Dearborn Councilman: Paid Parking Isn’t Working
Dearborn Councilman Doug Thomas, long an opponent of paid parking, wants the matter to be put on the ballot again because he says the current setup in west Dearborn isn’t working.
In the event you missed his motion at the March 16 council meeting, we’ve attached a few video clips here from that meeting where Thomas lays out his case for doing away with paid parking and putting it before voters again. It’s classic Thomas, not letting the facts get in the way of the points he wants to make nor explaining how the city would cover its costs for the $10 million it spent to build two parking decks should voters reject paid parking, which we suspect they would this time.
Thomas called for the reintroduction of a Special Assessment District (SAD) – an area where a special assessment is imposed because of a public project that benefits the owners in the defined area. This was supported by Double Olive bar owner Joe Agius who shared his views on paid parking with the council. With the city’s debt costs for the decks being rolled into an SAD this time around, we wonder whether the costs to business owners in the area would end up making an SAD prohibitively expensive.
“It all started with Jumbo and Dumbo, the white elephants sitting there and how to pay for them,” Thomas said of the city’s two parking decks. “It was put on the bar owners and merchants in west Dearborn, a paid to park scheme. Well it sure didn’t work out there for Jumbo and Dumbo and it’s not working for the restaurant and bar owners in west Dearborn today.”
Thomas does make a few good points, including the suggestion that the entrance to Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, now the Henry Ford, should be off of Michigan Avenue, just east of Brady, rather than Oakwood. If the entrance were on Michigan, merchants in west Dearborn might see additional business come there way. The way it is now, after a visit to the Henry Ford, people just pack into their car and leave, Thomas says.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 am
I rarely agree with Thomas, but placing the entrance to the Henry Ford on Michigan Ave would probably be good for business. Then again, it’s a pretty intuitive suggestion that’s come up before. Not like he’s broken any new ground there, and placing the entrance on Michigan Ave. isn’t going to help out The Henry Ford any. People who are going there already know where it is for the most part. In fact, it will probably hurt The Henry Ford considering the price and quality of the food you get in there. The prices are way too high and the food is not too good in most cases. Right now they’ve got a captive audience. If you remind people there are better options right outside the gates, people may not spend their money at The Henry Ford. Maybe that’s why Henry The First put the entrance on Oakwood in the first place.
Also, I’d rather shop in the gift shop by the aritisans area in the village than on Michigan Ave. They’ve got some good stuff in there.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
While I agree that an entrance to the Henry Ford would be better off of Michigan Avenue, the time to implement that was eighty years ago. Now, the only option appears to be using Elm Street to funnel traffic across the railroad tracks, onto the side drive of the old Ford Motor Engineering Lab property, and along the back of the museum to the Oakwood parking lot. This would require significant funds to upgrade the route – funds no one has!
We would all like to see increased traffic in DTWD but Councilman Thomas’ proposal doesn’t make any practical sense (especially since visitors leaving by Elm Street would almost certainly be required to turn east onto Michigan, heading back to the Southfield Freeway). And let’s face it, no one visiting the Henry Ford is going to go to DTWD to shop. If we expect vistors to do that, then there must be stores or experiences that they cannot find elsewhere. No one visiting will make a side trip to the drug or hardware store.
As an aside, we should all thank our lucky stars that we have a world-class institution like the Henry Ford in our backyard. The cultural, economic, and employment benefits it brings to our community are huge though it seems that we tend to take it for granted.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
I think making an additional entrance, not a main entrance on Michigan Ave near Elm might be wise because it might increase business downtown regardless of how many stores we lack. At least we do have restaurants that have much better food at lower prices right near that area that the Village does and t all has to start somewhere and what we now have is not working.
But the city would have to have a way to allow drivers to go west on Michigan Avenue or down Newman that does not get congested and that the right engineer could figure it out. Sure it would all cost money, but what doesn’t? Do we sit on our duffs and just let the place rot further or do we make some changes?
