PT's Parking Blog

Vendors and Trade Shows

I had a chat last night with the CEO of a major parking equipment supplier. He was grousing about trade shows and just what is to be accomplished there. He commented that his technology, its return on investment, and its application was extremely complicated and certainly something that couldn't be explained to someone walking through an exhibit hall.

He felt that he would be much better off not having a booth, but inviting people to a number of seminars held in a nearby hotel and really giving them an in depth look at his product and how it would affect their business. He felt that the time and money spent on the floor was wasted.  He said that he would be better off giving a donation to the organizers of the event and then not worrying about booths, staffing, and the like.

He indicated he would probably spent more money with the "hotel suite" approach, but frankly, his return would be better.  I have heard all this before, and on the surface it makes a lot of sense....

However, if everyone did that, there would be no event. No reason for people to flock to the locale for a week and be available for his seminar.  The organizers might make the same amount of money, but the "draw" of these events, frankly, is the exhibition itself.

People want to see all the whistles and bells. They want to see, touch, smell, and taste the products and services available. Its a place for networking, meeting and greeting, and gossip. The booths form a backdrop where attendees can chat, renew old friendships and make new ones. (This includes vendor personnel, as well.)  Its also an opportunity to put faces with voices and names they have spoken to only on the phone or communicated with over email. I don't think you can put enough emphasis on this part of the 'event.'

I grant that my friend would probably do very well with no booth and simply "sponging" off the show.(I'm told this is called 'suitcasing.') However my recommendation is that he do both. The cost of the booth is minimal. He would be bringing the same number of people anyway. Why not have the booth and use it to funnel people to his "events." Many exhibitors do that to great benefit. Some have their booths set up so private meetings can be held and organizers are moving more and more toward arranging times for such gatherings.

But this all takes a lot of work prior to the show. Prospects must be contacted and meetings scheduled. The "suspects" must be culled prior to even arriving at the venue. Goals must be set and staff selected to provide the presentations necessary. You need to feel that if you do nothing more than that, you have been a success. Every person that comes into your booth that you don't already know is gravy.

Of course most vendors don't work that way. They arrive, put up their sign, pull out their newspaper, and wait for attendees to jam their booth and break their concentration on the sports pages. They then raise bloody hell because the attendance is so bad.  Last year at PIE, I watched as 100 people walked past the front of a particular booth, and the fellow in it didn't notice. He was intently working on his laptop. 20 minutes later he accosted me about the lack of traffic. What do I say to that?

My CEO friend believes strongly in individual discussions to "sell" his product. He is right. However the need for those discussion doesn't abrogate the need for the "sizzle" of the exhibit hall floor.

JVH

The IPI and RFK, Jr

The IPI has invited Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to speak at its big convention to be held in June in Dallas. My knee jerk reaction was negative. My concern is that RFK, Jr is agenda driven and has a history of extreme political views. I have rethought my position and am not in the opposite camp.  I understand that the IPI board has been assured that the speech will focus on "green" issues and not on political ones. 

Frankly having a "name" at the IPI is generally a good thing. It may attract attendees who wish to see the son of the martyred senator and presidential candidate, and I hope it does. 

The IPI puts on a fantastic parking equipment exhibition and anything that can be done to bring in attendees is worth it. Over 180 companies will be in Dallas hoping for a floor jammed with buyers. If RFKJ can help, great.

The problem with all such events, is that bodies in the aisles is everything. Vendors spend tens of thousands to show their wares. A simple single space 10x10 booth, staffed by two people, will easily hit 10 grand when you consider travel, food, hotel, and the cost of the staff in the booth. Remember one IPI show takes the staff out of the field at least a week, and if you add in preparation, probably more. This is a large commitment for smaller companies on limited budgets. 

Those large booths, with the elephants, dancing girls, and last year, a sign attacking Zeppelin, can involve 25 times that much. Yes, a quarter of a million...Its a big investment. On wag joked that he could take all the people who came into his booth, fly them to the factory in Europe, and be money ahead.

