Downtown Parking Tax

[DetroitDad]

I keep hearing and reading that new urbanists did well because they didn't reject the car, they just disciplined it. With that in mind;

Why don't we have a parking tax in this city? Or, maybe at least a surface lot tax for all un-landscaped surface parking lots. These lots have a negative impact on the city, cost millions in tax dollars over time, can be an eyesore, reduce foot traffic [[vitality), and are often viewed as more valuable than buildings or parks.

Many other cities have actually done this with their stadium and theater districts. Sandusky, Ohio has a huge tax for parking at their amusement parks and hotels [[all viewed as a hidden tax on tourism), as do several cities in California. I can't imagine that many people not going to games or concerts because of a slight increase in surface lot fees. It could be tied in with income for pay lots or garages and landscaped lots, or free lots could be exempt.

[CLAUDE G]

I personally feel the city has enough taxes, inspection fees, and other hidden fees that this is not necessary.

Its bad enough that when you go downtown, the meter maids literally wait next to your parking meter just waiting for it to expire so they can write you a ticket.

Another tax on surface lots is just going to increase the prices we pay when we have to park.

One of the best ways to increase tax revenue is to lower taxes in certain areas. Encourage people to move back into the city or relocate their business, and now the city will have the oppertunity to collect a reduced tax rate from someone who was not paying any tax before.

[Russix]

You need to provide a viable alternative first before you can levy a Luxury tax. Our lack of options means we're constantly in direct competition with the surrounding auto-centric suburban and exurban areas. I think surface lot parking should ultimately be banned as it is destructive to neighboring property values and serves only a temporal purpose.
.

[DetroitDad]

You need to provide a viable alternative first before you can levy a Luxury tax. Our lack of options means we're constantly in direct competition with the surrounding auto-centric suburban and exurban areas. I think surface lot parking should ultimately be banned as it is destructive to neighboring property values and serves only a temporal purpose.
.

They didn't in those other cities in California and Ohio. This is generally viewed as a tourist/tourism tax.

[DetroitDad]

A tax on unlandscaped surface lots... basically this is a city beautification idea. Some of our Downtown lots, like the ones around Nick's Gaslight, detract from the city.

[EMG]

A tax on unlandscaped surface lots... basically this is a city beautification idea. Some of our Downtown lots, like the ones around Nick's Gaslight, detract from the city.

!!!! For a minute I did a double take with that mention of "Nick's Gaslight."

You see, when I lived on the east side near I-94 and Morang, I used to go to a barber whose name was Nick and who owned a barber shop called "The Gaslight." It was on Harper almost right at Morang, across from the post office. If I hadn't noticed your mention of "downtown" - as well as vaguely remembering that my barber himself used to talk about people erroneously calling him thinking they were calling the downtown Gaslight - I would have thought that you were talking about that area.

But wait - don't write this off as completely off-topic - because there is in fact also a parking lot connection to this story. In the early 80s when I was still there, there used to be a small parcel of vacant land on the northwest corner of Harper and Morang - across from the barber and other businesses in the area - and my barber was one of several businessmen who got together to push for the construction of a parking lot on that corner.

And lo and behold, they succeeded in convincing the powers-that-be - a parking lot was indeed constructed on that corner.

But then the same powers-that-be also got the bright idea to make it a metered lot.

I never saw anyone ever use the lot in all the years I remained in the area. The only long term benefit of the whole project was that there was less grass to mow.

[Russix]

What is there a West Sandusky, Ohio with a competing Cedar Point? California is well developed with transit. Since we can't compete with other cities, we can only compete with the surrounding area, and since we haven't done anything to give ourselves a competive edge, we can't shoo away people with a parking tax, they don't charge one in Oakland County, -1 Detroit.

[Meddle]

Why don't we have a parking tax in this city?

You do. Collected by these folks http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...8/Default.aspx or they tow your car.

[DetroitDad]

No, no, no... just for the slummy surface lots... come on guys!

This would be taxed: Click HERE! and HERE!

This would not be taxed; Click HERE and HERE!

If they want to run a slummy parking lot and visitors like them; then fine! They have that right. However, unlandscaped lots have negative consequences [[broken window theory), just like strip clubs, night clubs, bars, liquor stores, etc..

