Downtown Parking Tax

[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]

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.

Since Novine pointed out that you can't levy a higher tax on them...

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

Which suggests prohibiting undeveloped gravel and weed stricken land from being used as parking space in highly visible places. Example: Lower Woodward N and SW of 75. Forcing property owners to build a structure or construct a real parking lot, not knock over buildings and grind them up in to gravel to park on. It makes development on neighboring properties as attractive as building next to crack houses.

[iheartthed]

Since Novine pointed out that you can't levy a higher tax on them...

Well, don't call it a tax. Make it a zoning violation.

[ghettopalmetto]

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 reason that the thinking espoused by DC48080 is so maddening, is because Detroit has PRECISELY been following his prescription for "success" for 65 years. He acts like it's some new, ingenious idea: Make people drive everywhere, provide dirt-cheap parking everywhere, demolish buildings if necessary.

Has it worked??? Of course not. Yet he'll prescribe more of the same because he can't think outside of his little box of self-interest. It's not any different than how Republicans at the state and national levels have trumpeted tax cuts as the solution to every problem in the past 30 years.

Sometimes, you just get tired of banging your head against the wall. After a while, some of us will decide to try another tack. The Complacent Remainder, like DC48080, will keep banging their head on the wall simply because they don't know how to do anything else.

[Hermod]

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.

Frogs wouldn't bump their asses on the ground if they had wings either.

[Retroit]

I have to agree with Russix that it would be better to simply require all parking lots to comply with whatever aesthetic landscaping ordinances that DetroitDad has in mind and let those lots pass any upgrade costs along to their customers than to impose another tax.

DC48080, you have my utmost admiration for trying to talk sense into people who fail to realize that unlike Mackinaw Island, which has no cars, or Manhattan, which has enough density to rely heavily on subways, most cities in America are heavily dependent on the automobile. Unfortunately, it was a waste of your time as it has been of mine on more occasions than I care to count.

The reason that Detroit accommodates so many ugly parking lots is because Detroit accommodates so many ugly vacant lots, or ugly lots that were created by tearing down buildings that were torn down because they became ugly due to disuse. Unless you have a great demand for space downtown, it would be counterproductive to attempt to discourage the few people who do go downtown from going there.

[ghettopalmetto]

unlike Mackinaw Island, which has no cars, or Manhattan, which has enough density to rely heavily on subways, most cities in America are heavily dependent on the automobile.

And why do most places rely on the automobile, when 5500 years of civilization existed prior to such an invention? Is it some irrefutable law of Nature? Or did God decree, "Thou shalt drive 10 miles to get a loaf of bread."

[iheartthed]

The reason that Detroit accommodates so many ugly parking lots is because Detroit accommodates so many ugly vacant lots, or ugly lots that were created by tearing down buildings that were torn down because they became ugly due to disuse. Unless you have a great demand for space downtown, it would be counterproductive to attempt to discourage the few people who do go downtown from going there.

That is not what happened.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is not what happened.

Don't you know? It was just, all-of-a-sudden, people in Southeast Michigan and elsewhere just up and decided [[collectively of course) that they didn't like downtowns anymore, so demand for space went way down, which forced the buildings to be torn down for empty lots.

I mean, really. Everyone's hands were tied. Much like worlds colliding, it couldn't have been helped.

[Detroitnerd]

unlike Mackinaw Island, which has no cars

Why does it have no cars? Just happens to be an environment where people don't want to drive and park right in front of something? Just an accident? Tell the whole story, please.

or Manhattan, which has enough density to rely heavily on subways

And how did it arrive at that density? It just had enough density all up and down the island so they stuck a subway underground to service that density? C'mon. Again, tell the whole story so we can really "talk some sense."

most cities in America are heavily dependent on the automobile.

This confuses the point. Sure, lots of cities have the majority of their residents using cars. But what prosperous city in the United States is trying to do a go-it-alone strategy of cars and buses? Which one? The point isn't "heavy dependence" on cars. The point is that there are only cars and then a patchwork of several different bus authorities each cobbled together and no transit vision.

