Downtown Parking Tax

[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]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have said nothing of the sort of banning surface parking lots. On the other hand, people seem to be able to function just fine in Philadelphia and Chicago without having a surface parking lot occupying every-other block. Maybe its because those people get off their lazy asses once in a while and don't expect a free parking spot to magically show up at the front door of every building they might patronize.

But why not take your idea to its logical termination, and demolish EVERYTHING in Downtown Detroit to create a vast lagoon of parking. Explain your idea how this endless sea of surface parking lots is going to help the City of Detroit.

If you want parking everywhere, you already have the suburbs. Why you insist on foisting your dream of endless acreages of asphalt upon an urban fabric is beyond me. I guess Troy is your idea of a world-class city, huh?

1: Nobody said anything about free parking. I pay to park in the surface lots I use downtown.

2: Nowhere have I advocated for increasing the amount of surface parking. This forum was started with the idiotic idea of taxing surface lots. The thread took a turn when someone suggest banning them all together. This is what I am commenting against.

[fryar]

Actually, in New York's suburbia, the Targets located in the suburban city centers make you park in a garage and pay a nominal parking fee, and they do fine. A nominal surcharge for parking is fine; the people parking on surface lots and in garages in downtown in order to visit offices there are already paying for parking, as are the commuters. If you can bring a compelling reason to go, people will pay for parking.

Downtown definitely suffers from the surface lots, as per the broken window theory and also because it interferes with creating a compelling urban environment. However, it is true that developers are not lining up to purchase the surface lots, and in fact there are many empty commercial spaces in downtown already. So I don't have a better suggestion for what to do with all of the land currently being used as surface lots, although I acknowledge we want to find a better use.

I would modify the proposed ban on surface lots with a ban on *new* surface lots, so that new demolitions don't result in new surface lots the way past demolition clearly has. Worst-case scenario, you put in a park. It beats the surface lot.

I'll also argue that successfully redeveloping downtown will cause developers to line up to purchase surface lots and redevelop them into office buildings or what-have-you.

[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?

[jams]

I'll also argue that successfully redeveloping downtown will cause developers to line up to purchase surface lots and redevelop them into office buildings or what-have-you

I've heard this for 20 years now, where are the investors with the deep pockets?

[Detroitnerd]

I've heard this for 20 years now, where are the investors with the deep pockets?

Probably waiting for a few things:

A break in corruption in municipal government might be one, except for all but the best-connected.

A real mass transit system with rails in the ground to show that there is a serious commitment to providing transportation.

More foot traffic.

More shopping and dining options.

Statistics showing an increasing or high level of income among residents.

A critical mass of residents.

Just my 2 c.

[DC48080]

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?

That is a ridiculous argument. I choose to keep my job, therefore I choose to own a car. I choose to travel, therefore I own a car. I choose to be able to go out whenever I want to and not have to depend on a bus or train schedule, therefore I own a car.

Most people around here choose to own a car. Too bad if you would rather not, but people are going to live how they want to despite your desires.

It is not the obligation of government to provide every basic need for me to live my life. There is a thing called being self-sufficient. I choose to provide for myself and my family rather than sit around, like some on here, and whine about how there isn't any public transit in Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

That is a ridiculous argument. Most people around here choose to own a car. Too bad if you would rather not, but people are going to live how they want to despite your desires.

But DC, there IS no choice. You have a choice of driving a car or, for the most part, not having a job. It's not a free choice, as in buying a toaster or not.

It is not the obligation of government to provide every basic need for me to live my life. There is a thing called being self-sufficient. I choose to provide for myself and my family rather than sit around, like some on here, and whine about how there isn't any public transit in Detroit.

I see. You are self-sufficient. So you grow all your own food, purify your own well water, do your own health care, educate your own children, do your fire and police protection yourself ... etc. etc. ???

[DC48080]

But DC, there IS no choice. You have a choice of driving a car or, for the most part, not having a job. It's not a free choice, as in buying a toaster or not.

Having a car is about far more than going to work. As I stated, I own a car to allow me to travel whenever and wherever I want to. I don't want to have to stand out in the rain or snow and wait for a bus or train that may not come on time.

It is certainly a free choice because I could chose not to own a car and spend my free time whining about how bad cars are on the internet. I chose the sensible choice.

[DC48080]

I see. You are self-sufficient. So you grow all your own food, purify your own well water, do your own health care, educate your own children, do your fire and police protection yourself ... etc. etc. ???

That is just stupid. You are being absurd. When it comes to transportation, yes, I am self sufficient. Just because you, apparently, wish the government to provide transportation for you doesn't mean that they should.

