Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

todareistobmore t1_j8np3zd wrote

> Under the proposed rate, the city is actually losing money in some places where parking revenue averages out at $5.40 per day, Davis said.

Yes, love too compare the daily cost per "place" to a annualized cost per square foot. Very persuasive.

27

bmore t1_j8o2mu2 wrote

Meanwhile valet can take up meter parking or any other parking for a fixed $1,100 fee. No analysis of lost parking revenue nor per square foot fee. Seems fucked up to me.

33

mobtown_misanthrope t1_j8o783p wrote

Would have been useful had the reporter asked if the restaurant owners would be willing to pay the same fee per space, eh?

10

theyoungbloody t1_j8o7ijo wrote

ohhhhh good point. $5.40 x 365 = 1971. So if a valet is daily they are getting a deal.

5

bmore t1_j8oho16 wrote

Valet takes 3-4 spots, so quadruple that figure.

6

moderndukes t1_j8ov4jd wrote

A sqft fee that adapts to the street in question is probably the best route tbh rather than trying a city-wide flat fee that tries to avoid losses anywhere. Like a neighborhood where losing parking spaces isn’t a huge issue or a street with a more pedestrian feel should be cheaper, and definitely shouldn’t be raised to match this loss.

3