Unfortunately, it was a waste of your time as it has been of mine on more occasions than I care to count.

Retroit, you pose as an open-minded person on this forum, but we have learned by now that you are happy to hew close to your core beliefs, which seem to be that the year is 1961, gas is 20 cents a gallon and all we have to do is produce more and more wonderful automobiles and lay down concrete. No wonder you feel as though you're wasting your time ...

[ghettopalmetto]

Retroit, you pose as an open-minded person on this forum, but we have learned by now that you are happy to hew close to your core beliefs, which seem to be that the year is 1961, gas is 20 cents a gallon and all we have to do is produce more and more wonderful automobiles and lay down concrete. No wonder you feel as though you're wasting your time ...

If I did the same thing over and over with the same results for 65 years, I'd feel like I was wasting my time too.

[fryar]

This is a great thread!

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

Yeah, well, I'm with you on that one. To my mind, any vision for a sustainably thriving Detroit has to account for the modern paradigm of dense, walkable mixed-use residential and commercial with efficient mass transportation. Elsewhere on this board, I've suggested that a car share is part and parcel of that "playbook" as well, and I think moreso in Detroit, since it is not [[yet) a dense, walkable mixed-use residential and commercial environment, meaning folks need a car for more than the occasional trip to Ikea or the fam. Like, maybe weekly, for their trip to Meijers, Trader Joe's or TJ Maxx.

But altogether not daily [[yes, yes, provided they walk to work).

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.

I like the way you think, proposing a structural incentive for development replacing blight. I do have to admit that I'm skeptical that this is very workable yet. As has been pointed out, those darn ugly surface lots are presently open, in principle, to being bought by interested developers, and I suppose it's not really happening.

Does anyone know if there is even a surplus of parking in the city?

These lots have a negative impact on the city, cost millions in tax dollars over time, can be an eyesore, reduce foot traffic [[vitality),

Absolutely.

and are often viewed as more valuable than buildings or parks.

That's the problem. As much as I would love to blink these surface lots out of existence, I have to admit that they would just reappear. The fact that there is so much empty existing property in the city [[I mean downtown) is a real impediment to the idea that those surface lots are a wast of space, unfortunately. Only if you were some kind of a billionaire could you hope to pull something off where it makes sense for you to gobble up the surface lots and redevelop them in a "new urbanism" way, because you'd also have to redevelop the empty shell of a building next door, and invest in mass transit infrastructure.

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.

Lemme ask you something in this regard: do these other cities [[erm, Sandusky basically means Toledo,Cedar Point, all that jazz, right?) have the same idiotic us-vs-them antagonism that continually rears its ugly head, including on this board? I remember when Ernst & Young consolidated its Detroit office to that very visible location on Campus Martius from the Comerica Building and someplace out in Superblockland [[Troy), the folks from Superblockland were not necessarily only proud of their bosses for having invested in a struggling downtown, they did also hate "having" to drive downtown, and pay Detroit income tax. My point being, this is not going to fly with those people, Detroit's regional partners, who are apt to feel, whether justified or not, as though they are being asked to subsidize the things Detroit struggles with.

I was no comfort to them, as it happened, as my personal opinion was one could be forgiven for thinking that driving around a bunch was precisely the point of their choosing to live in Superblockland, though I tried to be more polite about it than just stating that outright.

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.

You're right on the money, unfortunately.

People who drive those cars want a convenient place to park while visiting an office, store, restaurant or bar. Most people would rather park in a surface parking lot than pay more and have the hassle of long slow lines in a parking structure.

IIRC, the surface lots all quoted me $150 per month and $5 per day for parking, and did not provide a cheaper rate for folks who park only an hour or two at a time in order to transact some business. I believe Comerica's garage was also $150 per month, as was Compuware's, and if I was willing to walk a block or two further, there was a garage over near the Y that only charged $80 per month, or so its sign said.

As it was, I just parked at Greektown Casino <smirk> until I got the subsidized parking at Compuware from the company.

You might say that's me making your point, I suppose. I would agree, but I say it's because your perspective is grounded in the here and now, and DetroitDad is thinking about what Detroit could or should be. Which isn't wrong, though [[not that you're wrong to point out the hurdles that need to be overcome).

