(85th in a series of posts on parking)
In public comment at the July 2 City Council meeting, Bruce Haines made quite pertinent points in two areas in response to the BPA presentation on the Polk Street Garage.
Video of July 2 City Council meeting at min. 6:48.
1) On the funding of the PSG:
- the loss on this garage will be $700,000/yr
- a loss that will be covered by stopping the $450,000 yearly contribution to the City and by the meter increases
- this is the first garage to be built outside the Central Business District
- businesses built outside the CBD have a parking requirement
- PSG will be serving only one business in the CBD
- “outside” businesses will benefit from this garage
- the BPA is operating outside its charter
- or, at the very least, the businesses should have to pay the full cost of the garage
- this is new territory — the city subsidizing parking outside the CBD
2) On tearing down the Walnut Street Parking Garage in 2024:
- what are we doing tearing down a bldg only 50yrs. old that was built “like a brick shithouse”?
- no reason to tear this garage down
- the new garage is 280 spaces smaller than the present one
- how so?
- how can that be?
- and how continue to get the same revenue even though 35% smaller?
- one of the ways is to increase parking revenue
Because of the awkward protocol of the City Council meetings, BPA did not have to answer the Haines questions.
The question about the garage site outside the CBD really bothers Gadfly. It’s like a shuttlecock in a badminton game. Gadfly heard it for the first time the middle of last year. It just keeps getting batted up into the air. It never gets answered and comes back down to ground. I’m guessing that there is a good answer from the BPA or the City about the legal issue Haines has repeatedly raised.
And Gadfly would especially like to hear it.