It is critical that the organizers get those folks in the aisles so vendors can get a return on the investment they make in the organization that is sponsoring the event. 

If RFKJ can pull them in, more power to him, and the IPI board.

JVH

What you said...

My screed below about charging for parking in front of my house brought this succinct, well written summary:

Why do so many think that parking is some sort of God given right? In order to drive you have to pay fees for licenses, insurance, tags, fuel, disposal of fluids and parts, tolls on bridges and roads, etc, etc. Last time I checked driving was a privilege, not a "right". Parking is nothing more than one more facet of driving wherein public property (the on street parking space) is set aside for the exclusive use of a certain few who have paid for the privilege of driving.

Well said.

JVH

That Ship has Sailed

I was discussing on street pricing with a friend the other day and noted that I felt that folks should pay to park in front of my house. After all, sez I, they are taking space and they should pay for the maintenance, security, lighting, and etc.

There was an explosion in the room. He said that you shouldn't have to pay for parking since the streets were paid for by everyone's taxes and everyone there fore should be able to park there for free. 

Whew, where to begin. First of all, if that is your benchmark, then there should be no charging for on street parking, off street public parking, seats in most NFL stadiums, concert halls, many office buildings, boat docks, national parks, campgrounds, and certainly no charges for public universities, hospitals, well the list is endless.  The fact that public money goes into something certainly doesn't make it 'free' to all.

I was amazed with this comment because my protagonist was the head of parking for one of the largest universities on the planet. He certainly had many parking spaces and charged for them, and although I haven't been to his campus, I would bet that a lot of them are on streets and infrastructure that were paid for by public funds (ie, not in parking garages paid for by user fees.)

It seems to me to be sensible that all infrastructure should be paid for by the folks who use it. For instance, in Washington DC 37% of the people don't own or drive cars. Why should they pay for the parking spaces used by the other 43%?  Here in LA, I almost never go downtown, or to Hollywood, or Brentwood or Westwood so why should I be charged for the parking spaces on the streets of these areas of the city.

If the folks who park in front of my house every day ( and including the side street, there are about 10 per day) we charged $25 a week to park there (get a permit, use cell phones, whatever) that's $13,000 a year. on my block (completely around all four sides) there are about 80 spaces that are used periodically for parking. Now that's 100 grand a year. If that could be collected and used to repair the streets that haven't been repaired or paved in over 30 years, fix the curbs that are crumbling, replaced the burned out street lights, paint over the graffiti, well you get the drift...what a wonderful world it would be.

For the greenies out there, maybe my next door neighbor would figure out he didn't need four vehicles and sell one of them, or the guy down the street who has five broken down cameros...perhaps he would fine that rotating them on and off the street was just too much work and would donate a few to charity.

There is an apartment building "catty corned" across from me and they have underground parking. However I suspect that a number of the folks don't park under ground because its more convenient to park on street. Perhaps charging would motivate them to use the parking provided. (I think some of it is stack parking and of course, no one wants to have to come down and move their car so another can get out, or perish the though, think about it ahead of time.)

Perhaps if folks had to pay to park their cars at home, they would consider using the bus which stops 300 feet from our front doors and can deliver us to within a few blocks of half the city. Then when the busses were at full ridership the expansion of a light rail would be more economically feasible.

Charging for on street parking begins to nudge us toward solutions to so many urban problems -- congestion, pollution, infrastructure costs, rapid transit, and the like.

All for charging for parking in front of my house.

JVH

Parking Wars -- Boring Reality

I note that reality shows ( like Parking Wars ) where there is no script and thus no writers to strike, plus no leading actors to get outrageous salaries are very popular with the networks. They are very inexpensive to make and there seems to be no end of people willing to make complete fools of themselves. Having now actually seen "Parking Wars" I will update you on the plot.

First we meet the enforcement officers and find out a bit about them. Then we hit the streets, either as a citation writer or a "booting team."  The officers tell you about the neighborhood, wave a people, and deal with nuttos who have parked their cars illegally for weeks.  Some of the citizens take their medicine with aplomb. others cry, threaten, and otherwise mug for the camera.