[3rdDegreeBurns]

DetroitDad,

I'm with you. I've often thought that we should tax surface parking and vacant lots in business districts at a much higher rate than we currently do. The current tax structure provides an incentive to keep land in these uses. We want property owners to use their land in more productive ways and one way to do that is to penalize those who don't through higher taxes.

I would rather see some of these lots become available for other uses, or even revert to the city/county in tax foreclosure than remain as they are. Would this result in a shortage of parking downtown? Hardly. We have several monstrous structures that don't seem to ever be full. If the market demanded more then I'm sure someone would seize that opportunity and build yet another.

[Novine]

"I've often thought that we should tax surface parking and vacant lots in business districts at a much higher rate than we currently do."

State law doesn't permit this. Land has to be taxed uniformly.

[Russix]

State law doesn't permit this. Land has to be taxed uniformly.

Is it possible to outright ban them? I propose a ban on all surface parking anywhere in downtown and along all major arterial roads.

[DC48080]

Is it possible to outright ban them? I propose a ban on all surface parking anywhere in downtown and along all major arterial roads.

Yeah, that will help the existing businesses and help to attract new ones. Everybody knows that businesses don't really need convenient inexpensive parking to survive.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yeah, that will help the existing businesses and help to attract new ones. Everybody knows that businesses don't really need convenient inexpensive parking to survive.

Last I checked, CARS don't purchase goods and services.

PEOPLE, on the other hand, do.

Detroit has more convenient and inexpensive parking than any other city of comparable size--or half the size, for that matter. Clearly, that approach hasn't done dick to help businesses.

[DetroitDad]

"I've often thought that we should tax surface parking and vacant lots in business districts at a much higher rate than we currently do."

State law doesn't permit this. Land has to be taxed uniformly.

Yeah, I know...

That needs to change, but a sin/business tax is possible, as is some of the many other ideas mentioned here. I'm not sure banning the lots outright is very smart, mainly because they are employers and bring in revenue and tax dollars. Value reduction, making surface lots less profitable, seems to already be an effort by some movers and shakers, but they are going to have a hard time, and the prices have gone down dramatically as a result. It's still not enough....

[DC48080]

I would rather see some of these lots become available for other uses, or even revert to the city/county in tax foreclosure than remain as they are.

Those lots reverting to the city or county in a tax foreclosure would do absolutely nothing to help anyone. The city/county cannot even maintain the multitude of properties they currently have. As long as the owners of the lots are paying their property taxes you have money coming in to the city/county. If the lots were foreclosed upon you would have nothing coming in and would have a neglected weed-choked empty lot that looks worse than it does now.

It isn't as though there are developers lined up waiting to build office buildings, stores, apartments, condos etc on these parcels. You would just end up with land that continues to sit empty and would provide nothing.

[DC48080]

These lots have a negative impact on the city, cost millions in tax dollars over time.

Just how do these lots "cost millions in tax dollars over time"? The lot owners pay property taxes on them

[ndavies]

You all fail to realize that consumers make buying decisions based on price. All you are doing is giving consumers one more reason not to come downtown.

Any taxes placed on parking lot attendants will be directly transferred to the users of those lots in the form of higher parking rates.

More taxes and fees will be just another reason for consumers to head to the big free parking lots of the suburbs. More taxes just drive away the people with money who do have a choice to where they work and shop. The city already has a huge number of deterrents, why keep adding more?

If you want to get rid of the parking lots downtown, you have to get rid of the need to have them. Taxing them doesn't fix the need. It you want them improved, You need to figure out how you can make the owners more profitable so they have extra money to invest in their properties. You then need to use blight laws and social pressure to get them to fix up the properties. They can either pay the money to the blight court or they can spend the money on improving the value of their lot. A flat tax just punishes the lot owners who would do the right things.

[DetroitDad]

You all fail to realize that consumers make buying decisions based on price. All you are doing is giving consumers one more reason not to come downtown.

Any taxes placed on parking lot attendants will be directly transferred to the users of those lots in the form of higher parking rates.

More taxes and fees will be just another reason for consumers to head to the big free parking lots of the suburbs. More taxes just drive away the people with money who do have a choice to where they work and shop. The city already has a huge number of deterrents, why keep adding more?

