Downtown Parking Tax

[DetroitDad]

English and Fryar,

Excellent ideas!

[Russix]

A ticket to a Tiger's, Lion's or Red Wing's game could double as a free bus or light rail pass on the day of the game. As mentioned above, demand dictates this land use practice, if we can put a big dent into it, maybe, just maybe somebody will do something else with their property.

[professorscott]

The simple fact is, any additional cost to a parking lot operator will be passed on to the consumer, thereby driving up the cost of parking and further discouraging people from coming downtown, because unlike other cities, in Detroit most people consider the automobile the only way to get downtown.

If you want to reduce the blight of the kind of surface parking which exists in Detroit in massive quantities, moreso than any other city I've ever been to, then you must change the perception that the automobile is the only way to get downtown, and the only way I know how to do that is to provide decent transit.

But that requires vision, imagination, money, and the willingness to learn from successful regions. In Detroit [[the region), we just keep filling out Einstein's definition of insanity: keep doing the same things, and expecting different results. So we'll just widen I-94 and M-59 and continue to develop the M-53 expressway further out into the middle of effing nowhere, and expect a regional renaissance. Sigh.

[Hermod]

The simple fact is, any additional cost to a parking lot operator will be passed on to the consumer, thereby driving up the cost of parking and further discouraging people from coming downtown, because unlike other cities, in Detroit most people consider the automobile the only way to get downtown.

If you want to reduce the blight of the kind of surface parking which exists in Detroit in massive quantities, moreso than any other city I've ever been to, then you must change the perception that the automobile is the only way to get downtown, and the only way I know how to do that is to provide decent transit.

But that requires vision, imagination, money, and the willingness to learn from successful regions. In Detroit [[the region), we just keep filling out Einstein's definition of insanity: keep doing the same things, and expecting different results. So we'll just widen I-94 and M-59 and continue to develop the M-53 expressway further out into the middle of effing nowhere, and expect a regional renaissance. Sigh.

If the auto companies come back big time, we will have a regional renaissance which might not include Detroit. Except for sports venues, casinos, and the DIA, Detroit has nothing to offer the average suburbanite. Why do people go downtown in any city? Shopping, restaurants, and nightlife are the big draws. Is there any shopping, restaurants, or nightlife in Detroit that is so superior to what people can find in the burbs? Great Lakes Crossing draws more Detroiters than the CBD does suburbanites.

[Sstashmoo]

You want to tax something because it looks "slummy"? SHeesh..

Detroit needs to start eliminating taxes to encourage growth, not sitting around thinking up new ones.

[Detroitnerd]

You want to tax something because it looks "slummy"? SHeesh..

Detroit needs to start eliminating taxes to encourage growth, not sitting around thinking up new ones.

Don't you think that governments use high taxes to discourage things they want to see less of and low taxes to encourage things they want to see more of?

[ndavies]

Don't you think that governments use high taxes to discourage things they want to see less of and low taxes to encourage things they want to see more of?

Yes, so why are you adding to the taxes that will stop people coming downtown.

Businesses always pass new taxes down to the consumer. Adding Taxes on Parking lots will just add to the cost of consumers coming downtown. Making downtown more expensive will just drive more consumers out of downtown. Fewer consumers downtown will lead to more business failures. More business failures mean less need for building space. Less need for building space means fewer buildings will be able to charge enough rents to maintain themselves. Fewer maintained buildings mean more buildings torn down. More buildings torn down means more open lots.

Now what were you trying to accomplish? Oh yeah, Prevent more empty lots downtown. Added taxes seems to lead to exactly the thing you're trying to prevent. Addign new taxes to lots is just a continuation of the cities broke fiscal policies that have helped downtown to become the surface lot haven we currently see.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, so why are you adding to the taxes that will stop people coming downtown.

Um ... this was a general question, and I'll repeat it.

"Don't you think that governments use high taxes to discourage things they want to see less of and low taxes to encourage things they want to see more of?"

Pretty simple question.

If you want to have a general discussion on the merits of what taxes the government selects and how it then spends that money, perhaps the non-Detroit forum is a good place to have that discussion?

[ndavies]

Um ... this was a general question, and I'll repeat it.

