HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-16 Public Comment - R. Williams - ParkingGeneral Notes on Draft Parking Report, from Rick Williams
It starts out on the wrong foot. It should start out with the Main, Most
Important, Goal that must guide it: Tongue in cheek, possibly, but serious, too,
perhaps it should start with the medical profession’s mantra, “First, do no
harm.” A desirable second sentence should be, “To provide a plan that will
protect Downtown Main as the heart, health, and spirit of the entire
Bozeman/Gallatin County Community. Suitable, commonsense parking is an
important element within this most important goal.”
The report should also concern itself with how well Bozeman handles major
downtown events like parades, Bite of Bozeman, Xmas Stroll. That has some
relevance here.
Even when read in its 90-some page entirety, and although it gives some useful
information about things that have been done in other cities, it still gives a
flavor of having been initiated, first, from a textbook for a class in “Parking
Problems and Solutions for Cities of All Sizes and Shapes.” This impression is
enhanced by its back-&-forth designation of Bozeman’s legislative branch
sometimes referred to as a council and sometimes as a commission.
Even though it has more detail in its full 90-page report beyond the skimpy,
vague overview presented to the public at City Hall on June 8, 2016, it still is too
vague and theoretical, its recommendations with flimsy underpinnings that
suggest the Draft is unfamiliar about Bozeman.
A plan for what Bozeman parking will need in the future will eventually require
a picture both more specific and also broader. In specificity, it will need to take
into account more of what our past and present preclude and, as well, what
they may allow. It’s also unrealistic if it doesn’t pay attention to the total
dynamic of Bozeman, as well as of Gallatin County’s other incorporated cities
and certainly, our entire unincorporated County area. They all heavily impinge
on Bozeman and Bozeman impinges on them.
These remarks will concentrate on this Draft Parking Proposal, but we must
recognize that both downtown parking, our other problems, the other
problems that the rest of the county faces – to a great or lesser degree – stem
from GROWTH.
Still, Bozeman is not only the county seat, its Downtown -- all the way to the
Courthouse -- is the physical embodiment of the heart & spirit of Bozeman and
environs; its friendliness; its spiritual ties to the past as evidenced by its old
buildings; its continuing ability to remain a major “go to” presence for all of us
residents, our suburbanites, our students and our tourists. (If you doubt this,
during tourist season, ride your bike along each side of downtown Main Street
& count the number of cars with out-of-county/state license plates. And if you
had a way to count the cars that are driven in by other county residents, you’d
be surprised at the total.)
It seems to be not so useful compared to earlier documents that depended on
local talent in solving local problems. Lately, former Mayor Jeff Krauss was
quoted in the Chronicle (our most dependable local source of relevant news and
community information if you want to feel at home) that we might be wasting
money by hiring outside consultants so often.
I agree with that opinion. Furthermore, it may be self-evident that when we
depend on outside consultants, each one is likely to separate us a little bit more
from what makes us unique.
When Harry Daum built his mall west of town in the 70s, the city fathers were
wise enough to remove the parking meters – even though they opposed
building a new library and refused to accept new (and free) parkland when
offered.
Now, an outside consultant suggests that we should return to parking meters?!
And likely raising costs to downtown merchants who are already paying
property taxes through the roof (& through the nose) compared to the amount
per square foot that the outlying merchants pay in property taxes?! And when
most local talent would agree that our downtown merchants pay backbreaking
amounts every day in every way in order to continue to give us a viable,
enjoyable, historic downtown that we all know as the heart of our community.
How can we willingly drive a stake through the heart of downtown by re-
installing parking meters?!
No, I suggest we go back to the drawing board. The Draft does contain some
steps that, if given a higher priority, can remove the danger of parking meters,
of downtown neighborhood parking districts, of close-in parking garages so
“useable” that they would cost, not just an arm and a leg but the very health,
heart and spirit of our community. I believe with reason that our local talent
can see the “gold” among the generic dross of the Draft. From their own
experience, commonsense and knowledge they will come up with a far healthier
and effective way to solve our parking problems for a credibly long time.
For instance, the Draft should have first queried the employees downtown, not
only owners, but especially employees. (For 35 or 40 years some of us have
often talked with downtown stalwarts about downtown parking problems.
