Downtown Parking Tax

[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?

[English]

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.

DetroitDad, you're on a roll here. Very interesting ideas... you've got me thinking of alternatives to parking that would be cheap for the owner. What might one use a standard sized urban lot for? For instance, maybe it would be really cool to turn one or more of these surface lots into a seasonal, downtown "satellite" version of Eastern Market.

[fryar]

+1, sounds like a winner to me.
If you cover the noon lunch break and the early evening, when commuters leave to go home and locals walk home from work, you can do enough business to justify sending a couple of guys down in vans full of lettuce and stuff. People like that sort of thing. I'm not as sure about every day, but definitely once a week, like you said, seasonally. It also reminds people that they have been meaning to go to Eastern Market.

[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]

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

You can have multiple doors only if you have controlled access stops where the ticketing process is independent of the transit vehicle [[e.g. Washington Metro, Paris Metro, New York Subway). If the driver/motorman/engineer has to be the ticket collector, you are pretty much limited in access/egress for the vehicle.

The Tri-Rail here is south Florida uses a "semi-honor" system where you purchase your tickets at the stop or get a monthly pass and then board though multiple doors. They have random "ticket checks" on board with a very stiff fine for cheating.. I am not sure how that would work in Detroit.

[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.

[Bearinabox]

The Tri-Rail here is south Florida uses a "semi-honor" system where you purchase your tickets at the stop or get a monthly pass and then board though multiple doors. They have random "ticket checks" on board with a very stiff fine for cheating.. I am not sure how that would work in Detroit.

Having the driver collect fares doesn't always work well on DDOT either--a lot of people have figured out that, if they don't feel like paying or don't have full fare, all they have to do is get on the bus and refuse to get off. The driver can yell and scream, but in the end he/she can't really do anything without disrupting service for everyone else. I think the efficiency gains of multiple doors and free movement on and off the tram outweigh the potential reduction in farebox recovery relative to the line-up-and-pay-the-driver method, especially if you're trying to attract choice riders who are more likely to actually pay in the first place.

Barriers outside the stations could work [[seem to work on the People Mover, anyway), but you'd have to weigh the extra expense of installing the barriers against the increased farebox revenue from making it harder to cheat. Besides, you'd probably still have to have random checks on the train if you wanted to minimize cheating, because it's pretty hard to make a foolproof barrier.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[fryar]

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?

It has been acknowledged that parking needs to be available. And you can't just whip out a stick by which to beat slummy surface lots into submission, you also have to provide a carrot for the construction of superior alternatives. As a shot in the dark, that place they tore down which left the sinkhole on Lafayette, if whatever goes in down there gets a couple of floors of parking, ideally underground [[it seems like there'd be space ) you've got enough new parking to get rid of a couple of surface lots. Even if you just convert them to parks, like Campus Martius/Cadillac Square style, you've just turned blight into beautification.

If you want to be a stickler about thread names, fine, don't tax downtown parking, but the OP did make it clear that he wanted to talk specifically about surface lots. They're a huge eyesore, they interrupt continuity, they really put a stop to the idea of the city being a walkable environment. The latter is not just about the distance between two points, but also what you encounter on the way there.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

As I understand it, the idea of nuisance taxes is that you take the things you don't want [[tobacco use, strip clubs, parking lots). It would be interesting to see what happens if you use the money to pay for things that discourage them [[tobacco counseling, women's shelters, mass transit).

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.

Not if you provide another way to get downtown. If you build a serious light rail system, as Detroit used to have in the old days, then you have a viable way for people to get downtown without using the parking lots.

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.

I think if you implement light rail, developers and businesses will take note and move in, invest money and even construct new. Now, if you have that in place, then would be a good time to tax the surface lots, or find some other way to make it a less lucrative business.

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.

Not if you have alternatives in place. If you have alternatives in place that can bring as many people in and out of downtown as six freeway lanes, that's about 20,000 cars that won't need parking. Parking demand is lowered, making it less lucrative. And then taxes for parking lots makes the business even less lucrative. The end result is the cheapest place to park: No parking required at all.

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.

Not necessarily. If you want to have a real downtown, with buildings on every lot, with people pouring in and out, with development reaching out beyond the CBD, you want as few vehicles as possible. Light rail carries six lanes' worth of people on something that takes up 1/10th of the area. Downtown Detroit was designed and built before 1915. It isn't intended to compete with Troy by trying to be Troy. It needs the infrastructure it was built around.

It all needs vision and planning and integration. Taxing something and hoping it goes away could well part of that. But trying to do things on the cheap, always being so terrified of taxes that we never can provide necessary services is a recipe for failure.

[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]

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.

[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.