"Don't you think that governments use high taxes to discourage things they want to see less of and low taxes to encourage things they want to see more of?"

Pretty simple question.

If you want to have a general discussion on the merits of what taxes the government selects and how it then spends that money, perhaps the non-Detroit forum is a good place to have that discussion?

No I lwant to have a dicussiion about the title of this thread. Taxes on parking lots downtown. I don't believe this works. Consumers will only be taxed so much. Once the taxes becomes too large of an issue they will find ways around it.

So once again, Why do you want to add taxes that the consumer will have to pay and then go out of their way to avoid? This will drive more consumers out of downtown causing more businesses to fail. This will leave more empty buildings needed to be torn down.

Bring more businesses downtown and those empty lots will be worth more with buildings on them than they are as empty parking lots. If you continue to tax business owners out of business you will just have more empty lots.

Consumers will still do what they've always done. Look for the cheaper alternative. Taxing city parking lots will just cause the consumer to find a cheaper place to park. In this case it will be a suburban free lot.

Until you can tax all surface lots in south east michigan with the tax you will continue to drive people away from where this tax is implemented to where it is tax free. By adding a parking lot tax to downtown, all you do is make downtown less competitive with it's suburban neighbors. This is exactly why downtown continues to lose businesses and people.

[Sstashmoo]

Until the city starts building parking garages, the lots are necessary to handle the vehicles coming down. Why would they try to squeeze them out with high taxes? And if they want them gone it's as simple as not issuing a license. The city has zoning and ordinance commissions to deal with unsightliness. And can also issue fines.

[Bearinabox]

Until the city starts building parking garages...

You're a little behind the times there, Sstash.

[Sstashmoo]

I meant more garages to handle the vehicles these "lots" now accommodate.

[Detroitnerd]

I can understand some reticence about using "nuisance" taxes to bring down the value of using lots for parking. But it probably isn't necessary.

Why? Because, if we have a serious light rail system that comes right down Woodward and goes to downtown, we won't need the lots. And developers will take a renewed interest in downtown due to the rail access. And then buildings can go up where the lots were, without endangering access to downtown. That's a solution that builds value, improves the business environment, increases foot traffic and obviates the need for parking.

Of course, the tax nuts will howl. But when do they ever stop?

[ndavies]

Currently, There is no other way to get downtown. There won't be any other way to get downtown in my lifetime. Look at how long it's taking just to get that little starter line up and running. This is with non-goverment funding.

How are you going to pay for that light rail? With higher taxes? What happens when you try to get a tax passed to pay for light rail?

Detroit should be afraid of more taxes. They have already proven that once a certain tax rate is hit it becomes counter productive. The people with money and choices will leave and find somewhere cheaper. High taxes in the city made sense when there was an extra benefit recieved from those taxes. Now the higher tax rates in Detroit just get you less police and fire protection and a goverment that is vitually non-functional. If you are going to charge a premium for something, you better make sure it returns a premium level of service.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit should be afraid of more taxes. They have already proven that once a certain tax rate is hit it becomes counter productive. The people with money and choices will leave and find somewhere cheaper.

Have you been paying any attention at all? People with money and choices have been leaving for decades--for other states!

[ndavies]

Have you been paying any attention at all? People with money and choices have been leaving for decades--for other states!

Exactly my point. We have made the Detroit area completely non competitive. The taxes are too high and the services delivered for those High taxes are pathetic. We need to downsize government and make Detroit and Michigan competitive again.

The areas of the country with the highest traxes are shedding the most jobs. The areas with the lowest costs are recruiting new businesses and growing.

[Detroitnerd]

The areas of the country with the highest traxes are shedding the most jobs. The areas with the lowest costs are recruiting new businesses and growing.

So, this wasn't going to be a debate about taxes in general? Sigh ...

Let me get this straight: The places with the highest taxes are suffering, while the places with the lowest taxes are prosperous?