Back in the office, folks line up to pay their fines and collect their cars that have been towed. This is where the average IQ of parking scofflaws comes to the top of the list.  THey are here to pick up their car.  They are ready to pay a $200 fine. They find they need to show proof of insurance, and that the car is registered to them. One guy was irate because his insurance was lapsed, and a woman had to gain access to her vehicle to get the registration. One more problem -- the registration was lapsed.

So, she called her gramma in Florida who went on line and paid the Pennsylvania vehicle's registration. As soon as the payment showed up at the parking office computer, the car was released.

That was it -- people who think that they are above the law, think that because they were 'just inside" that the no parking rules didn't apply to them, people who simply disregard the tickets and drive off, leaving the ticket in the street. IN most cases its not just the parking citation, but the onion peels back and we find unregistered, uninsured, and many times unsafe vehicles. If people ignore the smallest of rules, and most easy to follow, why not ignore the rest.

Frankly, after the first ten minutes, I was bored. It was the same old same old, same complaints, same dumb reasons, same epithets.

Most of these folks were poor. Most of them grew up in a society where they weren't expected to take responsibility for their actions. For those that aren't drug dealers, this is probably the closest they come to regularly dealing with the legal system. And they hate it.  The problems are all those of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, the Mayor, the poor signage, but certainly there is no conceivable way that the problem is theirs.

Remember, 90% of the cars that are parked illegally are never given a ticket. That means we are training the citizenry to "roll the dice".  The chances are that you will get buy with it. Think about the number of times you have returned to an expired meter and there was no ticket on your car or overstayed the two hour limit - 9 out of 10. Its worth "giving it a shot."

Personally I think we should boot every car that has one or more outstanding tickets and tow them if there are two.  It won't stop the complaining, won't stop the catterwallering, but it will get a lot of cars off the streets.  That would be a good thing.

THe booting crew has the most contentious job, particularly in rough .neighborhoods. In one incident, they found a offending car, and felt fairly comfortable soothing it since a dozen US marshals armed with M16s were nearby taking down a miscreant for some infraction or other.

As for Parking Wars -- I don't see it having the popularity of say "Survivor, "The Great Race," or "Are you smarter than a fifth grader".  You can see yourself in these shows.  Its difficult for people, I think, to completely relate to the nincompoops who act like idiots when they obviously have stepped over the line.

My guess, it will be gone by Summer.

JVH

Its getting a bit Hairy out there

To summarize. The city of San Francisco, my major whipping boy in the parking industry, is trying to do something right. They are attempting to track the income in parking garages so they can collect the appropriate taxes.  First they tried to write a specification for equipment that could be audited (like gas pumps, for instance). Of course that was yelled down by operators and manufacturers.

Then they said "OK, here is the requirements we have, we'll let the operators certify that their equipment meets these requirements. The operators quickly "certified" and all was right with the world.  But whoops -- now the operators are being required to give the city certain information with their tax returns, information that would be readily available if they ran their garages the same way they did 15 years ago (by hand) or if they simply hit a couple of buttons on their "certified" equipment.

Of course, now they are whining that the information required is excessive.

Here's a comment I received from a friend knowledgeable about the operators "plight." 

The operators and rightfully so do not want to have to continue spending their money in reporting to the city and they should not have to. Think about it, there are 600 locations in the city of SF so the report would be 600 forms full of information that is meaningless to a jr city clerk until they spend the time to analyze it, even then to most city clerks it will still be meaningless, so 600 locations X 12 months =7,200 reports doing nothing.  Instead of making the operators report it every month the city should just make sure that the operators know that it is something they should have available it they are audited.  The good operators will all have that information because it is standard stuff.  The bad operators may not have it and if they have it, it will not be correct but the jr auditors will feel good that they successfully completed an audit.

Actually, they report every 3 months so there are only 1800 reports.  Its a one page sheet. It has information that is typical of the reports coming from every garage in the country. Number of tickets issued, number returned, amount of money collected.  Why shouldn't the city know these numbers, since the amount of tax is based on them.

