The C is for Crank
People Who Can Afford Cars Can Afford $32 a Year for Parking
Real Change has an article up today bemoaning the fact that the city has created a residential parking zone in the Rainier Beach neighborhood, arguing, essentially, that people in the area can't afford to pay for parking and weren't informed that they would have to.
Among their first examples of these poor, disadvantaged South End residents? A family that owns six cars.
Admittedly, I don't own even one car (and my apartment---like, I'm guessing, the single-family homes described in the article, comes with its own parking space), so I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to a family that owns six. That said, parking on the street in the south end is generally free, so an additional charge could represent a burden. Which would be... how much, exactly?
Oh.
So, for two years since creating a residential parking zone---intended to keep light-rail riders from driving in to the neighborhood and taking up street parking all day---residents of Rainier Beach haven't had to pay a dime. Now, they'll have to pay $65 (or $10 if they're poor).
That, by the way, is $65 for two years, a fact the story doesn't mention. That works out to about $2.70 a month. Green and his neighbors may indeed "say they can’t afford the permits," but if they can afford to gas up all those cars, I'm guessing they can afford a couple bucks a month to park them.
Not to mention the fact that residential parking zones are designed to make parking easier for neighborhood residents, by preventing people from driving in from other areas and parking their cars all day.
This debate, such as it is, reminds me of the arguments against the bag tax, a 20-cent fee on disposable bags at grocery stores. As with the bag tax, residents were given something of value for free---in this case, a free two-year RPZ permit, in that case, free disposable grocery bags. As with the bag tax, people now argue that it's impossible change their behavior---in this case, by parking in their driveways instead of on the street, in that case, by bringing bags to the store. And as with the bag tax, advocates for the poor argue that the charge represents an unacceptable financial burden---in that case, a 20-cent fee, in this case, a $2.70-a-month parking permit.
I don't buy it. Car owners in Rainier Beach have had two full years to get used to the idea of paying for parking. Most single-family homes have driveways that give people an alternative to parking on the street (maybe not households that own six cars, but that's hardly representative of the population of Rainier Beach), and people are capable of changing their parking habits. And even poor people (poor people who, again, are well-off enough to afford a car) can afford a couple of bucks a month for parking.
An interesting side note here: Real Change has been a big (and unlikely) supporter of Mayor Mike McGinn. McGinn is a big light-rail proponent. It would be hasty to say that their combative article on light-rail parking represents a shift in an anti-McGinn direction, but it's undeniable that McGinn's own transportation department (and therefore McGinn) supports charging a modest fee for parking around light rail stations.
Among their first examples of these poor, disadvantaged South End residents? A family that owns six cars.
A married couple across the street cares for the husband’s elderly mother. That’s three cars. Down the street, three sisters and their husbands share a house. Add six more cars to the list.
Green, an electrician, bought his house from his mother Dorothy, who still lives there. Her Nissan Maxima sits in the driveway next to his work truck. He parks a Honda on the street. A niece who spends time with his mother does the same.
Very soon, parking all those cars is going to cost Green and his neighbors some green. Last month, residents of 44th Avenue South got notices from the City of Seattle warning them that their days of free street parking are over.
Admittedly, I don't own even one car (and my apartment---like, I'm guessing, the single-family homes described in the article, comes with its own parking space), so I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to a family that owns six. That said, parking on the street in the south end is generally free, so an additional charge could represent a burden. Which would be... how much, exactly?
Starting Sept. 1, residents must pay the city $65 per car, or $30 for a guest pass, to park on streets in the restricted parking zone, or RPZ, where they live. City officials created the RPZ two years ago when Sound Transit opened its light rail line to keep commuters from parking on their streets. ... SDOT will offer a $10 pass to those who can prove to the city that they’re very low income.
Oh.
So, for two years since creating a residential parking zone---intended to keep light-rail riders from driving in to the neighborhood and taking up street parking all day---residents of Rainier Beach haven't had to pay a dime. Now, they'll have to pay $65 (or $10 if they're poor).
That, by the way, is $65 for two years, a fact the story doesn't mention. That works out to about $2.70 a month. Green and his neighbors may indeed "say they can’t afford the permits," but if they can afford to gas up all those cars, I'm guessing they can afford a couple bucks a month to park them.
Not to mention the fact that residential parking zones are designed to make parking easier for neighborhood residents, by preventing people from driving in from other areas and parking their cars all day.
This debate, such as it is, reminds me of the arguments against the bag tax, a 20-cent fee on disposable bags at grocery stores. As with the bag tax, residents were given something of value for free---in this case, a free two-year RPZ permit, in that case, free disposable grocery bags. As with the bag tax, people now argue that it's impossible change their behavior---in this case, by parking in their driveways instead of on the street, in that case, by bringing bags to the store. And as with the bag tax, advocates for the poor argue that the charge represents an unacceptable financial burden---in that case, a 20-cent fee, in this case, a $2.70-a-month parking permit.
I don't buy it. Car owners in Rainier Beach have had two full years to get used to the idea of paying for parking. Most single-family homes have driveways that give people an alternative to parking on the street (maybe not households that own six cars, but that's hardly representative of the population of Rainier Beach), and people are capable of changing their parking habits. And even poor people (poor people who, again, are well-off enough to afford a car) can afford a couple of bucks a month for parking.
An interesting side note here: Real Change has been a big (and unlikely) supporter of Mayor Mike McGinn. McGinn is a big light-rail proponent. It would be hasty to say that their combative article on light-rail parking represents a shift in an anti-McGinn direction, but it's undeniable that McGinn's own transportation department (and therefore McGinn) supports charging a modest fee for parking around light rail stations.