Among the top 20 highest taxed U.S. cities are [[2007):

Charleston [[Charleston is becoming a prime location for information technology jobs and corporations)
Portland [[Model American city is drawing residents and businesses)
New York City [[Growing past 8 million residents)
Atlanta [[ranks fourth in the number of Fortune 500 companies)
Charlotte [[ a major U.S. financial center and is now the second largest banking center in the United States)
Philadelphia [[home to the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and several Fortune 500 companies, also enjoying a real-estate boom from spillover commuters who can't afford New York)

Among the cities with the lowest taxes are:

Cheyenne, Wyoming [[major industry? U.S. air force base)
Jacksonville, Florida [[in foreclosure meltdown)
Las Vegas, Nevada [[socked with subprime crisis, budgets strained)
Memphis, Tennessee [[Tennessee's anus)

So, I presume it's more complicated a picture than you paint.

[ghettopalmetto]

Exactly my point. We have made the Detroit area completely non competitive. The taxes are too high and the services delivered for those High taxes are pathetic. We need to downsize government and make Detroit and Michigan competitive again.

The people who are leaving Michigan are, in many cases, relocating to places with even higher taxes. Something tells me that your singular focus on taxes is misplaced. Otherwise, Mississippi would be an economic powerhouse [[It isn't.).

The areas of the country with the highest traxes are shedding the most jobs. The areas with the lowest costs are recruiting new businesses and growing.

According to BLS, the following are the states with unemployment rates at or above 10% [[May 21, 2010):

In order of increasing unemployment:

Indiana - 10.0%
Georgia - 10.4%
Tennessee - 10.5%
Kentucky - 10.6%
Oregon - 10.6%
North Carolina - 10.8%
Ohio - 10.9%
Alabama - 11.0%
District of Columbia - 11.2%
Illinois - 11.2%
Mississippi - 11.5%
South Carolina - 11.6%
Florida - 12.0%
Rhode Island - 12.5%
California - 12.6%
Nevada - 13.7%
Michigan - 14.0%

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Certainly, these high rates of unemployment are not strictly attributed to taxation or costs. If your claim was true, we would expect to see New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts near the bottom end of this list instead of EVERY SINGLE SOUTHEASTERN STATE.

[fryar]

Exactly my point. We have made the Detroit area completely non competitive. The taxes are too high and the services delivered for those High taxes are pathetic. We need to downsize government and make Detroit and Michigan competitive again.

I fundamentally disagree. Detroit is the reason the Detroit area is noncompetitive. People graduate from the many high-profile universities in the area and see either blight or suburbia, both populated by a bunch of depressed people who have spent the last 30 years losing their shirts, as their local options, so they leave. Not all of them, but structurally, that's the big issue, not the tax environment. Young, upwardly mobile, creative class, various-buzzwords-you-know-what-I'm-talking-about people choose where they want to live, and then find a job in that city. They do not do a tax projection, they look at being able to walk home from bars, the cultural scene, diversity, so on.

The areas of the country with the highest traxes are shedding the most jobs. The areas with the lowest costs are recruiting new businesses and growing.

The coolest cities and urban areas are recruiting new business and growing. Low-tax bottom feeders are attracting crappy jobs.

The tax environment is an important factor, sure, but it's not the only one, and it can be outweighed by other factors. New York and California have punitiviley high state & local income taxes, as does DC. [[Metro) Detroit has a huge untapped menial labor pool because it has been tied, structurally, to manufacturing. Its pool of knowledge workers is perpetually being siphoned off by a brain drain to cool cities [[not, mind you, to low-tax jurisdictions). Lowering taxes alone is not a sustainable forward-looking approach; what are you going to to bet the local economy on, cardboard box assembly? Meatpacking? If you want to assemble cars from foreign components like they do in Alabama, by all means, compete with Alabama. If you want thinkers who develop the newest methods of diagnosing some kind of heart disease, who invent new ways of structuring the purchasing of aircraft, who develop new and lasting uses for technology, then you've got to improve the city.

You've got to make Detroit attractive in order to keep more of those smart, well educated people from Michigan's universities here in order to bring in and keep thriving businesses that go where they need to go in order to find the talent they need to innovate and drive progress.

Off the top of my head, and nothing more than that, was my idea to announce an impending 20% tax on surface lot parking, maybe to be instituted in 2.5 years. By raising the price of monthly commuter surface lot parking above $150, do you raise the incentive for new garages to supplant the surface lots, and provide enough time to actually invest in the garages? Again, the downtown detroit partnership/business improvement district/what-have-you could invest in large, intuitive signs located in strategic places that convey the information that you can go straight for a municipal underground garage or left for a privately-held above-ground garage that's open 24 hours and has additional services like a police station. This idea may be flawed in some ways, but it does try to attack the issues you referenced.