80 years ago was the time? 80 years ago was 1929 when The Museum and Villlage opened. How many people had cars then? Not many. Now is the time to do it and the longer we wait to open it up to Michigan Ave, the faster downtown will implode.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I agree with Thomas, but which one is O’Reilly — jumbo or dumbo.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I think Howard is right in that it won’t help W. Dearborn much. People will just turn back east to the freeway. The current Oakwood connection puts people into a better area at Michigan than an Elm connection would. And if people aren’t enticed enough to turn north onto Oakwood now why would they turn west in a sea of parking with the only thing in their sight a car dealership?
Now if development around the potential intermodal station were to happen and succeed then I see a Michigan Ave. entrance being advantageous to the west end businesses. If there a thriving and unique enough of a development rather than the parking as it is now and a strong pedestrian link to the rest of the business district that is used by residents I see a Michigan Ave. entrance being advantageous for the west end downtown.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Ingress and egress avenues off Michigan will still offer direct access to the Southfield Freeway with quick connections to 94 and 96. Perhaps cooperation with the city regarding some signage for the DTWD businesses could be achieved thus directing traffic to the area.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
The city has a deficit of $1.2 million with paid parking. The city can save $400,000 if they implement free parking. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
John,
I agree with your post. Can you show use where your figures come from. Not that I question thier correctness, just their source.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Milwood and john:
At the last council meeting I attended the mayor stated that so far this year the city has paid approximately $400-$475K towards the expenses of the user paid parking system this year, which is mostly the garages – I am assuming. The city has invested $11.5K in the 2 parking garages as well as an approximate total of $16K in everything involving DTWD user paid parking, which includes all the lots and the 2 garages, according to everything I read.
I realize that it is very probable that if free parking was enacted again, many former and new patrons would come into DTWD in those areas. I also realize in all probability that despite the economy, a few more businesses may be able to survive longer down there and perhaps a few more new business might want to relocate in DTWD. I realize that it is probable that all of this combined may result in somewhat reviving DTWD despite the economy. If it was happening in better economic times, the effect may even be magnified.
I also realize that increasing the number and variety of businesses, along with increasing the number of patrons downtown means more tax dollars for our city, which may enhance not only the user paid parking areas, but perhaps even the free parking areas in DTWD.
What I would appreciate clarification on here is if the city no longer has users paying for parking but still has to maintain everything involving those lots as well as paying for the 2 garages, from what source is the capital going to come from to make the payments on the garages?
Will the money to pay for the user paid parking and garages come from the increased taxes on existiing businesses because they’ll perhaps have more customers and increased revenue? Will they come from more new businesses that may locate and/or relocate to DTWD, thereby perhaps also increasing city tax revenues? Or will they come from a combination of what I mention above or any other income areas I have not mentioned or may not be aware of?
Just honest questions and not criticism. Perhaps either or both of you, even perhaps LX can answer these questions, because I believe them to be valid questions.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Seriously…are people really making that conscious decision and effort to actually avoid paying an extra 1.00 or so to visit certain businesses. Are people actually that trivial? They’ll go spend $20.00 – $200.00 at many of the establishments but that $1.00 is keeping them away. Get real. As I told Doug Thomas, It’s not newspapers and Model T’s anymore, It’s the internet and SUV’s. Let this issue die. If it’s not subsidizing itself then by all means re-think it. But SERIOUSLY….not one, single, forward-thinking individual is avoiding businesses because of paid parking. If you are…you’ve got way more issues and bigger problems than that.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
By the way…I do agree that in more prosperous times, with more tenants, a Special Assessment District would a be fantastic vehicle to fund the parking projects. In this day and age, however, especially with a P.S.D. (Principle Shopping District) strategy much like Birmingham’s in discussions, fees, fees, and more fees to the tenants that exist will just put them out of business or drive them away altogether. Another hurdle to consider is those tenants that aren’t paying their taxes in a timely manner or not at all.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
The city has a deficit of $1.2 million with paid parking every year. The Parking garage bonds and principle cost about $500,000 – $700,000 every year depending who you talk to. The city still subsidizes the parking lots parking meters and parking lot attendants and everything else associated with making it difficult to shop in west dearborn. Yes, the taxpayers can save $400,000 every year, over $1,000 every day of the year “if” they implement free parking. It still sounds like a no brainer to me.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Rami–that was a good one!
