[OldNorth] Parking Permit abuse

[Valerie Vann]

One thing I've pointed out several times but don't seem to be getting
through is that the G Street blocks of Old North probably need to 
be treated somewhat differently than the rest of the Old North, because
we are zoned for commercial uses and have about 50% or greater business
use (or business in front, housing on the alley). Most of these businesses
don't generate great amounts of traffic, perhaps one car at a time (sign
maker, attorney, developer, real estate agent, architect, etc.)

There are also two driveways on my block (mine and one other), and
these are frequently parked across, especially since the markers
on the street have been worn away, and the spot in front of my house
is a short one.

I would also point out that that F Street between 5th and 8th also
has a few driveways, plus 3 bus stops, reducing the number of street
parking spaces.

I once requested that driveways be "red lined" or marked "No Parking"
or with an X or something, the City said "No" and also said I it 
would be illegal for a resident to do that themselves.

Valerie Vann

sheryl lynn gerety wrote:
> 
> Several weeks ago Z Smith, Steve Tracy and I sat down with the City Planner, Jim Antonen, the City lawyer, and several folks from the police, planning and traffic departments to try to work out a solution to Old North Parking problems.
> We did this because we, like others, were surprised to receive the postcard poll asking if we wanted the standard parking district, the very kind featured in the SacBee story on inner Sacramento parking problems. The parking study request initiated by the ONDNA last year was always coupled with the request we find a means of solving the residents' problems without creating an exclusive zone like those found elsewhere in the City. Our wishes to try something different somehow were lost to standard procedures.
> In the meeting, we offered several possible solutions, including that of reserving and marking one spot per property (i.e., there would be a spot in front of my house, the street painted and with a sign, saying the equivalent of "This parking space for the resident of 602 C Street only." Everyone would get such a spot and the balance of street-side parking room would be open to public use. Although not strictly illegal by any law that could be located, the City attorney also could not find law suggesting that such an approach was _legal_, and was unwilling to pursue it. Instead, she offered and everyone found workable the following alternative:
> We would create a restricted zone in ON, with spots equal to the number of properties, within an otherwise unrestricted zone. So, for example, there are twenty houses on the two sides of C Street between 6th and 7th. Twenty spots, scattered along both sides of the street, would be painted for a restricted zone; permits to be purchased for a fee like that of other parking zones in Davis (approx. $10/yr). The balance of the spaces (another 20-30) would be unrestricted and could be used by residents who held a permit, residents who did not hold any permit, or anyone else, including downtown employees or students. Permit holders would not have rights to a _particular_ space (that is the element that the City Attorney can not accept, because it would privatize public domain), but would likely find it easy to locate a zoned spot near their home and by convention, over time, it would presumably be the one nearest their house.
> A key feature of this system: a property could obtain at most one zoned permit. Any other automobiles they wished to park on the street could go in unzoned spaces.
> This system would do several things: it would solve the melting ice-cream/crying baby scenario in which ON homeowners can find no parking within blocks of their houses mid-day when UC-Davis is in session; it satisfies the city; it does not exclude downtown employees and others truly in need of parking by emptying our streets of everyone but ourselves; it does not even require residents purchase a parking permit to park street-side in the neighborhood, including pakring adjacent to their home. There are other problems it avoids that are associated with other schemes (e.g., the number of signs required to effect enforcement).
> Perhaps as interesting, it forestalls or, more accurately, severely limits, abuses like those cited in the SacBee article: homeowners who obtain and then derive hefty profit by selling their visitors permits to non-residents.
> It was quite a victory to get the diverse opinions and interests at the meeting to agree on a solution, but this one found consensus and we will be working on it with the City. Among the first steps is estimating the cost of curb paint and signs. More information will follow when ONDNA meetings crank up again later this month. The City will require a poll of the neighborhood in which at least 67% respond and 50% are in favor, so we have some work to do, an information campaign and neighborly lobbying. These are hard numbers to achieve given low political participation by renters, absentee owners, those on vacation, etc. But, we got the City to agree not to poll until we had a chance to thoroughly explain the plan to the residents of ON. Please stay involved and be ready to help with the details are worked out.
> Z and Steve. . .if I've missed something important here, please add your comments.
> Bruce
>