I might add, that the city is going to charge the operators for "lost tickets".  And there's the rub. Operators know that their lost ticket count is out of control.  That if they report the number of tickets collected and the "junior clerk" simply goes to the operator and asks for the tickets to count them, they will be screwed since the don't want anyone to know just how many tickets are 'lost' during an average month. 

He goes on:

Out of the thousands of taxes there are in this country, none, not one, requires that level of reporting by the operators or businesses.

I’m not sure I have the numbers right but probably not far off.  Fifty percent of the operations in town are managed by legitimate companies that pay their taxes and try to comply with the cities constant demands. While the other 50% of parking companies and businesses that have parking do not comply, do not spend the time and money to comply and also intentionally underreport on their taxes.  So the other 50% or more likely 30% do not comply, are not spending the money to comply, are underreporting their parking taxes, payroll taxes, business taxes, and any other taxes that everyone else has to pay giving them a very large competitive advantage over the legitimate operators.  So the legitimate operators spend more money trying to comply while they get the pants beat off of them by the people who are cheating. We all know they do not do a great job in accounting but it’s not the cities job to try to micro manage 600 parking locations.

There are not one percent of the locations in the country that uses the electronic data to produce their financial reporting. Remember what Federal told me, they only believe that 7% of Scan is used by the operators.  The equipment, installation, training, and ongoing maintenance is not good enough to get consistently accurate reporting therefore the operators are afraid to use it, or are not willing to spend the time to make sure they can get the equipment up to a useable level of accuracy. So here comes the city asking them to report using equipment that (at least in the operators mind does not work) and the operators feel they can not use. This would mean they run the risk of reporting to the city data that is not supported by their accounting if they were ever audited.  This could make it look like they were intentionally underreporting when really it is just crappy accounting on the part of the operators accounting staff and the equipment that is not reliable.   

All of this to say that; to say this is all because the operators are trying to hid something is a great oversimplification of the problem.  What you are seeing is SF goes to the core of the issues of our industry.   

• No one has procedures so we continue to reinvent the wheel with each new hire.
• The equipment does not work with any degree of accuracy
• The management accounts don’t give the operators enough budget to try to make everything work.
• The management accounts (like the city of

  SF

  and many others never required the operators to produce accurate reporting so the operators never felt the pressure to perform.
• The industry is full of people who are never going to report accurately or spend the money to run professional operations and owners will continue to hire them.  Makes it hard for professionalism to be a real advantage.
• We have a number of companies that are paying high rents to get properties and are using the operations for money laundering.

All of the above makes it difficult to attract great new people to our industry so we continue to have less than stellar management

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Everything you say is true, but I can't believe that the operators can't fill out a one page form with ticket counts. If they don't know the ticket counts, how can they run their garages. Isn't this information that's reported every day up and down the reporting chain of the operators?  What's so hard about copying the numbers onto the city's forms.

Oh, yes -- I don't know about your tax returns, but I pay a guy a lot of money to prepare mine, and they run hundreds of pages.  This reporting requirements is lightweight.

I"m meeting with my parking friends next week in Temecula.  This topic will be on the top of our list for discussion. Just how much can or should be required of an operator?

JVH

 

SF -- It gets better and better

If you read the blog below about Hoisting on one's own petard, then this entry will make more sense.

I have in my possession the copy of the tax return required by the city -- a copy is shown nearby. It may be unreadable but here is the cogent information:

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Of concern is that the city has required that the operators prove their lost ticket ratios.  They must

1. Know the total number of tickets issued by a garage.
2. List the tickets by increment and type
3. And compute the total number of tickets returned and then a lost ticket ratio.

That's it.  I'm shocked SHOCKED that operators don't already know these numbers as a simple part of normal auditing procedures. However a number of the operators are attempting to have these requirements stricken.

HUH?

I remember 30 years ago when I went to visit garages that the reports were broken down just like the one shown here.  The manager filled one out every day, and summarized it weekly and monthly. Don't we even do that any more?

JVH

What's this all About -- Systems 90% unused...

