Parking Budget Letter Final

7/30/2019 Parking Budget Letter Final

1/3

December 7, 2012

Honorable Mayor Mark Mallory

Members of Council:

Re: 2013 City Budget

Ladies & gentlemen,

The recently proposed FY 2013 budget contains a number of items that raise some level of concern;

however the item that has raised the most eyebrows is the proposed privatization of the parkingservices.

In the simplest and most direct terms possible, this proposal is bad for the community, and bad for the

city. As a community, both Clifton Town Meeting and the Clifton Business and Professional Association

are strongly opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:

- Its bad for business. Parking challenges will ratchet up the pressure on all urban or near urbanbusiness districts such as Cliftons Ludlow Avenue corridor, making it more difficult to maintain

and grow their customer base. Businesses want and need to find a home in an area that

welcomes them, fosters and nurtures their growth, and offers them incentives and

opportunities to expand. Customers desire convenient, free or inexpensive parking without fear

of over-zealous, profit motivated enforcement; it is a significant factor in deciding where to shop

and the lack and will motivate consumers to patronize the suburban malls where parking is

cheap or free.

- Privatization of enforcement is a bad idea. The paradigm shift to profit and revenueenhancement over public safety has become nationally, and would again become locally, a

significant question over due-process and accountability. The referendum of 2008 outlawing

red light and speed cameras within the city limits should offer a sense of the residents position

on these matters. Parking services such as street meters serve the common good, directly by

providing parking and forced rotation of parking spaces, and indirectly by generating revenue

that is returned to the city for re-distribution. Once they are outsourced and privatized, they

become unidirectional ATMs benefitting a third party that provides minimal or no value to thecitizens; rather the citizens become a commodity to the for-profit operators

shareholders. Parking services cease to become a facilitator to growth and development of a

city and become a business itself open to the highest bidder to the detriment of all save the for-

profit, third party operator. The lessons of other citys experiences with outsourcing parking

services should weigh heavily in any decision that is made we must learn from others

mistakes.


2/3

- The residents have not been informed of the details of this deal, nor been offered theopportunity to dialogue on the topic. The RFP for this action was mentioned in late October via

memo from the City Managers office; it was not broadly made known to the public, however,

until the City Managers budget was published a week ago. To date, it has not been opened forpublic comment or input, nor have the limits for negotiations been established. As mentioned

previously, in passing the charter amendment that outlawed speed and red-light cameras within

the city, the voters recognized them directly for what they were pure revenue

enhancement. It is unconscionable that the City administration would allow a similar plan

affecting parking meters and services be railroaded through City Hall without the appropriate

sunshine and input

of the populace. This approach invites legislation from the constituency which would then

restrict the Citys ability to outsource even a portion of the services even those services that

would make financial and practical sense to outsource. Collectively, the community and

businesses of Clifton will require that the public be afforded the opportunity to provide input

and ultimately have the final say on this issue.

- The City must have learned from watching the Countys mishandling of the Paul Brown Stadiumdeal, that an extended lease is bad business. A 30 year lease is not only a ridiculous duration to

a monopoly to a single, private, for-profit entity, it is also fiscally irresponsible bordering on a

dereliction of the fiduciary duty entrusted upon City leadership by its residents. Creating a deal

that would allow a private operator to double current parking rates and raise them annually

thereafter; arbitrarily setting service hours and enforce their own regulations with impunity

does not foster an environment that welcomes businesses, visitors and shoppers. We want

Cliftons visitors to have fond memories of the venues, events, food and fun they had while in

our neighborhood, not the expense they incurred or face a threat of unregulated, profit

motivated enforcement for basic services like parking. We want them to wantto come back

again and again.

- Selling off the parking services as proposed is a short sighted, short term fix for a longer termproblem. An initial city payment of $40 million does plug the budget gap - for 1

year. Subsequent to that, the significant, positive net revenue the city realizes from parking

services is expected to be significantly diminished, leading to the question of what fills the

budget gap going forward in future years? This compromises the citys ability to continue or

increase support for small businesses and urban business districts such as Cliftons through

block grants, NBDSF, NSP and other direct funding sources that have proven to be successful.

At the end of the day, the community of Clifton and its Merchants Association recognize that there is an

urgent need to address the citys budget problems; however, we stand in opposition to this as an ill-conceived, short-sighted stop-gap solution. We recognize that there is wisdom in outsourcing some

portion of the parking services such as management of surface lots and some garages, maintenance, or

other specific areas within parking services that would realize a cost savings to the City. Similarly, we

also recognize that there is likely room for increases in parking rates both in pay lots and at street

meters. However the broad, omnibus approach of this proposal has the potential for too great a

negative impact upon all members of this community and city with a highly limited benefit to a for-profit

operator.


3/3

There is tremendous support within the community of Clifton for the ongoing growth and economic

recovery of the City and our community by extension, and a significant amount of shared civic pride in

all that has been accomplished by our leaders, business partners, and residents to bring this City and

community to where it is today. We are in the midst of a renaissance that would not have occurredwithout vision and foresight of what this City can truly become. The events and development that go

hand in hand that have built such momentum for this city over the past decade are ones that every

Cincinnati resident can be proud of.

This is why the budget issue, especially this matter of outsourcing of parking is so baffling; its counter-

intuitive nature runs in contrast to the vision and foresight that has been shown in recent history and is

a direct threat to the forward momentum that this City has gained. The community of Clifton

acknowledges that there is significant financial difficulty within our Citys boundaries, and the City has

been enjoined by the populace via legislation NOT to raise income taxes, meaning that revenues to

cover financial budget shortfalls must come from somewhere. The city leadership whom we look to for

the execution of the vision for the development and growth of our city are once again, bailing water asopposed to patching the hole in the boat.

We remain strongly opposed to this proposal as it stands today, and request that you to stand alongside

and continue to support this community. We look forward to continuing the dialog on this topic and

the further growth of our community and City as a whole.

Very Truly Yours,

Pete Schneider

President, Clifton Town Meeting

Documents

Parking Budget Letter Final