And how did it arrive at that density? It just had enough density all up and down the island so they stuck a subway underground to service that density? C'mon. Again, tell the whole story so we can really "talk some sense."

Sorry to undermine you, but in the case of Manhattan in particular, yes actually, it's because it's an island, so sprawl was not an option, specifically an island that is geologically suited to high rises. There is a layer of some kind of bedrock or something called "shyste" [[sp?) that is great for anchoring high rises, and is not distributed uniformly along the island, which is why when you look at the skyline from the East or West, the buildings are higher in midtown [[Times Square, Empire State Building, etc) and downtown [[Wall Street, Battery Park, WTC, etc) than they are elsewhere.

More to your point, the economist recently pointed out in an article on America's elite cities that Portland had joined that club. Because of laws limiting urban sprawl that date back to a time when the heart of Oregon's economy was farmland [[which needed to be protected from urban sprawl, you see), Portland now is a thriving, walkable, bikeable city that avoided the LA-ification from which LA and Detroit both suffer.

That article is here: http://www.economist.com/node/15911324

OK, I have to get back to my day job now. :-D

[Detroitnerd]

Sorry to undermine you, but in the case of Manhattan in particular, yes actually, it's because it's an island, so sprawl was not an option, specifically an island that is geologically suited to high rises. There is a layer of some kind of bedrock or something called "shyste" [[sp?) that is great for anchoring high rises, and is not distributed uniformly along the island, which is why when you look at the skyline from the East or West, the buildings are higher in midtown [[Times Square, Empire State Building, etc) and downtown [[Wall Street, Battery Park, WTC, etc) than they are elsewhere.

Oh, this apples-vs-oranges thing again? Well, fryar, you're only 24 posts in, so perhaps you don't realize that ANY TIME ANYBODY COMPARES DETROIT TO ANOTHER CITY, there is always somebody who brings up apples vs. oranges. Then somebody else will argue that it's not that far-fetched. Then the thread is effectively derailed by this sub-debate.

In any event, you aren't necessarily undermining my argument. My point is that, while there's always lots of noise comparing one city to another, the kind of density we see in Manhattan wouldn't be possible without the subway to promote and nurture that density. It would be impossible for Manhattan to have more than 1.5 million people living and working in it daily, taking care of their errands, if they had to resort to cars. Manhattan has a good transit mix, with highways for cars, buses and trucks, regional trains, city subways and els, commuter rail, heavy intercity rail, walkability, bikability and more. That is what makes that incredible, appealing density possible. Retroit puts the cart before the horse in his disingenuous example.

More to your point, the economist recently pointed out in an article on America's elite cities that Portland had joined that club. Because of laws limiting urban sprawl that date back to a time when the heart of Oregon's economy was farmland [[which needed to be protected from urban sprawl, you see), Portland now is a thriving, walkable, bikeable city that avoided the LA-ification from which LA and Detroit both suffer.

Oh, no! Now you've compared L.A. to Detroit! God help us. God help us all.

[downtownguy]

I like the idea, DetroitDad.

Parking lots are cash cows. A rather modest investment can yield good pretty good profits. Nor are they exempt from competition. If you choose to run your lot like a dump, go right ahead. And if that means you raise your price to cover the tax, even better. Most likely, the better lots and garages will get more business.

[fryar]

Sorry, I'll try not to do that again. Nerd.

What you're saying is all well and good, but if I am undermining your argument about NYC subways, isn't there a pun in there somewhere that I can take credit for?

And the fact that I'm 24 posts in already tells me that maybe this underappreciated burg has found a place in my heart, and I really do need to think about coming back.

As for metaphors, it's kind of a chicken and egg thing, no? Of course you're right that Manhattan's density drove development of the subway, but the subway definitely also drives Manhattan's density. It's kind of circular. In that vein, whether this is a realistic proposal or not is probably tied to the existing demand for downtown parking, which I thought was high relative to supply. I mean, who drives in from the suburbs in order to pursue their work-a-day job in the city and prefers parking in a surface lot to parking in a garage? I think that happens mostly because the garages are already full. By extension, if demand was relatively low, those surface lots should be lowering their prices in order to attract business, and have fewer cars parking there.