Invariably Pete Waite (Waite & Co.), Vera Henderson (Vera’s Fabrics), Phyllis &
Harlan Schuttler (Bungalow Drug), Louie Spain (Owenhouse Hardware), and
more, always said it was workers downtown who created the parking problem.
Employee parking still is critical, to a fairly great degree. The Draft didn’t
mention employees until a long ways into the report. Now they need to be
given the first and foremost attention, along with those who dwell above
Downtown Main buildings. Is it possible that landlords can be persuaded to do
their utmost to rent first of all to people who work downtown rather than to
the first person who inquires? Could an electronic grapevine allow downtown
landlords to inform employees /employers when a vacancy occurs?
Employees often have strong parking habits that may need to be re-directed
under a locally-made plan. Therefore, their early input and cooperation in a
changed must work for the plan to be effective. the Report.)
Secondly, having a neighborhood parking district for the several blocks around
Downtown Main so that the nearby residents don’t have any downtown parkers
in their neighborhoods?!
I think not. The fact is, in a somewhat comparable case, the neighbors at the
apex of Bogart Park, Gallagator Trail, Peets Hill & Burke Park are often overrun
by others parking everywhere on “their” streets – but overwhelmingly accept it
for the great privilege and convenience of living in this especially convenient
neighborhood. I suspect that the neighbors of Downtown Main, too, if they
looked at the big picture of the hassle & expense of keeping up & living with a
neighborhood parking district would decide (1) that they, too, are privileged to
have their location, and (2) that the parking district would bring enough other
problems so that they don’t much mind saying “No, thanks.”
Thirdly, the dream of having another parking garage close enough to be truly
useful to downtown?! Every study I’ve read says that the thing most shoppers
in fact consider when going to shop is ease of parking. They also like it free.
They go to malls because even though they must often walk much farther
(measure it) when parked at The Mall than they would from either downtown
on-street parking, a parking lot, or the parking garage. (Here’s an instant idea:
You could let downtown merchants put up tasteful small signs in all of the
above parking venues, saying “You are only … feet from Owenhouse, or from
Schnee’s, or from any other business who’d like to have his sign there. Ha, and
you could add, “Much closer than you normally walk from your car into The
Mall.” Maybe I’m just joking on that.)
I firmly believe that most everyone who has a store downtown , whether he
owns or rents his building has the same overriding objective: To bring more
people downtown, to keep it lively, and to earn enough to pay the bills, keep
the doors open & food on his own table. So local talent and interests, both
public and private, can figure out ways to share their public & private parking
spaces. Local talent can more easily contact the churches, other public
buildings including City Hall, the Albert Stiff building, Bogart Park, the Library
could offer some spaces at certain days or half days. Perhaps some churches
would put up signs saying, “On Sunday, our parking is for church; on … we are
open for those worshipping Mammon.”
The next issue I have with the Draft is: Re-consider the “85% rule.” Sure, they
need it in Portland & Seattle. Yes, so many cities adopted it. But does it really
work so well in smaller towns? I don’t see any research on that. Does a smaller
town like Bozeman really have to adjust to instantaneous parking availability?
Rather, can’t we continue trying to hold on to the somewhat-more leisurely
pace of a rather still-small Western town? Aren’t we trying to maintain some
semblance of being laid-back and willing to amble a little bit and smell the
roses? Do we have to have instant parking and everything that goes with it?!
Surely not.
So, we can gradually, by the least offensive of means, raise the money for a
parking lot or garage farther out where land, while still expensive , would not be
so expensive that it would mean, one way or another, the death of downtown
as we know it and love it. Say it’s six blocks from Main Street, maybe not too
far from my neighborhood (which I love)! Say you call it, the “Take Time To
Smell The Roses Parking Garage.” With the right marketing – and this town is
full of genuine marketing experts – it would become famous as THE parking lot
for all those who care about their own health, the health of downtown; those
who like to show off or be competitive by touting this virtue; and all those
who’d truly find walking along a pleasant tree-lined street with interesting
houses and views all around as they wend their way to Main Street , would be a
wonderful way to start their day, saying hello to their new neighbors,
exchanging friendly greetings, remembering that they live now in a community
of like-minded people; that they are glad that they left Portland, Seattle or Los
Angeles behind them.
