This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Point of View

SFpark, My People and Your People, Egalitarian Parking

By John Van Horn

I know it’s a tad soon for this conversation. However, I hark back to my Parking Today Blog from Dec. 16, which

had this money quote from blogger Michael Perkins at Greater Greater Washington (DC): SFpark is an innovative, federally supported performance park-

ing pilot program. But it will adjust meter rates in its seven pilot areas this month [December 2011] – the third adjustment since the program’s launch in 2010. Each time San Francisco has adjusted the rates, the spread

between the least expensive and the most expensive blocks has increased. After this latest adjustment, parking rates will vary from a low of $0.75/hour up to $4.25/hour. To date, the most crowded blocks have typically continued to be crowded even after adjusting the prices upward, while under- occupied blocks have not filled up even after dropping the price. Are we asking too much? I

have wondered for some time if “the word” can get out and peo- ple will truly understand the dif- ference between parking on one block from parking on another. The folks we want to reach

space valet parking garage. The landlord controls both buildings. Although to most it would seem silly, this is a very big deal

in the entertainment business. What if “Jack” or “Angelina” were seen by their agent parking in a garage that served a competitor? OMG! Word would get out that “talks” were underway. My people would be calling your people. We might be able

to head off a potential deal. The buzz would be everywhere. “Is Madonna going to jump ship?” Sheesh. Who would have thunk it, that a parking garage and who

parks in it could make such a difference? But with millions of dol- lars swinging on every deal in LaLa Land, it’s no wonder that where one parks could be a deal breaker. On Jan. 28, The Wall Street

“What if “Jack” or “Angelina” were seen by their agent parking in a garage that served a competitor?”

are those looking for a space near their destination – the ones who cruise around and around and would be helped by a space made free by market-based pricing. The problem is, how does this person know the price of on-street parking is at a particular point in time? The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency would

say that people should check their smartphone and get all that information. Well, yeah, but you are asking them to break Cali- fornia law and fiddle with their phone while they are driving. The solution is, of course, having signs around telling folks just what it costs to park on a particular street. If I knew that I could walk a couple of blocks and save $8,

maybe I would do so. Or maybe not. However, if I don’t have that information, then I will just park, lock, go to the meter, pay what it says, and be done with it – probably cursing the high price of parking in San Francisco, but then everything is pricy in SF, so it is to be expected.

*** “I won’t park in the same lot as my competitor.” OK, it’s not

that simple; well, maybe it is. Seems Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel, who heads William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (WME), the West Coast’s largest and most influential talent agency, had a heated discussion with his landlord, well, sort of his landlord. When Emanuel merged his agency (Endeavor) with William

Morris, he also got a long-term office lease that William Morris had secured in Beverly Hills. He already had some space he want- ed to use and needed to break the lease. A clause in the lease said the landlord could not rent to a competitor. Therein lies the tale. One of Emanuel’s largest competitors is the Gersh Agency, which recently moved into the building next door and shares the 750-


Journal reported that, after arbi- tration, Emanuel’s agency agreed to pay the building own- er “about $30 million to resolve a dispute over WME’s refusal to occupy the building, even though [the agency] inherited a 20-year lease on it, people famil- iar with the matter say.”

*** The Boston Globe has jumped on the “let’s report about park-

ing” bandwagon. It’s a very long mid-January article (“The case for the $6 parking meter”) talking about demand-based pricing, San Francisco, and the like. Not much new. However, the reporter veers off the track a bit when he says: If Back Bay [Boston] spots floated up to a market price, lower-

income drivers would effectively lose access to parking spaces that they have as much legal right to as anyone else. The result, ultimate- ly, would be a city where the rich have access to whatever spots they want, while everybody else has to settle for what’s affordable. Everything must, what, cost the same, be the same, and we

should all have access to the same? What is that all about? I think we know, and so does Karl Marx. However, my buddy in Singa- pore, Paul Barter (who is a much nicer guy than I am) over at Reinventing Parking, puts it well in a Jan. 23 article, “Tangled Up in Equity Arguments”: How does having the “legal right” to park have anything to do

with how parking should be priced? I have a “legal right” to rent an apartment in the most prestigious street in my city. The fact that I, like most people, can’t afford to do so has nothing to do with whether apartments should be market-priced. Of course, if significant numbers of people can’t afford any

decent shelter, we must look for solutions. In market economies, those solutions are (usually) tar- geted and don’t abolish market pricing for real estate generally. In any case, surely parking in busy urban streets is much less of a basic need than housing.

PT Parking Today

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  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84