Community leaders in several parts of San Diego are taking steps to add parking meters in popular locations where parking is becoming more difficult.
Local businesses often complain that customers cannot find spots as some people might park their car in one spot all day. The thinking is, from some, that metered parking would free up those spots. On the other hand, some businesses said metered parking might actually scare off customers.
There’s an economic concern though from the general public, who have faced inflation pressures for more than a year and now would have to pay to park at places they used to park for free.
Parking meters are generally disliked by the public, with some of our readers arguing creating more parking is needed — not meters. However, revenue from meters can be used for neighborhood improvements and might become a bigger necessity with the upzoning of many neighborhoods.
Q: Should San Diego have more parking meters?
Lynn Reaser, economist
YES: Parking is a scarce resource and should not be free or treated as if it had no value. The problem is especially acute in beach communities and busy business districts. The problem of people monopolizing spaces for extended periods can be addressed by signage postings limiting parking duration. A better solution is meters where the revenue can be used for improvements such as more angled parking.
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: Meters are an efficient way to monitor parking that can be easily patrolled by meter readers. It discourages excessively long parking by residents who do not have appropriate parking available. It does encourage a high rate of turnover of spaces since users do not want to overpay as they might in parking garages. And I like that meters are a service that is paid for only by the users of the parking spots.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
YES: Parking meters are low hanging fruit for raising revenue at marginal costs to payors. Expanding meters in other obviously urban areas of the city does not negatively impact business. However, verified residents should be allowed to park on the streets through paid permits. As with all of the taxing and fee questions raised in our Econometer, nobody likes them. It is the responsibility of public officials to use the revenue wisely.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: The key is that local businesses are the ones who want more parking meters. In some places, people park for free and then stay there all day. That is tying up parking spaces that could be used by customers of those businesses, which in turn hurts their bottom lines. The additional meters should be targeted toward freeing up those spaces. Revenue generation should not be the goal and any revenue generated for the city should be considered incidental.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: Posting time limits for parking spots and directing drivers to public parking lots makes more sense than adding meters. Time limits are easily enforced by the same officers that print parking violations for not having put money in the meter. California has more taxes and regulations than most anywhere. Further, when you put meters in you end up with fewer parking spaces because often, regulations require larger spaces than people usually use.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: Parking spaces have become scarcer and more valuable. Driving around looking for an open space wastes time, increases traffic congestion, and means more pollution. People need incentives to use available space more efficiently and find better alternatives. Parking meters can raise revenue for the government without hurting businesses the way other taxes do. New meters should use modern technology so you don’t need to drive around with a bag of quarters or spend time fiddling with the meter.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: A few hundred additional parking meters will slightly improve select areas but do not solve the underlying problem. Our city requires a vehicle for most activities. As we increase density, parking will become a substantial hindrance. We need new solutions for high-demand areas. Given the billions in costs, I doubt sufficiently expanding the trolley is viable. A combination of new parking structures, subsidized eco-friendly buses, and self-driving vehicles could be components of a refreshed system.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: I think the businesses are correct — especially small businesses where customers might have an option to go to another vendor with free parking. And this is another tax. Perhaps a parking meter with the first couple of hours free, such as those at malls, would work if that’s possible. Another option would be time-limited free parking to prevent people from parking indefinitely now that we permit housing and other occupancy with insufficient or no parking required.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
YES: If you wish to limit parking duration. Parking meters control space use. Some people park in neighborhoods near the airport, Uber/Lyft to the airport and take up space that would otherwise be used by local residents. Parking meters eliminate that option. The real problem might be new rules that allow new developments without sufficient parking (in order to encourage public transit use or car sharing) well before those options are viable.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: There should have been better planning for parking before spots were taken away for designated bike and bus lanes. Parking should also have been accounted for when approving high density housing projects, many of which have zero parking spots on site. If parking isn’t offered where you live, then cars will be parked on the street impacting those who desire to visit, shop, eat, or work in these neighborhoods. It’s a domino effect. Residential projects should have mandated parking. Meters are not the solution — proper city planning is.
David Ely, San Diego State University
YES: Parking spaces should be managed in areas with parking scarcity, such as busy business and entertainment districts. Creating more parking spaces can be a partial solution. But at a zero price, drivers have no reason to limit their use of a parking spot so shortages will occur. Charging to park will increase turnover and give customers easier access to shops and other businesses. This benefits those businesses and the communities where they are located.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: Parking is scarce in high-traffic areas, so it makes sense to tax it. Fees encourage turnover and provide revenue to improve local infrastructure. Meters were a pain when you needed a pocket full of quarters to pay, but nowadays there are many easy-pay possibilities. In addition, smart meters can adjust rates by location and time of day to help reduce congestion.
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.
YES: While I can understand our individual desires to find free parking — I’ve spent lots of time hunting for it, like I’m sure you have — and yes, I understand businesses don’t want anything between them and customers. But this really high demand we are observing with limited supply means parking is now exclusive. We no longer have the non-exclusivity that makes something a public good and worthy of being charge free. So meter away!
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: Parking is not really free to begin with as costs are simply hidden in the form of higher taxes, higher rents, and higher prices at the businesses. Parking meters, however, are inefficient eyesores cluttering streets. Much better systems are available with technology such as modern kiosks and mobile payment hotspots. It is not so much unwilling to pay reasonable price for parking, but inconvenience of forced time constraint with disproportionate penalty if going over time limit.
Ray Major, SANDAG
Not participating this week.
Have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