I heard a story the other day about an assistant manager who had recently been transferred into a major garage run by a national operator. The deal was that this fellow had been working in a facility that had the same revenue control equipment as did his new garage. It was a perfect match.

His new manager asked him how he liked the equipment and was told that it was really never used at the old garage. Seems that the cashiers would simply turn in their reports each day and they would use those reports to transfer data to their managers up the line. The fancy-dancy revenue system, that had cost the owner hundreds of thousands, went unused, or used as a "gate popper" and nothing more.

This chap didn't have a clue -- the entire purpose of the RC equipment is to ensure that the cashiers have not dipped into the till.  You can't do that if you don't use the system and simply trust the cashiers to report what they want.  The excuse that "well, the numbers are always off on the system report" simply doesn't cut it. If they are really off, then the system should be junked or fixed. However often they are off because the cashier makes them off.

There are many cases where auditors find reams of reports that obviously have been run but never read. Stacks of paper in the corner gathering dust.  This is, of course, the fault of everyone in the management ladder. No one is looking at the source documents. Plus, if for some reason, the reports from the system doesn't readily provide the information needed by management (and I can't believe that this is the case) then some 'tweaking' needs to be done to get the data.

To simply ignore the information or not use the features of a complex system, is malfeasance.

I'm not really surprised, however, as one company did a study and found that upwards of 90% of a system's features go unused. Yes, ninety percent. All those reports, features, and "must haves" required by the operator, are simply not used. Could this be the problem in San Francisco commented on below?

JVH

Hoist on their own Petard

I have heard in the marketplace that the good parking operators in our favorite city, Baghdad by the Bay, have gotten what they wished for.  And it may have bitten them in the rear.

As frequent readers of this blog know, San Francisco has gone through a number of alliterations in their goal to have auditable revenue control equipment in their fair city. First, they wrote a specification that 95% of the manufacturers hated and fought tooth and nail.  The operators also fought the spec because it meant that they had to purchase upgraded or new equipment. In the brouhaha that followed, the city decided to alter the spec slightly, and give the operators the right to "Certify Themselves."

Yep, the operators could send a letter to the city saying they meet the requirements of the law, and all is right with the world. So far so good.

However, in January, the local SF tax folks sent out a new tax filing form, and in it were some requests for data that would be easily available with equipment that met the specification. However, for some reason, the operators are saying that they will have problems getting the information.

They have even met with the tax collector to plead their case. The City is considering their plea.

Careful, you may get what you wish for...

JVH

Ash Wednesday Services in Parking Lot

A gas leak forced a Miami church to hold their Ash Wednesday services in a parking lot. Now there's a unique alternate use for a parking facility. And a good one, I might add.

I have heard of parking decks being used for parties, dances, auto show rooms, art displays, storage, cook outs, and many other uses, in addition to parking cars, but as a church, never.

And its about time. The much maligned parking facility is finally getting a use that befits its regal and pious history.

Well, anyway.

JVH

Book's Author at the Library of Congress

Shannon Sanders MacDonald, author of "The Parking Garage," spoke at the Library of Congress and they have put the video of her talk up on their web site. Here's a note about it from Shannon

The recent lecture at the Library of Congress is now the featured talk on their web site - this talk was designed as a fun lunch talk and an overview of parking, architectural, sustainable, planning and transportation issues titled Man, Machine and Movement.  It will stay on the Library of Congress web site indefinitely.  Thank you all again and I have many more lectures scheduled.  the book was recently described by an independent writer as a meditation on a form, however filled with wonderful practical issues related to parking and its future. Check it out at www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/

 

Shoup Holds Forth on "Parking Wars"

Don Shoup has been asked by the IPI to comment on the "reality" TV Series "Parking Wars" on A and  E. He was kind enough to share his comments with me:

I thought the program was very sympathetic to the problems faced by parking enforcement officers.  The program also showed that Philadelphia's obsolete parking meters cause most of the problems for both drivers and parking enforcement officers.  From the user’s point of view, most American parking meters remain identical to the original 1935 model:  you put coins in the meter to buy a specific amount of time, and you risk getting a ticket if you don’t return before your time expires.