But I'm going to play along with what appears to be your line of thinking. I want to live in a 12,000 square foot lakefront home. I want the government to provide it for me because I cannot acquire it through my own means.

[Novine]

"That is just stupid. You are being absurd. When it comes to transportation, yes, I am self sufficient. Just because you, apparently, wish the government to provide transportation for you doesn't mean that they should."

In case you didn't notice, your system of transportation can't support itself. If everyone made the choice that you did, our roads would be in even worse shape and the traffic congestion would be much worse than it is today.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is just stupid. You are being absurd. When it comes to transportation, yes, I am self sufficient.

So what kind of pavement mix do you use on the roads that you construct?

And do you hire your own air traffic controllers when you fly [[your own plane, of course)?

[Detroitnerd]

That is just stupid. You are being absurd. When it comes to transportation, yes, I am self sufficient. Just because you, apparently, wish the government to provide transportation for you doesn't mean that they should.

Since you are just replying in general, I am not sure which of my points you are addressing, I really can't respond with any substance to the accusation that the point is stupid and that I am being absurd. If you are talking about the latter point, perhaps it's a little overdrawn to make a point, yes.

But the fact is that if you want to work and shop and live in Detroit with any amount of effectiveness, you have to travel great distances. And if you want to travel great distances around metro Detroit with any effectiveness, you need an automobile. So you can't say with any credibility that the millions of people in and around metro Detroit "chose" cars. That's absurdity.

But I'm going to play along with what appears to be your line of thinking. I want to live in a 12,000 square foot lakefront home. I want the government to provide it for me because I cannot acquire it through my own means.

I don't see how that dovetails with wanting a reasonable transit choice in a city in the richest country in the world.

Fact is, this is one of the only cities in the world that is trying to "get by" without a transit system. And transit systems benefit the whole metroplex. There are solid numbers that you can look at that show that offering a choice of transit [[and not just the personal car vs. the loser cruiser) improves the quality of life, attracts investment and raises incomes far beyond where it travels. But you wouldn't happen to be interested in those facts, would you? You seem to have your mind made up. If that's so, that's sort of bizarre. Why show up just to thump your chest?

The truth about societies is that none of us is "self-sufficient." We are actually fragile, individual creatures, not able to handle much isolation, disease, hunger or violence. That is why we take care of each other as a society. So we can grow up and have people address us kindly, make correct change and generally not burn down our houses. That "self-sufficiency" jive is just a canard.

It isn't? You really ARE self-sufficient? You don't need any help in your day-to-day life?

From a previous thread, here's what it means to be concerned about big government and people who dare to ask for services from government:

That means waking up to an alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Then taking a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then turning on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has determined the weather will be like, using satellites designed, built and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Then eating a breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs that have been determined safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as the U.S. Naval Observatory, you can get into a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved auto and set out to work on the roads built by local, state and federal departments of transportation. Before leaving the house, you might drop any mail they have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service. Then you might drop the kids off at public school, and possibly stop to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

After work, you can drive a NHTSA car back home on DOT roads, to a house that didn’t burn down thanks to local and state building codes and mandatory government inspections. I'll be your hosue has not been robbed, thanks to the local police department.

Then, after all that, you can log onto the Internet, developed by the Pentagon, and post all about how government is bad. Very bad.

[ghettopalmetto]

DC48080 is just a troll, whether he realizes it or not.

Somewhere along the way, someone told him that the ways of life in the 1950s were Correct and unchangeable, and that's managed to stick with him. His paradigm is fixed. He takes for granted what others see as wasteful. He unknowingly passes judgment on others, forcing them to adopt his Lifestyle, lest they be deemed a failure by his standards. He argues against all subsidies--except those that benefit him personally, and makes paper-thin excuses to defend his own inconsistent ideology. Everyone not like him is Wrong--especially people with different colored skin, or different gods, or different funny-sounding languages.

He's just another one of these Asshole Ugly Americans who think the most important issue on earth is their God-Given Right to Cheap Gasoline and a Close Parking Spot.

Thankfully, that breed will be dying off before too long.

[DC48080]

DC48080 is just a troll, whether he realizes it or not.

Somewhere along the way, someone told him that the ways of life in the 1950s were Correct and unchangeable, and that's managed to stick with him. His paradigm is fixed. He takes for granted what others see as wasteful. He unknowingly passes judgment on others, forcing them to adopt his Lifestyle, lest they be deemed a failure by his standards. He argues against all subsidies--except those that benefit him personally, and makes paper-thin excuses to defend his own inconsistent ideology. Everyone not like him is Wrong--especially people with different colored skin, or different gods, or different funny-sounding languages.

