Detroit may raise fines for parking violations

For the first time in more than a decade, the city may increase its parking fines and come down harder on repeat offenders who don’t pay up.The recommendations, which would bump the current parking fines of $20, $30 and $100 per ticket to a two-tiered structure of $45 and $150, are among the revenue-generating strategies recommended by Detroit’s restructuring consultants.
The proposed reforms come as Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr awaits an analysis of the city’s parking assets and contemplates spinning off Municipal Parking, a department that generally breaks even or fails to bring in enough revenue to cover its expenses.
The city is paying $32 to issue and process a $30 parking violation, and it hasn’t adjusted rates since 2001. On top of that, about half of Detroit’s 3,404 parking meters are not operating properly at any given time, says Orr’s spokesman, Bill Nowling.
“It’s another example of the old, antiquated system and processes the city has that creates impediments for anyone trying to do their job,” Nowling said.
Detroit Chief Operating Officer Gary Brown is advocating for the changes, which he says would bring in an additional $6 million per year and $60 million over the 10-year plan of adjustment Orr is proposing for the bankrupt city.
“That’s real money,” Brown said. “If the asset is truly an asset and making money, no one is going to want to do anything with it.”
Brown said the ticket increases would not unduly burden Detroit residents, since 70 percent of the fines are written to nonresident offenders. The city also expects to offer a one-time amnesty program that’s commensurate with any increase.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2wIIZ0ze9

Parking meters are dumb. When you were the only game in town you could get away with it, but it's ridiculous how many dead downtowns are loaded with meters to catch anyone that dares to visit. Little moves like that combine to enhance people's perception of the suburbs in a noticeable way.

If the real goal was to stop people from abusing parking spaces, you wouldn't even need to charge a fee, or the fee would be like a penny an hour to cover costs. The fact that the city is paying $32 per parking ticket shows you how dumb of a system it is.

i avoid parking meters like the plague. rather eat at fishbones in southfield than deal with that in downtown. which is exactly what i did last saturday, drove from midtown up m10 to northwestern.

the previous week i parked at a meter and ate at pegasus, so maybe i'm just full of it haha.

I don't see meters stopping people from going to Royal Oak or Ann Arbor, though I don't know the ticket fees for those cities. It's never good to up the cost for parking but I don't think this will really be a deterrent for most people. We can always park in Dan Gilbert's pretty parking lot!

I prefer a meter, so I don't have to deal with a garage. Parking's cheap and easy here, too. Never hard to find a spot more than a block or so from where I'm going.

The meters they have don't even fucking work and they're trying to gouge more out of people.

The north-east parking meter post on the Cass side of the Main Library was not taking ANY coins.

The entire line up was marked up as expired. I was in for 3 minutes. Every single car except mine was ticketed.

I'm sure people smarter than me have studied this exhaustively. But from over here in my urban planning armchair, it seems like parking is a micro-economy. If parking ticket prices go up, then parking lot owners should raise prices, since the alternative [[penalty) for not using them has gone up.

Where it gets fuzzy for me is: would this make it more or less likely for people to develop empty surface lots? On the one hand, there's even more money to be made by building a parking structure. On the other, there's more to be made by doing nothing.

In short, I would hope that the decision is based on some thought about long-term effects, rather than just the short term "well, we don't make any money on parking, so, rate hike!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Parking meters are dumb. When you were the only game in town you could get away with it, but it's ridiculous how many dead downtowns are loaded with meters to catch anyone that dares to visit. Little moves like that combine to enhance people's perception of the suburbs in a noticeable way.

If the real goal was to stop people from abusing parking spaces, you wouldn't even need to charge a fee, or the fee would be like a penny an hour to cover costs. The fact that the city is paying $32 per parking ticket shows you how dumb of a system it is.

---

If there were no parking meters the only ones in those spaces will be either apartment dwellers or a shop owner who are trying to save a buck over the cost of on street parking. How exactly are parking meters bad for business when all of these spots will be taken up by those who are not shopping or bringing dollars downtown? Meter help manage this problem by establishing penalties for those who abuse parking privileges and open up spots for people who may only be downtown for a half hour or so to go to the bank, see a lawyer, have lunch.......