March 29th, 2009 at 1:28 am
John….and this includes maintenance and upkeep of the lots including snow removal and electricity? if so, it actually does sound like a “no-brainer” but somehow I think there are missing pieces to this puzzle….When it was “free” before it was costing the city tens of thousands to maintain……Joe Agius cries to everyone about everything but has no problem “allegedly” selling to under-aged drinkers with obvious fake id. and a just a “chest” if your female id. is not that good…..
March 29th, 2009 at 7:25 am
John,
Just for clarification purposes, are you stating that fees and taxes gained by increased businesses due to your proposed free parking would make up for the loss in revenue for user paid parking?
Is this how the city may be able to afford to pay the $500-$700K note they will still have to pay even with free parking, as well as pay for the maintenance of the lots?
I think most, including myself would be very pleased if we again had free parking in DTWD, providing there was a feasible way to pay for it without raising property or other taxes on residents and/or homeowners.
Therefore, clarifying how the city would pay for the parking garages note and the maintenance of the lots would help.
Thanks…
March 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“VIRES ACQUIRIT EUNDO says:
March 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Seriously…are people really making that conscious decision and effort to actually avoid paying an extra 1.00 or so to visit certain businesses.”
The other alternative is for business owners to admit that maybe their business model was dumb. Rationalizing is easier.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Well versed, A.F.M., well versed. At the end of the day that’s what matters most. Stop with the excuses and build a better business plan. Let’s face actuality here; is it possible that DTWD does not have the allure it once did? It may NEVER be the retail, shopping destination it once was, but perhaps it could be an entertainment destination given the right tools and direction. Clean up it’s act from power drinking at Howell’s, The Double Olive, The Biergarten, The Post Bar etc., and bring in the likes of a dueling piano-bar and other forms of various live entertainment.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
I am VERY familiar with why so-called “SADs” or Special Assessment Districts are a poor choice. I worked in in the Dearborn Finance and Treasury Departments in various capacities from 1963 – 1999 under Mayors Hubbard, O’Reilly and Guido. I was Budget Director for about 20 of thise years and retired as the City’s first Finance Director/Treasurer.
Special assessments are bases on the premise that the service or public improvement is charged back to benefitting property owners, and there’s the rub. How do you fairly apportion costs of public parking to businesses, some of whom may own their own parking. Also, their are significant administrative costs in creating and collecting such special assessments. Over the years, there were many times when assessments lapsed and renewal was delayed over protests from various business owners which put the costs on the general taxpayer. With less state support of local government finance and falling property tax base, the city will be hard pressed to maintain its services. As a lifelong resident and taxpayer, I do not want to subsidize businesses. I do not know what system is in use now for the East Dearborn business district. All business that depends on public parking show pay their fair share.
If local businesses who must rely on publicly owned parking want “free” parking for their customers, quit whining and validate their parking charges. This is a simple and eminently fair way to apportion costs of public parking. It’s directly related to customer flow, thereby being the fairest method and requires no more administrative overhead costs. Alternatively, the businesses could set up the equivalent of a neighborhood association and levy fees upon members to apportion and pay the costs. (This must have some legal “teeth”)Businesses located in shopping centers and those who own parking all pay for their lots upkeep.
It IS fair to evaluate whether the costs of building, operating and maintaining public parking are reasonable and fair to ALL concerned, including the developer’s failure to build-out the project as promised. This is a legitimate concern. Upon reflection, I think you’ll agree that parking validation or a business association are the fairer ways to apportion costs. I vote for validation as the simple fair approach.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
EXACTLY, Marcel. Thank you for offering the administrative scope of what a SAD (and PSD for that matter) would entail. Quit crying, once and for all, Doug Thomas and his puppets. You claim you want to be respected and be considered a “world-class” city but want to cry over a dollar or two of paid parking. Think bigger, think bigger!!
March 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“Seriously…are people really making that conscious decision and effort to actually avoid paying an extra 1.00 or so to visit certain businesses. Are people actually that trivial?”
You can also ask the question, “What does any of these establishments in Dearborn have to offer—that is so “special”—charging parking fees is justified?”