Let us encourage the newcomers among us to enjoy being friendly, to spend a
little more time just being a human being, help them become real members of
this community we call Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin County, or whatever we
ourselves are or wish to be..
Some Specific Points Page by Page
We need to find ways to treat Downtown Main more fairly; it cannot be
expected to forever carry the entire burden of keeping it the heart and soul of
our community and our county. The City of Bozeman is close to a crisis with its
(and many other Montana cities) dependence on property taxes. The cart may
be before the horse if we do not first obtain some, eventually all, o: the
countywide gas tax, the local option tax so that the millions of tourists that
travel through Bozeman will help us pay for all the street maintenance, parking
and police service that they require; any compromise that can be arrived at
should be embraced including a seasonal &/or a sunsetting local option that
would end when a certain need had been accomplished. Some version of an
occupational fee could be workable – but perhaps for starts an easier, partial
aid would be helpful where downtown businesses in a concerted and well-
planned effort find a way to persuade their employees to park farther away.
(btw, an occupational fee would be one where employers pay the City a fee for
each of their employees who commute in, to help pay for police, streets and
parking they need while at work, etc. I see this as attractive if all else fails
among the possibilities listed above.)
The charge to the consultant, when hired, was: “Overall evaluation of the
present downtown parking system and development of a comprehensive
management system.” It is not what I expected an evaluation of the present
downtown parking system to be. So the development of a comprehensive
management system could hardly follow – outside of a more or less cookie
cutter pastiche.
P, 4 role of parking management: Support a vital, active and interesting
downtown. – not strong enough
p. 5 – ensure parking system is financially sustainable – NOT FROM WITHIN THE
BASIC INTERESTS: THE MERCHANTS AND THE SHOPPERS INCLUDING TOURISTS.
That’s why we must get such things as county-wide gas tax and some form of
local option first. But yes, also, there may very well be unforeseen
opportunities that opportunities that can be taken advantage of. TAGE OF.
P. 6, a. FINANCIAL VIABILITY. Not the most important; even more important is
keeping it the heart, soul & spirit of Bz. It could be financially viable & be killed
by such a requirement of “financial viability.”
6, 1, A, employee parking the responsibility of the private sector? The City may
very well need to take some responsibility in getting viable employee parking
farther away. Downtown is an integral part of what makes almost everyone
who moves here decide to stay, whether for business or just to live/retire.
They find the trails and parks; the love the mountains all around; but the love at
first sight often starts with a drive/stroll down Main Street and then perhaps
Willson Avenue. I’ve heard those kinds of remarks dozens of times when I
query newcomers as to what made them decide to move here (which I’ve done
hundreds, maybe more, times during my well over a half century here.)
P. 7, c, 2nd para, shd. be weighted more heavily towards those who have .
shops, not offices, since shops bring shoppers. 3rd para., commercial reserved
for employees?? NO. 2. a) 2nd para. OK The 2 references to employees and
where they park seem contradictory? 3. a) Active capacity management: A, use
the 85% rule? Not in a small town, OK in LA
p. 8. d) “reasonable enforcement” : I’ve seen unreasonable enforcement more
than once. Parking staff doesn’t seem to have the flexibility or training to know
that the goal is to bring shoppers downtown, not to build up funds &/or
discourage visitors and shoppers.
p. 9, YES to encouraging employees to use alternative means of transportation.
Also YES to more remote locations for parking.
p. 11 : so much “squishy” language, like what does “additional strategies be
implemented to reduce constraints.” What restraints?
Strategy 3, “Strengthen …better integrate with Community and Economic
Development planning” are we sure we want so much of Economic
Development Planning?
p. 12, I take a dim view of developing rate policies for on- and off-street
parking. It sounds like, at minimum, a wet blanket, or at worst, a disaster for
Bozeman residents’ love affair with Downtown.
p. 12 & 13. “comparable cities” -- I don’t think there are any like Bozeman,
p. 28, “revenues for stations should cover all operating costs and future needs..”