The original purpose of parking meters was to enforce the time limits for curb parking, and thus ensure turnover so that as many cars as possible could park in the limited number of curb spaces.  The parking meter’s main purpose is still the same: it limits the allowed time at the curb, and the prohibition against feeding the meter is intended to ensure turnover.  The price of curb parking is usually too low to ensure vacancies or frequent turnover without time limits.

The technology of paying for most commercial goods and services evolved rapidly in the last century, with ceaseless innovation in cash registers, bar code readers, credit cards, debit cards, and smart cards.  These innovations have made commerce more convenient for shoppers and more efficient for merchants.  In contrast, the technology of paying parking stagnated, until quite recently.

Traditional parking meters require drivers to carry exact change and decide in advance how long they want to park.  Subsequent concern about the need to return before the meter expires can create “meter anxiety.”  Many drivers end up either paying for more time than they use, or not paying enough and risking a ticket.  New technology, however, allows drivers to pay for curb parking without carrying exact change and without deciding in advance how long they want to park.  Buying time at the curb can now be as convenient as any other of life’s daily transactions—no more complicated than buying a loaf of bread or a quart of milk.

With the new technology now available, drivers can pay with credit cards, debit cards, and cell phones for exactly the time they use. Some cities, such as Redwood City in California, have adopted this new technology and removed the time limits for curb parking.  If other cities adopt this technology, the lives of both parkers and parking enforcement officers will improve greatly.  Parking Wars showed how bad their lives are now.

Here is a link to Redwood City's new technology:  http://pedshed.net/?p=105

Donald Shoup

The French Invastion Continues

VINCI Park has purchased the Canadian operations of Central Parking. Here's the article we are running this month in PT:

Central completed the sale of its Canadian operations to VINCI Park. The sale includes Ideal Parking, the Company’s Canadian subsidiary, and related operations. Central Parking’s Canadian operations represented about 2.5% of total company revenues. The financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The portfolio includes 150 locations in major cities across Canada, including Lester B Pearson Airport in Toronto. VINCI Park becomes the second largest operator in Canada after Impark.

“The sale of our Canadian operations is another important step in the implementation of our previously announced strategic plan,” said Emanuel J. Eads, President and Chief Executive Officer. “This transaction combined with the sale last August of our operations in Europe and the planned sale of our operations in South America will largely complete our exit from international markets. International operations did not fit into our long-term strategic plan because they were not a significant part of our business and provided few, if any, operating synergies. Our exit from international markets will allow us to focus on the domestic U.S. market, which is our largest market by far and the one with the greatest potential for growth.

French based VINCI Park recently completed a 50% purchase of US based Laz Parking. This Canadian transaction increases the number of spaces it controls in Canada to over 120,000. VINCI Park operates 1,090,000 spaces in Europe and North America

The low dollar makes these purchases very attractive for European Companies. Who is next on the block?

JVH

Its getting interesting out there

In the past couple of weeks, We hear that two parking equipment manufacturers have bought a dealership or have, in one case, decided to go direct.  Just what does this mean to the consumer.

In AmanoMcGann's case, they bought ASSI in Southern California. This means that like in many markets, they will be selling their products direct. Zeag announced that it was going direct in Southern California. Its dealer is no longer carrying its products. McGann has been direct in many markets for years, and has purchased dealers in Boston and Chicago. This is something new for Zeag. 

I have mixed emotions about this trend. Don't get me wrong, these companies have every right to operate as they see fit. Most likely they will bring focused service and support to their customer, and ensure that their products are well installed and represented. After all, they are the manufacturer, they most know what they are doing.

On the other hand, dealers tend to be a force for manufacturers to reckon with. They represent the customer and often need to lobby manufacturers for "fixes" and support. The Parc Group was originally formed for just that reason. And they have been very successful in being able to talk to manufacturers with a common voice.

I have no particular prejudice either way. I'm just noting that in some markets, these manufacturers may find themselves competing with themselves.