In answer to your question, the answer is … yes. It is an issue. A not-so-frivolous one for some consumers.
If there are enough people who find it a turnoff—an insult—they’ll do things like the following: 1) Park in the structure and hurry back to one’s vehicle before the half-hour of free parking elapses; 2) Shop only on Sundays, when there is no charge for parking; 3) Reject shopping in the area altogether (which isn’t so difficult, when considering what’s become of West Village Commons).
March 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I guess some of you we have the answer people mistakenly think people are crying over a dollar or tow of paid parking. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are mostly complaining about the inconvenience of the system. Only offering coin payment and having to do it so often is pretty lame in such a technologically advanced day and age.
Plus if the businesses simply have to validate parking to make it free parking, then why not just make it free parking period?
The answer is not to end, but simply to amend the system that is not working. There are many ways to do this that have been mentioned, but the city just doesn’t open it’s ears.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
M. Lansky,
Sounds like Dearborn needs new leadership. (Not a surprise; it’s been obvious for some time.)
March 30th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I’ve been in Northern California for a few weeks now and paid parking is very prevalent. However, it’s pretty much unheard of to have paid parking after 6pm– even in downtown San Francisco and areas like Palo Alto and San Mateo.
Say what you will about different environments, but paid parking in Dearborn was obviously quite the mistake. If it wasnt, the parking structures would be getting their use and business might just be a tad bit better for everyone all around. I often times skipped over the Little Cafe when the 2 or 3 free spots were taken. Why? Because my initial intent always revolved around buying a $2 cup of coffee, and parking fees translated to price increase of at about 30%.
It may sound like I’m playing the “cheap” card, but oh well. I’m not ashamed of it. I didn’t think paid parking was a wise idea. None of my friends or family thought paid parking was a wise idea.
If you ask me, the city should just accept that the paid parking initiative is not helping and treat the costs as sunk. THEN, they should get to work on bringing higher quality restaurants, bars, and lounges back into the area. No more chains. No more low-priced (or over-priced) restaurants. Bring in successful, out-of-state chefs and restaurateurs. They certainly do a great job of bringing good acts to the Ford Center for Performing Arts, which in turn brings out people from other communities. It would be great to take advantage of that situation.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
It sounds like Parking costs the city $1.2 million. Beyond that what are the numbers for:
1. Dumbo & Jumbo bond interest?
2. Dumbo & Jumbo bond principle?
3. Labor for Meter Money collectors, parking lot attendants and fee collectors, and parking lot maintenance and upkeep?
4. Political interests?
5. ??
April 20th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The Facts:
5 years ago this was the next Royal Oak!
In four years the city of Dearborn has lost most of their lunch crowd.
They have given thousands of parking tickets out in four blocks of Dearborn.
These customers are not coming back.
In 20 miles around there is only four blocks of Dearborn that has paid parking.
The city has decided to be a land developer instead of fixing up their city. like the front of Michigan Ave. New historical lights, banners and.
They made more money on a SAD charge to the businesses. ( that don’t include their parking deck mistakes).
They pollute the environment by having the silver meter trucks running from 9am till 1pm.
Four years ago they charged all West Dearborn businesses a one time parking resurfacing tax. Mine was around $28,000. Then they charge for parking?
If they were planing on charging for parking the businesses shouldn’t have been charged.
Park Rite parking systems sold Dearborn on the paid parking system, they should be responsible for the losses!
The residents of Dearborn voted not to pay for the businesses parking lots.
The city has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their general fund without notifying the residents.
And the madness continues to this date. They buy Wards building of an accused terrorist for more than it’s worth, then sell it to a developer for less then they bought it from an accused terrorist. Dose this sound like bad business or what? maybe if it was their own money they would be a little more careful.
If myself or a qualified business manager was to run the cities developments I would get some return on the city’s investments instead of paying over the twice as much of what the property is worth and selling it for under market value to out of city developers. We can still save the birth place of Henry Ford. It’s not to late!
April 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Doubleolivejo–you should consider a run for city council. Seriously.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Yes pay to play, you should be running for city council.