If demand is high, does the way for the construction of one or more parking garages need to be paved, subsidies or otherwise? Maybe if the city announces this intention, to be implemented 2-3 years down the line, in order to give someone time to invest in a garage that can charge $150 per month and be financially attractive vis-a-vis the surface lots?

Ernst & Young's building on Campus Martius has underground parking, and the Premier parking garage is obviously underground. This would imply that it is feasible to install underground parking, also. Perhaps something can be done to incentivize that construction.

DC48080, let me beat you to the punch, I don't know where the money is going to come from, I'm just thinking out loud.

I said earlier that the time was not yet ripe for DetroitDad's proposal. I take that back. If an alternative to the surface lots can be found/produced, maybe this is an aggressive move to improve Detroit. I look forward to seeing the YouTube clip of DetroitDad presenting this board's eventual consensus recommendation, if we arrive at one, to the City Council [[seriously, actually).

25 posts and going strong, baby!

[Detroitnerd]

As for metaphors, it's kind of a chicken and egg thing, no? Of course you're right that Manhattan's density drove development of the subway, but the subway definitely also drives Manhattan's density. It's kind of circular.

"Kind of" circular, yes. Density predated the subway in some neighborhoods. But consider the kind of density that existed in New York before the subway: Congested, disease-ridden immigrant neighborhoods where everybody rode horses and carts and walked. Streets filled with dung and dead horses. People living a family to a room. That was the original density. Not exactly what you'd call incredible, appealing density.

But after they laid down subways, things changed. Instead of having a small building, a private home or a tenement, suddenly you have a hole in the ground that 100,000 people can walk out of an hour. That changes the whole picture. And you can put up spectacular buildings, house people in large, commodious apartments stacked 50 or more high, build massive office towers, and have people in and out in two quick rush hours a day. A far cry from the admittedly "dense" but unappealing ghettos of the pre-subway days.

So, yes, you can have a certain raw density, but what makes it appealing and fantastic is the system it's hung upon: usually a rail-based system. So, again, Retroit would have us believe the density required the building of a subway, but the subway is what encouraged the environment to go vertical and incredibly dense, and what sustains it to this day.

Welcome aboard, fryar. You seem a thoughtful chap.

[Bearinabox]

In that vein, whether this is a realistic proposal or not is probably tied to the existing demand for downtown parking, which I thought was high relative to supply. I mean, who drives in from the suburbs in order to pursue their work-a-day job in the city and prefers parking in a surface lot to parking in a garage? I think that happens mostly because the garages are already full. By extension, if demand was relatively low, those surface lots should be lowering their prices in order to attract business, and have fewer cars parking there.

I believe many/most of the surface lots make their money on event attendees, not commuters. The only time when the lots really fill up is when there's a baseball game or something, and most lots charge significantly more during events. Even then, there are still vacancies at any number of the twenty gazillion garages downtown, it's more a question of knowing where to find them and being willing to walk to your destination.

[Detroitnerd]

it's more a question of knowing where to find them and being willing to walk to your destination.

But what if we had a vehicle that could contain more than 100 people and drop them off right next to the park. Maybe the vehicle could have more than one door. Oh, wait ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram

[fryar]

A jitney is a good idea for events. Those old school buses Fishbone's Shilelagh's and so on provide to their customers for rides to the ball park always look packed. Seems like it'd be worth it to a garage to invest in that as well.

A tram is a better version of that, nicer, cleaner, and the BID or someone could organize it so costs are shared among the various garages and restaurants.

Why doesn't the People Mover work? I didn't ride it very much, but can't you get on there from Cobo? Wouldn't parking in Cobo be an appealing alternative to parking on a surface lot for those who don't like to walk? Maybe the garage throws in the People mover fare, or the BID does it, or the city does it?

Thanks, Detroitnerd, I try. And thanks for ironing out the old-man-fryar blow to my ego I received from English over in the urban flight thread.