If you want to get rid of the parking lots downtown, you have to get rid of the need to have them. Taxing them doesn't fix the need. It you want them improved, You need to figure out how you can make the owners more profitable so they have extra money to invest in their properties. You then need to use blight laws and social pressure to get them to fix up the properties. They can either pay the money to the blight court or they can spend the money on improving the value of their lot. A flat tax just punishes the lot owners who would do the right things.

This is key. But, what if the tax doesn't significantly affect patronage?

[jams]

We want property owners to use their land in more productive ways and one way to do that is to penalize those who don't through higher taxes.

So are you going to ask a parking lot owner to build a building that you will rent and start a business?

This would not be a tax on tourists, but a tax on hardpressed, low-payed employees of those establishments tourists visit once in a while.

[ghettopalmetto]

It also doesn't help when you have the City creating enormous market distortions by subsidizing new parking lots, such as the one created through demolition of the Madison-Lenox.

[DC48080]

Don't you think that the folks who own the parking lots in Detroit would jump at the chance to cash in and sell their land to a developer if one was to come along? Well, nobody is lining up to build anything downtown.

At least as long as the owners of those lots are paying taxes the city has some revenue coming in.

The few small businesses as well as the major ones that are left downtown need convenient parking for their employees and customers. Let's not add another reason to the long list of reasons to not come downtown.

Right now it is easy; jump in the car, drive downtown, park in front of or very close to your destination, go in and spend money, go home. Very easy. If you force people to pay $10 or more to park in a garage and wait in line to get out of said garage see what will happen to the businesses that are left down there.

[ghettopalmetto]

Don't you think that the folks who own the parking lots in Detroit would jump at the chance to cash in and sell their land to a developer if one was to come along? Well, nobody is lining up to build anything downtown.

At least as long as the owners of those lots are paying taxes the city has some revenue coming in.

Ah, the Mantra of Low Expectations. Got it. Settle for whatever crumbs you can get, eh? Never mind the enormous subsidies the City throws at promoting creation of parking and empty lots. I guess that's a hole in your argument you don't care to address, isn't it?

The few small businesses as well as the major ones that are left downtown need convenient parking for their employees and customers. Let's not add another reason to the long list of reasons to not come downtown.

Have you BEEN to Downtown Detroit lately? There's a TON of parking. Everywhere.

Right now it is easy; jump in the car, drive downtown, park in front of or very close to your destination, go in and spend money, go home. Very easy. If you force people to pay $10 or more to park in a garage and wait in line to get out of said garage see what will happen to the businesses that are left down there.

But you say nothing of being FORCED to own a car, FORCED to pay $3 a gallon for gas, and FORCED to spend hundreds of dollars a year on car insurance just to get to that $10 parking spot.

I'm not sure if you've travelled much, but there are these neato things called "parking meters" that most cities have if you're just stopping somewhere briefly. It reasons that might be a solution to not paying $10 to park in a garage for a quick stop somewhere.

[DC48080]

Ah, the Mantra of Low Expectations. Got it. Settle for whatever crumbs you can get, eh? Never mind the enormous subsidies the City throws at promoting creation of parking and empty lots. I guess that's a hole in your argument you don't care to address, isn't it?



Have you BEEN to Downtown Detroit lately? There's a TON of parking. Everywhere.



But you say nothing of being FORCED to own a car, FORCED to pay $3 a gallon for gas, and FORCED to spend hundreds of dollars a year on car insurance just to get to that $10 parking spot.

I'm not sure if you've travelled much, but there are these neato things called "parking meters" that most cities have if you're just stopping somewhere briefly. It reasons that might be a solution to not paying $10 to park in a garage for a quick stop somewhere.

1: What in the hell are you talking about? Low expectations?

2: So, you hate cars. Is that it? Nobody has forced me to buy a car. I want to own a car so that I can go to work, the store, to various entertainments, travel, etc. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

3: I use parking meters all the time and if there are no metered spots I use a surface lot. If there were no surface lots there would be an even greater scarcity of meters.

[ghettopalmetto]

Tell us, DC48080, since you "choose" to own a car...

What would happen if you "chose" to NOT own a car, huh? Would you still have your job? Would you still be able to get to the store?