[Hermod]

Young, upwardly mobile, creative class, various-buzzwords-you-know-what-I'm-talking-about people choose where they want to live, and then find a job in that city. They do not do a tax projection, they look at being able to walk home from bars, the cultural scene, diversity, so on.

Diversity???? Detroit is not diverse and loses more diversity by the day.

Here are the racial breakdowns of two cities:

City One: 82.3%--13.3%--2.1%--1.5%--0.2%

City Two: 81.6%--12.3%--5.0%--1.0%--0.3%


Does their diversity seem about the same to you?

City One is Troy and City Two is Detroit

The tax environment is an important factor, sure, but it's not the only one, and it can be outweighed by other factors. New York and California have punitiviley high state & local income taxes, as does DC.

And the best and the brightest and the most creative do not live in DC, they live across the river in Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Vienna, Springfield, McLean, Dunn Loring, etc. Most of their offices are along the beltway and not in DC either.

Troy is not something Detroit should try to be.

Not sure of the measurement metrics, but Wiki says Troy is the 5th safest city in the US and the safest in Michigan. Maybe Detroit should try to be that.

[Detroitnerd]

See? You're just turning this into a tax argument, even as somebody puts forward a serious proposal.

Currently, There is no other way to get downtown. There won't be any other way to get downtown in my lifetime. Look at how long it's taking just to get that little starter line up and running. This is with non-goverment funding.

First of all, there are other ways to get downtown. I have several colleagues at my downtown place of business who don't drive. One of them bikes almost every day, and a few other [[me included) bike in from time to time. Another colleague rides the bus. So, um, respectfully, that statement isn't really true. There are several ways to get downtown. We should be providing more, putting in bike lanes, improving bus service and installing light rail.

There won't be any other way to get downtown in your lifetime? Are you very old? Or is it that, since you don't think you'll ever get to use it, we should only begin restoring transit service after you're gone? This statement might be true; it also might be hyperbole.

It took a long, long time to remove Detroit's transit. It won't take as long to restore it, though. What we have to do is have a serious regional vision, an authority to deal with the feds, and a change to the state constitution that adds a provision so taxes can be levied for transit funding. That way, the feds will know we're serious. With growing understanding of what urban environments do well, I think it's sensible to say that we'll have a line out to Eight Mile within a 10 years. And expect ridership statistics to be off the charts.

How are you going to pay for that light rail? With higher taxes? What happens when you try to get a tax passed to pay for light rail?

Yes, ndavies. See, governments use taxes to provide services. Then, in turn, the system of free enterprise gets to step in, as does the general public, and avail themselves of those services to turn a profit. The alternative is to provide fewer services, lower taxes, and end up, with a little time and luck, like Guatemala. Which, unsurprisingly, even businesspeople don't seem to look forward to.

Detroit should be afraid of more taxes.

I can't help but notice you bring up the emotion of fear. Perhaps you are projecting. I think this should be a sensible debate about the merits or demerits of taxes, not about emotions, and certainly not about "fear."

[Taxes] have already proven that once a certain tax rate is hit it becomes counter productive. The people with money and choices will leave and find somewhere cheaper. High taxes in the city made sense when there was an extra benefit recieved from those taxes. Now the higher tax rates in Detroit just get you less police and fire protection and a goverment that is vitually non-functional. If you are going to charge a premium for something, you better make sure it returns a premium level of service.

So you are saying that the taxes are so high that businesses leave and then there is less revenue so the city services suffer? That's interesting. Where'd you learn that? Sim City?

The truth of the matter is that when cities offer services, residents and businesses don't balk so much at paying the taxes that fund them. That's kind of a novel idea, isn't it?

Unfortunately, we have a few problems in Detroit that are somewhat unusual:

1) The vision for Detroit, since the mid-1920s, has been that the city will be a place where people who cannot afford to leave the city will live.

2) The regional vision has been that suburbs will be places where we won't need government services because urban ills will be safely confined to the city, and people will just drive everywhere and have pockets full of money from their unskilled jobs.