JVH

Parking, $20,000 a space -- but there's more

The cost per space caught my eye -- It was a tad lower than I have been seeing, so I read the story.

The City of Champaign has cut a deal to build an $11.9 million garage (600 spaces). In exchange a developer is building a building with condos, commercial, and retail space nearby. One of the problems is that the city committed to having the garage before the building is completed later this year. The haven't issued a contract yet. The other problem concerns that fact that they had budgeted only about $9 million.

They are going to try to negotiate with the builder and get the price down (I doubt if they will drop 20%) AND try to get them to move up their delivery date a year. Someone in Champaign will be holding their sides in laughter.

I often wondered about these deals with private developers.  OK -- There isn't enough parking, so the city provides the parking and the developer provides the building. But if the building is such a good deal, why should the tax payers go on the hook for nearly $12 million. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My guess is that the city has already given the developer some tax breaks, and probably some corners have been rounded on the planning side. They want the building. Fair enough. But why shouldn't the developer build the parking structure, too? Its probably on city owned land and the city could give a long term lease to the developer. The developer could build the garage, run it, and give the city some rent.  In 30 years, or whatever,  the garage could inure to the city.

In this case, the city is in debt for 30 years.  The chances are they won't charge enough to park in the garage (or are probably giving cut rate parking to the developer for his building tenants), and will have to supplement the garage costs with tax money. Mazie living on her fixed income at the edge of town will have to pay for a parking garage and in part the related development.

Does anyone out there think this makes good long term fiscal sense?

JVH

Aiken, South Carolina

They are talking parking in Aiken. They have determined the immediate problem -- employees are parking on street and taking all the space. What to do WHAT TO DO???

They want to limit parking to 2 hours. The city would use computers and other fancy digital devices to track the cars. One merchant is opposed to the 2 hours, but wants the employees outta there. One of the employees says that he takes up to half a hour to find a space and by golly, he doesn't want to have to move his car every two hours after all that. He thinks they should have parking meters and then find a nice lot somewhere nearby that was reserved for employees.

Strangely enough, the employee is on the right track. Charge for on street parking, use the money to provide off street parking for people who don't want to pay, and you are off into the parking sunset.

Nuff Said

JVH

GO now Standard

Gerry Oguss' GO Parking in Chicago has been bought by Standard Parking. I am happy for Gerry and hope he did well in the purchase. But I am sad to see one of the well run, successful, smaller parking operators bite the dust.

I interviewed Gerry a few years ago in his office. He is smart, kind, and ran his company in a way that ensured it would never grow too large (it had 25 locations when sold). He personally visited each location regularly and ensured that it met his standards. He worked with his staff to be certain his customers got the best possible service.

Gerry had to play hard ball to keep his business going in one of the most competitive parking markets on the planet. He was for a time an active member of the NPA and worked within the organization to support smaller operators as well as large.

I can but wish him all the best

JVH

Politics and Parking

I try to steer away from politics but this one simply takes the cake.  The city of Berkeley, Ca, has voted to tell the Marine Corps Recruiting Center that they are unwelcome in the city “and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” Read about it here.

But if that's not crazy enough, they are also giving free parking to the protesters who are picketing in front of the Marine Corps Center. Before you go off the deep end, remember that I was on the municipal side when the Marines didn't pay their parking tickets.  I said their cars should be towed and sold.

However this is a different matter.  The city is taking parking spaces away from public use to be used by private politically based organizations that just happen to have the same beliefs as most of the city council.

I noted in the article that one organization commented that Berkeley is the home of the Free speech Movement. Of course it isn't a "Free Speech Movement." Its a "If you believe the way I do Free Speech Movement."

If you note, most all the people quoted were aging sixty's protesters who just haven't been able to grow up. I'm all for protest, and I grew up in the 60s, but I'm for everyone being able to put forth their view, not just the one's who happen to believe as I do.

Any other alternative is an horrendous step down a road we don't want to travel.

JVH

Oh, I just loved the councilwoman who said that during the Vietnam war they had found a local psychiatrist who would say that her  children were all crazy...so they didn't have to go. What's that all about?