He's just another one of these Asshole Ugly Americans who think the most important issue on earth is their God-Given Right to Cheap Gasoline and a Close Parking Spot.

Thankfully, that breed will be dying off before too long.

Funny, I was thinking much of the same thing about you all along throughout this thread. Only thing is I didn't resort to childish name calling. I decided to take the high road.

When you point a finger at somebody you have four fingers pointing back at you. Think about that.

[ghettopalmetto]

Funny, I was thinking much of the same thing about you all along throughout this thread. Only thing is I didn't resort to childish name calling. I decided to take the high road.

When you point a finger at somebody you have four fingers pointing back at you. Think about that.

Is that all you have in response to all the CRAP you've littered on this thread, and all of the challenges made to your unsubstantiated assertions? You would rather write trite sloganeering messages than explain any of your positions?

Then again, in your world of the Never-Ending 1950s, that's all life is, isn't it? "Our Friend, the Atom", "What's Good for GM is Good for America", "Better Living Through Chemistry"....

You're just so damned full of yourself, you think the world just needs to cater to your point of view, and damn everyone to hell who isn't in lock-step.

[DC48080]

Is that all you have in response to all the CRAP you've littered on this thread, and all of the challenges made to your unsubstantiated assertions? You would rather write trite sloganeering messages than explain any of your positions?

Then again, in your world of the Never-Ending 1950s, that's all life is, isn't it? "Our Friend, the Atom", "What's Good for GM is Good for America", "Better Living Through Chemistry"....

You're just so damned full of yourself, you think the world just needs to cater to your point of view, and damn everyone to hell who isn't in lock-step.

Jeez, does your ignorance know no bounds? I'm not going to bring myself down to your intellectual level and attempt to argue with you any further. It is like banging my head against the wall. You argue with emotion and childlike reasoning rather than facts.

I shall ignore this thread from this moment on.

[Detroitnerd]

DC48080 is just a troll, whether he realizes it or not.

I figured as much. Yet I keep trying to engage people. Anyway, I know why you blow your top, and perhaps it's for the best. I do get tired of explaining Urban Planning 101 every day.

[iheartthed]

I figured as much. Yet I keep trying to engage people. Anyway, I know why you blow your top, and perhaps it's for the best. I do get tired of explaining Urban Planning 101 every day.

The scariest part about it is that his thinking seems pretty much in line with the people who run the region. It's like they've never seen how a functioning city operates.

[Bearinabox]

I figured as much. Yet I keep trying to engage people. Anyway, I know why you blow your top, and perhaps it's for the best. I do get tired of explaining Urban Planning 101 every day.

This. Exactly this.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

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.

I'm sure they would love to get a huge payday. That's part of the problem... Parking lot owners are not willing to sell their land for it's current value. They are happy to sit on it and hope for the value to rise. In the meantime, they are making money from parking. As a result, acquiring surface parking lots as part of a development is much more expensive than acquiring vacant land.

Also, your implication that most people prefer the surface lots over the structures is ridiculous. The large structures are extremely popular and most people I know prefer them over surface lots because they are covered and have better security. I would also guess that the downtown surface lots comprise less than 25% of all available parking downtown [[including all public structures, private structures, and street parking). One more large structure could probably replace all of these spots easily.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

Having a car is about far more than going to work. As I stated, I own a car to allow me to travel whenever and wherever I want to. I don't want to have to stand out in the rain or snow and wait for a bus or train that may not come on time.

It is certainly a free choice because I could chose not to own a car and spend my free time whining about how bad cars are on the internet. I chose the sensible choice.

Did you build the roads too or was that a public investment that enabled your choice? Same is true of public transportation. It's just that we've built far more roads than public transit in the last sixty years.

[Russix]

...

It is not the obligation of government to provide every basic need for me to live my life. There is a thing called being self-sufficient. I choose to provide for myself and my family rather than sit around, like some on here, and whine about how there isn't any public transit in Detroit.

Who provided the freeways and roads??? Opps! Your full of s#!t.

[DetroitDad]

No one is going to come to Detroit to experience it's parking either.

Trying to compete with suburbia for better free parking lots is a waste of time and effort, we will never beat them in that department. What we do stand a chance of eventually beating suburbia at is providing a vital downtown and a good urban environment that people will want to visit despite it's lack of close free parking.

Negative impacts on society are taxed to balance out their impact. Detroit is a urban city, and parking should be taxed if it detracts from the appeal and vitality of the city the way some of these surface lots do.