3) Deprived of the right to annex surrounding cities, the central city will have to raise taxes to pay for increasingly expensive services. No way will they ever get any revenue from the people who have the most! The state constitution is very firm about home rule and no taxes for transit.

4) And so you have sky-high taxes in the city and questionable, at best, services.

Are taxes a problem in the city? You bet your sweet ass they are. I know tavern owners who complain that they need almost a dozen inspections a year, at more than $100 an hour. It feels like harassment, a shakedown. It probably drives a lot of people out of business.

But what we need, as a region, is to develop ways for us all to pay into creating a region that works together. And that involves things like taxes for transit. [[We here in metro Detroit pay about a third of what the rest of the metroplexes int he United States pay for transit, and, frankly, that's why our service sucks.) And it involves talking about revenue-sharing, and, hopefully, down the road, annexation and a greater Detroit that will be able to harness the revenues to build a real, integrated city.

See, that's what other metroplexes are doing right now. While we sit here talking, other cities are growing geographically, enhancing the amount of revenue they can collect, pouring it into services that knit the region together, sharing a collective vision, putting in greenbelts to encourage density, etc.

Are taxes a part of the picture? Yes they are. But "fear" of taxes to the exclusion of all else is a recipe for failure.

[Hermod]

See, that's what other metroplexes are doing right now. While we sit here talking, other cities are growing geographically, enhancing the amount of revenue they can collect, pouring it into services that knit the region together, sharing a collective vision, putting in greenbelts to encourage density, etc.

Among the places that I have lived

1. Ft Lauderdale and Miami in Florida

2. Richmond, Norfolk, Arlington, and Alexandria in Virginia

All of these cities are hemmed in by non-annexable political entities None are "growing geographically".

Washington, DC is completely hemmed in by state lines.

I believe that San Francisco is in the same fix.

When was the last time that New York expanded its borders?

[Detroitnerd]

Among the places that I have lived

1. Ft Lauderdale and Miami in Florida

2. Richmond, Norfolk, Arlington, and Alexandria in Virginia

All of these cities are hemmed in by non-annexable political entities None are "growing geographically".

Washington, DC is completely hemmed in by state lines.

I believe that San Francisco is in the same fix.

When was the last time that New York expanded its borders?

Ah, Hermod. What a talent you have for taking a fine point and running with it. My hat's off to you, kind sir. Enjoy the thread.

[ndavies]

[quote]
So you are saying that the taxes are so high that businesses leave and then there is less revenue so the city services suffer? That's interesting. Where'd you learn that? Sim City?
[\quote]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't come from the Sim city models you seem to be playing with. This comes from Real life. It also comes from just looking around the city and asking why business and people left. It comes from the fact that NEZs, renaisance zones and OBRAs actually brought people and businesses back into the city.

What part of your serious proposal doesn't include rasing taxes? And What part of Taxing parking lots is not about taxes.

You talk about biking dowtown. It would be a 3-4 hour bike ride for me to bike downtown. I can do it in a car in 30 minutes. Biking is not a reasonable option for me. There aren't any buses or trains that can take me from my house downtown, No bus service where I live and no trains at all. So no there is no other way for me to get downtown other than by car. Most people who work downtown have the same problem I have.

But the bigger problem is I have no need to go downtown. I go downtown Because I choose to.
Adding a tax to surface lots would be another deterrent to that choice.

I didn't bring up the fear of taxes Someone else brought up the fear of taxes to this argument. I just tried to show why that fear is and should be real. The problem with the government shall fix all group, is they ignore the great harm government can do with misguided social and tax policies. Just because you turn it into law and try to tax it doesn't mean the people are going to happily follow along.

[ghettopalmetto]

[quote=ndavies;153395]

So you are saying that the taxes are so high that businesses leave and then there is less revenue so the city services suffer? That's interesting. Where'd you learn that? Sim City?
[\quote]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't come from the Sim city models you seem to be playing with. This comes from Real life.

Then please explain the Real Life numbers from BLS that I posted above. As far as I can tell, it looks like a whole bunch of poor, low-tax, undereducated states with a weak tradition of industrialization are the ones that are suffering the highest unemployment.