting (for the most part – like 99.9%) under state law. As Mr. Daily has demonstrated, IF you believe you have a legitimate case of the city violating a state or federal law; you are free to bring a court case to determine whether or not that is true. You can, of course, express doubts all you want outside of that. But lacking actual evidence……… it’s just an opinion. And in Mr. Daily’s case – simply translating a court decision on a VERY NARROW subject into broad sweeping generalizations about city government – or any government overall is just plain wrong-headed.
To summarize – the Federal constitution may be simple – but it grants the freedom to states, counties, cities, etc. (and actually to the federal congress as well) to be as complicated as they want to. If you don’t understand that the federal constitution itself is “pro-government”……. I don’t know what to say.
And just FYI – The whole “simple constitution” thing reeks to high heaven of TEA-Partyism in the extreme, if you hadn’t noticed. You have changed your tune quite a bit over the past couple years DL – starting to come off somewhat as a grumpy old man (I was just through Wabasha, MN a couple days ago) down at the three-times a day Cenex coffee shop in some small town. Not that you don’t have the right to be so – but……..
Given that rufusx appears to consider himself a constitutional scholar, it would be interesting to know what his actual credentials are.
I simply think government should stay out of our business unless they are helping us with social projects (emergency storm cleanup, roads, public schools and hopefully someday single-payer healthcare) The form of government in SF seems to want to find ways to fine or fee us and MAKE us do things in our lives and stuff to our private property. That is not the job of government. I can find my own job, I can maintain my own property. I cannot however educate kids on my own, maintain streets, sewers etc. This is the job of government for the taxes we pay. As for Daily’s case, it has had wide reaching consequences. He has consulted many individuals in the city with similar problems, and they have succeeded into getting the city off of their backs. Apparently they have been listening to the ‘opinion’ of the high court, because everytime they have tried to pull on others what they tried to on Daily, they back off. His 7 years of misery have helped other realize the city cannot operate as a dictatorship. This goes back to what I try to promote all the time, the city should ‘work with’ citizens instead of punishing them. A lot more would be accomplished. But you can continue to defend municipal law, I know you have your allegiances, as do I.
The court – FYI – is “the government” every bit as much as the other two branches. Do you also want them to stay out of your business? Should we just do away with the courts? Or only when they make decisions you DON’T agree with? Like when they side with states in issues regarding the government’s right to regulate your USES of private property. The supreme court has only even decided to decided to CONSIDER about a dozen zoning/land use cases in it’s ENTIRE history. Why? The constitution clearly delegates the authority to regulate land use (tell you how you may or may not use you “private” property) to the states. There is essentially NO legal challenge that is considered legitimate to this concept.
If you doubt this, you might want to pay attention to Jerry Adrian’s case currently in federal district court in Sioux Falls over his attempts to assert his “sovereign rights” on his properties south of Sioux Falls and challenge state and federal authority on that property.
Expand your land use law horizons beyond the clique that hangs on this page.
anon – I have a PhD in Organizational behavior. I have served as a city planning commissioner (and chair) for 5 years. In that capacity, I have been required to attend to a LOT of the details of land use regulatory law. I take the law, and government’s attention to it – or lack of same seriously.
One of the roles of local government is to establish and maintain a framework for development. For the last 70 years, parking policy has been perhaps the most influential factor, particularly free parking. Free parking is not free. There are costs to the community that many don’t even consider. Minimum parking standards have gutted DTSF, striping it of so many beautiful historic buildings. It is history that is now lost forever, thanks to the surface parking lots–the WORST kind of parking.
Not all parking is equal, as alluded to. On-street parking should never, EVER be free. On-street parking offers the prime parking spots, and thus should cost a premium. If on-street parking is the same rate or less than structured parking (ramps), then employees will use the best parking spots, causing drivers to look longer for parking and contribute further to traffic congestion. That said, I don’t have a problem with free parking in ramps, but not for all day.
Government subsidizes driving enough already. Driving has far greater negative externalities than other modes of travel. Government should continue to subsidize the modes with the greatest positive impacts–biking, transit, and walking. Imagine the development impact if SF offered free transit AND eliminated minimum parking standards. What do you think the impact would be for DTSF? You’d get more development, more active street life, and a thriving downtown in general. And the cost? Pennies on the dollar compared to ANY street improvement project–about $0.5 mil. per year.
BP – I would agree. Another idea may be having ONE FREE parking ramp DT specifically for the use of 1-hour parking.
Parking ramp with free parking for 60 minutes or less. Same ramp – anyone parks over an hour – double or triple the regular ramp rate. Keep them doggies moving.
Think parking for new residential housing DT is NOT a problem…..
Take a look at one of Craig Lloyd’s latest projects at 115 North Dakota Avenue (right across from City Hall).
Listing# 21303305
Price: $405,195
Bedrooms: 2
Full Bathrooms: 2
Sq. Feet: 1589
Type: Residential
Remarks
Ever thought of owning a brand new loft in Downtown Sioux Falls with a Great View? Well the time is now and these won’t last long. This loft is the biggest loft and offers 2 bedrooms, 2 bath, Open Floor Plan, Kitchen island, 12 foot ceilings, Ceiling fans, Master bath and walk-in closet, 1 stall in a climate controlled environment, 2 Covered decks (Master deck), Maintenance free living, Appliances and Washer & Dryer
Garage Description: Attached
Garage Spaces: 1
Know of anyone who is going to pay $405,000 for a condo with space to park ONE vehicle….??!
Maybe Mike’s going to let them park their additional vehicles across the street in City Hall’s lot!!
Why did the Planning Commission approve this???
“Know of anyone who is going to pay $405,000 for a condo with space to park ONE vehicle….??!”
Yes… but he bought it in the Vista Towers. 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms… one parking space.
You can actually get two spaces, but you need to spend more to get a larger unit. Somewhere in the 550 – 650k will actually get you TWO whole parking spaces!!
Granted I’m sure it is easier to find a place to park a second vehicle in one of the lots near Vista Towers than it would be downtown.
$400,000 for a condo across the street from city hall. LOL!
Maybe Lloyd will keep one of them to be handing when asking for more TIFs.
My experience living in a downtown-type location has been that I only drive when I need to leave town. 2 vehicles? Holy crap, what would I do with two? (I can only drive one at a time. I always have used my second BR for an office/den type thing, with futon for occasional guests. Central city living ids NOT suburbia, where everybody has two cars per person. Nor is it rural America where every person has 4 or 5 vehicles. Real urban living is a new concept in SD – so I understand why you don’t understand.
I think it has more to do with the pricetag then having to car spaces. You can buy a hell of a nice house for $400K, and I am guessing it has a two-stall garage.
rufusx says
2 vehicles? Holy crap, what would I do with two? (I can only drive one at a time. I always have used my second BR for an office/den type thing, with futon for occasional guests.
Not everyone lives alone rufusx!
rufusx also says
Real urban living is a new concept in SD – so I understand why you don’t understand.
Very condescending.
BTW, if you consider living in DT SF as real urban living, I have to assume you have never lived in a large metropolitan area.
anon -and why would anyone buy a property that didn’t fit their needs and lifestyle?
anon – I have lived in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Orange county, (Newport Beach) CA – 15 years altogether. Spent considerable time in Kansas City, Minneapolis, DC, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Seoul. You think DT SF is “rural”? suburban? Or is it that you wish it were? BTW – I grew up at 15th and Prairie.
#41 – this is not a Craig Lloyd project and the developer did not receive a TIF.