Municipal parking is far more than just meters or writing tickets. It includes the provision and maintenance of parking structures.

I thought Bing fixed this issue when he extended the enforcement hours...

Well, If you can't stop or solve real crime, might as well go after the sitting ducks.....

If I'm gonna be downtown for the day or for the evening and I require a car, I always park at meters in lieu of garages, I just don't feed the meter. In my experience there is a 50/50 chance you end up with a ticket, which equals out to about $5 per trip. I think the real problem is the ability to collect the money and having a more efficient system of giving out tickets. The meter maids are lazy and give out a lot of garbage tickets that get thrown out in court.

I always thought of the CoD's online parking ticket payment system as possibly the only computer operated system in the city that actually works. Considering most meter violations are $20 [[$10 if you pay within 7 days), even the extended hours haven't stopped me from running over the alloted time, because I figure the two times a year I actually do get a ticket, the $20 in fines I pay is nothing what I would have paid to use a private lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamtragedy

I always thought of the CoD's online parking ticket payment system as possibly the only computer operated system in the city that actually works. Considering most meter violations are $20 [[$10 if you pay within 7 days), even the extended hours haven't stopped me from running over the alloted time, because I figure the two times a year I actually do get a ticket, the $20 in fines I pay is nothing what I would have paid to use a private lot.

---

Do you know why it actually works? Because it's outsourced.

I think meter rate raises are tough in a soft downtown economy. It works better when there's big demand for street parking near businesses and nothing can divert people's interests in shopping elsewhere. Otherwise people will head to the garages. I get that fees are a way to collect more revenue over tax increases but Detroit just isn't ready yet for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Do you know why it actually works? Because it's outsourced.

---

That's because it's a city's job to run a city, not engineer and operate software and payment collection.

I don't mind paying a meter fee in a city like Ann Arbor or other places where the prices are fair and I'm not being gouged. Even if the meter expires, the fines aren't outrageous.

But I refuse to travel anywhere, that I'm being taken advantage of. This is one reason so many people LIVING IN CHICAGO, now avoid visiting the Loop and shop/wine/dine in the outter neighborhoods. Because it's a money grab! I understand Downtown Detroit is growing and there's a new demographic living Downtown. It doesn't matter if you live there because you can walk or take a taxi. But I don't think Detroit is ready to start turning people away before they even get into a show and restaurant. I agree with Wolverine...if the fees/fines rise to gouging rates, many people such as myself will ALWAYS think twice AND possibly consider the burbs before getting ripped off in the city. And in the end, this will hurt small businesses. One thing Detroit should learn from Chicago is to not take advantage of your clientele. They will walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

That's because it's a city's job to run a city, not engineer and operate software and payment collection.

---

Correct. Too bad no one seems to catch on regarding other aspects of City services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic01

Detroit Chief Operating Officer Gary Brown is advocating for the changes, which he says would bring in an additional $6 million per year and $60 million over the 10-year plan of adjustment Orr is proposing for the bankrupt city.
“That’s real money,” Brown said. “If the asset is truly an asset and making money, no one is going to want to do anything with it.”
Brown said the ticket increases would not unduly burden Detroit residents, since 70 percent of the fines are written to nonresident offenders. The city also expects to offer a one-time amnesty program that’s commensurate with any increase.

---

Well, if Gary Brown is for it, then count me in! If anybody should know what real money is, it's him. This increase might just begin to make a dent into the amount he's collecting from the city. I feel extra warm and fuzzy knowing he says it won't burden Detroit residents.

Can somebody explain to me just what he means in the rest of that quote?

There is a cost to free parking. Here is an an article explaining it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/bu...view.html?_r=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by downtownguy

Well, if Gary Brown is for it, then count me in! If anybody should know what real money is, it's him. This increase might just begin to make a dent into the amount he's collecting from the city. I feel extra warm and fuzzy knowing he says it won't burden Detroit residents.

Can somebody explain to me just what he means in the rest of that quote?

---

What he means is, uh, that the one thing is, um, No, I can't explain what he means by the rest of the quote.