[Bearinabox]

Why doesn't the People Mover work? I didn't ride it very much, but can't you get on there from Cobo? Wouldn't parking in Cobo be an appealing alternative to parking on a surface lot for those who don't like to walk? Maybe the garage throws in the People mover fare, or the BID does it, or the city does it?

It works fine, and is typically packed to the gills on game days, but there are still plenty of folks willing to pay a premium to the first guy who waves an orange flag at them on Clifford. I don't understand it, but there it is.

[fryar]

Huh. That's a really useful observation, actually, one I would not have come up with since I didn't drive down there. Getting rid of the slummy surface lots would require some means of directing people to the garages we want them to use instead of the surface lots. Maybe some thoughtfully crafted signage to direct people to the different garages that are available, not just a particular garage?

[DetroitDad]

Thanks to those who keep responding, both ways.

First, let me say that many surface lots at one time or another, had developers who wanted to buy them, the asking prices were astronomical, they are simply more profitable as un-landscaped and garbage strewn surface lots.

Second, they are more profitable as surface lots because of our tax structure, and often, they appeal to a lot of people. Some lots [[the most unkept) are simply cheaper than other lots, and in areas where there are few lots, or [[more often than not) surrounded by lots all owned by the same owner [[called Downtown parking cartels, in these parts).

Third, other surface lots, some of which are un-landscaped, are profitable because they are located next to venues that attract guest who live outside the immediate area. Some of these parkers just don't know where they are going, but many others just want to park as close as possible. Still other parkers are not dressed for the weather, such as people entertaining or woman clubing in Greektown, Foxtown, or Bricktown. Also, it is true many lots charge little for monthly passes, but those passes are no good during events at nearby venues. I have been kicked out of surface lots in the past, even though I payed for an all day pass, because they assumed I would be leaving after the typical workday.

Fourth and finally, there is definately a number of people who believe what they hear about Detroit being big bad and dangerous, and indeed, many of these people have been victims of property crime [[usually smash and grabs) in the city. Unfortunately, these people don't really want to pay for the real added security of guarded lots and parking garages, and instead settle for $2-$5 surface lots with cashiers and flagers who leave once the events start, leaving cars double parked, and lots unguarded.

What people who park in these un-landscaped lots fail to realize, is that crime almost always sticks to untravelled streets, abandoned buildings/construction sites, and in front of closed businesses, or have few residences overlooking them. Every week I see the exact same spots hit on my way to or from work, or after an event [[usually in broad daylight). In front of the United Artist Theater is so bad, that when I would walk in front of the building before Tiger's Games, I would warn anyone I saw not to park there, and direct them to the other side of the street, where they could be easily seen by a half dozen residential buildings, only to come back and see that all the spots had been filled again.

[DetroitDad]

Surface lots in general, but especially un-landscaped surface lots, are a factor [[a single ingredient of many) in keeping many of our urban buildings vacant, and streets empty. Surface lots ruin the urban environment because they are undesirable to walk by. Walking by a garbage strewn surface parking lot helps make walking a chore, where nice things to look at [[architecture or landscaping) helps to make walking less of a chore, this is apparent walking down Bagley or Cass, as opposed to Griswold and Congress, Ouellette, or Campus Martius Park.

"Even the Hudson's block is something to avoid on a blustery Winter day, the center of what should be Detroit's shopping district".

Beyond that, large surface lots in general can kill any non motorized street life surrounding them. How many of you enjoy walking by Clifford and Columbia or even the Hudson's Block? Now go walk by them [[or my corner of Bagley and Cass) on any given windy day, now do it in any given early Spring rain with an umbrella, now do it again on any given Winter day, with that wind whipping over the great plains of Foxtown. Even the Hudson's block is something to avoid on a blustery Winter day, the center of what should be Detroit's shopping district.

Click on links for Google's street views

[fryar]

DetroitDad, I think if you can explain how Detroit's tax system incentivizes the surface lots you will have a better chance to argue for a tax on surface lots. There's definitely something wrong if that's what the incentives are.

[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....