POINT OF VIEW


Cricket Bats, ‘Advocates’ and the Sierra Club


BY JOHN VAN HORN I


T’S ALWAYS RUMORED THAT PARK- ing enforcement officers have quotas, and this is usually hotly denied by local govern- ment. However, New Zealand has finally come clean. Witness these quotes from a


local paper: His comments come after it was claimed that parking war-


dens inWellington – working for a private company contracted to the City Council – were offered incentives, including iPods and holidays, the Dominion Post reported. Christchurch wardens were expected to write seven tickets


an hour, and high-scoring wardens had their names etched on a cricket bat, the Post also reported. OK, I can understand the incentives.Write 100 tickets, get


an iPod;write 1,000, get a day off.But cricket can be a true incen- tive. Imagine having your name etched on a cricket bat! OMG! Let’s take a look at


the seven tickets an hour – that’s one ticket every 8 1/2 minutes. I’m no expert, but that seems really pressing it. Even with the cricket bat incentive! Let me be clear: I


tion if parking would remain free on Sunday. Everyone smiled, and the council voted to proceed with replacement of hurricane-damaged meters and to hire Ampco SystemParking to run the project.


*** Check out last month’s Parking Today. The UK’s Peter


Guest and I go head to head over “democracy” deciding parking rules. I think it’s balderdash; Peter thinks it’s the right thing to do. In the Galveston case, the “democratic” petition raised enough hell that the city came close tomaking the wrong decision. Of course they should charge for parking, for all the reasons


quoted above.And they should charge on Sunday, too. They are going to find that peoplewill come and shop downtown the other six days aweek butwill shy away on Sunday because therewon’t be enough available parking. But our “advocate” had hisway. Businesseswill suffer, driv-


have no problem with incentives. I think it’s a great idea to give bonuses or iPods or cricket-bat etchings for suc- cessful enforcement officers. The only rule is that the citations have to be proper. My 10% rule (only about 1 violation in 10 is ever cited)


means it’s a target-rich environment. Plenty of violations to go around. My buddy Chad Lynn at the city of Beverly Hills, CA,


says the number of citations written is driven by just how strict a community wants to be. If you want to hire more officers, you can write more tickets. However, then you may be seen as “over enforcing.” Let’s face it: If the number of citations written in a commu-


nity were to triple or quadruple, valid or not, one could have a revolution on one’s hands. And youmight have to buy another cricket bat. A local academic in Galveston, TX, has been an “advocate”


for free parking, and he has a petition to keep parking free in that island city. Funny thing is, everyone else is opposed to the peti- tion –merchants, city council and chamber of commerce: The chairman of the chamber’s advocacy committee said:


“The crucial issue is the turnover of vehicles in the commercial district. At present, people who want to visit businesses there can’t park nearby because of all-day parking by residents, employees, contractors and others.” Well said. In the end, the academic agreed to drop the peti-


6 MARCH 2010 • PARKING TODAY • www.parkingtoday.com


People who want to visit businesses there can’t park nearby because of all-day parking by residents, employees, contractors and others.


*** The recent story in the LA Times had this headline: “State


lawmakers take aim at free parking.” The article reads like Don Shoup’s book, “The High Cost of Free Parking.” These California legislators have gotten the word and now


are considering requiring that local governments and private organizations charge for parking.They use all the great Shoupista arguments, but somehow I’mworried. I have never trusted politicians and think we should wait for


the other shoe to drop.Yes, I firmly believe that all parking should be charged to the driver, and not be “free.” Let the free market decide the rates. However, having the statemandate that a local- ity should charge for parking is scary at best. This is letting the nose of the camel into the tent. Before you


know it, you are sleeping with the beast.My guess is that these legislators willmandate parking charges and then, lo and behold, they also will mandate a state tax on all parking charges. Think about it. They will realize that parking generates tons of money and they will want their share. But that’s only the beginning. Once the legislators begin a parking-charge mandate will they also begin to “regulate” park-


Continued on Page 8


erswill suffer, and non-driving taxpayerswill pay for the parking for those who should be paying for it, the drivers. I guess our academic feels that it’s “more fair.” But there is another


issue: Ampco bid the contract assuming they would charge for park- ing on Sunday.This little to-do has cost them 1/7th of their potential


income. They are going to proceed, but personally I think they should be able to rebid the deal.The rules changed inmidstream.


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