This has no connection to reality: When you read the report somewhat
carefully, you can see that the consultant hedges every bet or recommendation
he makes.
p. 30, “find ways to get employees off of on-street parking” ?? Not by parking
meters; in the olden days, when we had them, the employees would dash
down, put a few more coins in until the next required feeding – or after meters
were removed, they would move the car a few feet to fool the parking enforcer.
32. The employees should have been inventoried at the start, not after the
Draft is presented. That’s just one example of how the report, while it has
nuggets of useful information, still sounds like a textbook with some
alternations to try to give it some semblance of having been tailored for
Bozeman – and/or a cookie-cutter report that is not that different, I would
guess, from what other cities have received.
p. 33, Printing goals for various strategies, etc., throughout the Draft is fine, but
seems there should have been a Main Goal at the front of the Draft.
p. 35, Added to all the costs that can’t be estimated now, it sounds like the costs
could easily be prohibitive and/or suck downtown into disaster.
p. 36, “Planning for, and finding funding for new-capacity . . . will greatly
facilitate decision-making before constraints create adverse impacts on the
downtown.” There are warnings in the Draft tucked here and there so that
everyone must this is a vast undertaking fraught with complications and
conceivably life-threatening to downtown. Appendix A, p. 1, If put in City Code
might be too stable to shift as seasons, times and other realities stand out.
Appendix B, p. 2 “…continue to attract new development” ??? Exactly what is
this? The larger efforts the City is working on now had better answer this
question of continuing to attract new development.
Appendix B, Footnote: “…may already have such a study.” Mind-boggling.
I do see some useful information, but in such a theoretical document where
totally unworkable methods are laid out in profusion, the following deserve
some support:
p. 9, “explore remote locations” – sounds prudent. Also, a) Ensure that the City
is ready to respond to growth, and recognize that funding will require a varied
package of resources and partnerships.”
P, 15, “cost to developers, especially of providing parking, can adversely affect
financing fees.” (Constantly, such textbook language is used –“adversely affect
financing fees,” is an example where wouldn’t plain language be useful, maybe
like, “make developers go bankrupt, leaving the City holding the bag”? – Also, p.
15, “… commits City to playing a key role in developing and managing parking in
the future.” This is why the City has to succeed in getting such necessities as
forms of local option, fees on employers for commuting employees for the
substantial costs of police and street costs for then, and local gas tax which
would help load some costs on tourists.
p. 19, “minimums are too high …need re-evaluation.” Also suggested sampling
throughout the day than constant observation. Of course.
p. 27, guidelines for enforcement. Last 4 seem esp. useful, earlier ones need to
be examined.
p. 28, “train parking attendants as ambassadors”: YES, sometimes they are
Bozeman’s big enemies!
p. 31, the Draft plan will “need community support and consensus.” YES, that’s
why this so-theoretical Draft isn’t capable of encouraging community support
and consensus?!
p. 38, “Additional data should be used to evaluate constraints and determine
whether there is a deficit of parking downtown.” Yes.
-----------------------------
I’d hoped to get more input from George Mattson before I had to send this in to
you, Tom. He’s had my copy of the Draft since Monday, but like everyone, he
has time constraints. His credentials include being a downtown professional
architect with his office above the former Gambles hardware store (which I
believe he remodeled for Mike Delaney when he was new in town in about
1982 or so. When the Mall was coming in, George organized a 3-day
symposium, very well-attended in the Baxter Ballroom, titled “Is Downtown
Bozeman Worth Saving?” (We had a small echo of that last fall, but future plans
for more haven’t yet worked out.) George has also been very active in many
civic and volunteer groups, including being a president of Friends of Gallatin
Libraries during part of the many years we fought to build the first new library
after the Carnegie was severely outmoded – a huge job with city and county
commissioners, as well as City Manager Sam Gesko, being utterly opposed.
I’ve also talked to quite a few people including some former city commissioners
who feel the topic of downtown parking changes need to be aired more
thoroughly. The notices that were in the paper really weren’t worded to get the
public aware and involved.
And I couldn’t get this done sooner because I put considerable time and thought
into it. Sorry.
Mary Vant Hull, 404-1869, mvanthull234@gmail.com, 416 E. Story, Bozeman
59715