PT BLOG


Francisco weren’t going to take tax increases lying down. Tim tells me the NPA has an initiative going that will soon host a website to give details on how to fight parking taxes. Now, operators in LA find them-


selves in a similar situation. The tax dragon is raising its ugly head and looking at parking tax. It’s currently 10%, and they want, at a minimum, to double it.This is bad news for business. In a state that is already running busi- nesses out ofCaliforniawith fees, taxes and regulations, now is not the time to add more. The local parking group is girding its loins, and I expect they will use the SF model to help them form a defensive position against the city. It’s typical.The city has nomoney,


and rather than reduce the overwhelm- ing bureaucracy and – shudder – pri- vatize things such as electricity, water, trash pickup and other like services, they are looking for more money. The mayor has “cut to the bone,” and they still are tens if not hundreds ofmillions out of balance. Good luck to the LA group. (Read


more about this elsewhere in this month’s PT.) Oh, and to top it off, LA can’t


even collect the tax that’s now due. Many fly-by-night operators are flying under the radar and not reporting all their income. Auditors (ClydeWilson) have come in and provided the city with chapter and verse, but they still seem unable to go after the millions that are past due. As Clyde says, “They would be better off to collect themoney due themthan raise rates of the legitimate operators.” Those operators want to put the


fly-by-night guys out of business. San Francisco andMiami have done that by making the facility owner responsible for the taxes if the operator doesn’t pay. That means the owner will hire legiti- mate operators and the playing field will become level. Not a bad idea…


What, Another Law? (PostedMarch 17) I know, it’s not a new thing for me


to be confused. But I thought that if you handed over your keys to a valet, either on-street or in a garage, the valet company accepted liability for anything that happened to the car, not the contents but to the vehicle.


Chicago alderpersons are consider-


ing an ordinance that would codify this. So, if I’m right, why is there a need for the ordinance? And as correspondentMark puts it:


The basic lawof physics is that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. If this ordinance passes, the


reaction will be an increase in rates, at which time the subsequent reaction will be complaints about the increase in rates, after which the reaction will be this same alderwoman pushing an ordinance to have the “greedy” parking operators roll back rates, etc., etc., etc.


Continued on Page 62


See us at the IPI booth #145 MAY 2010 • PARKING TODAY • www.parkingtoday.com 61


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76