A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

At least City Administrator Roger Fraser and the City Treasurer Matt Horning came to Council with a “study” to back up their “request” to hike parking fine fees and squeeze even more money out of Ann Arbor residents who live in a city with 14 percent unemployment, double digit foreclosure rates, and some of the highest per capita property taxes in the state. Of course the “study” to support the parking fine hikes consisted of the argument that it had been a “long time” since anyone had looked at the “fine structure.” The study, which I wrote about here (”Roger Fraser Wants Council To Scratch His Five-Year Itch”) and here (”City Staff Compare Apples to Oranges and Tell White Lies To Justify Jacking Up A2 Parking Fines“), was the sloppiest piece of research since, well, the city staff “study” that compared Ann Arbor park facility use fees with those in other cities as a justification to jack up the price of taking a swim, and renting a park shelter.

Kudos to First Ward Council member Sandi Smith, who has done away with the bogus study strategy, and gone straight into fantasy land, where her proposed resolution to extend the gaping maw of on street parking meters until 10 p.m. Monday-Saturday makes Alice in Wonderland read like the Wall Street Journal. 

According to Smith’s proposed resolution,

“The Downtown has changed dramatically over the past 25 years, with much more evening commerce and activity due to a marked increase in the number of restaurants and entertainment opportunities. Yet, the hours of parking enforcement has not been changed to keep up with the change in customer needs, as vehicle turn-over at the parking meters is just as important to businesses operating after 6 p.m. as it is to businesses who operate only during daytime hours.”

But wait, Sandi Smith appears to be channeling Roger Fraser and Matt Horning. She says that hours of parking enforcement have not changed to “keep up with” the change in “customer needs.” How buzz-wordy of her. How clever to refer to rape as a parking policy. We asked for it. We must have wanted it. The proposed change is all about “customer needs.” In Ann Arbor, evidently, women and cars should stay home at night or prepare to pay the price.  

Let’s start slowly, shall we?

One of the Downtown Development Authority’s guiding principles as put forth in the DDA’s own Nelson/Nygaard study is: “Public parking policies should be based on quantified data and analysis.” Let me digress for a moment and to say that the Nelson/Nygaard “study” was not a study. It was a mail-in survey left on the windshields of motorists parked downtown on a single day. Motorists filled it out and mailed it in. The study on which Smith bases her resolution was not a comprehensive, observational “study,” and to treat it as such shows either a lack of understanding of the principles of conducting real research, or a desire to misrepresent the reliability of the data gathered. 

Smith’s resolution offers no quantified data or in-depth analysis. In fact, her resolution reads like something crafted by a 7th grader. “The downtown has changed dramatically.” Just a perceived dramatic change presented as fact.

We should be hearing dramatic chortling from Smith’s City Council colleagues, city staff and, especially, some seriously dramatic cackling from Ann Arbor residents who voted for Smith. The joke, of course, is that they put someone in office who takes her fellow Council members (at least the ones she didn’t tell about her little plan before she put it on the agenda at the last minute right before Christmas) and the people of Ann Arbor as a bunch of turnips who just fell off of a car parked at a 30 minute meter. 

According to Smith’s resolution, “100% of on-street meters were filled during evening hours versus 68% during daytime hours, “demonstrating the need for evening parking enforcement as a tool to encourage parking turnover.”

I can close my eyes and hear my old statistics professor. He believed the use of calculators to divide decimals in statistics classes was for the weak-minded. He clears his throat, sniffs and begins slowly:  ”Smith…..is it? Ms. Smith, as we say in the world of statistical data—in college, high school, middle school and in some of the better local elementary schools—could you please document your source for those statistics? Otherwise, Smith, we might just think you’re making up this crap.” Oh, Professor X was a sarcastic bastard, but I can divide decimals like nobody’s business, calculate a standard deviation, and spot bogus “statistical data” from 100 yards. 

The Nelson/Nygaard “survey” focuses on how badly our system of parking meters is managed. Short-term meters in the wrong places, long-term meters underutilized.

Now, let’s continue slowly, because if Sandi Smith (or anyone else from City Council) reads this blog entry I don’t want them to be confused by the actual data and facts (some of which come from the DDA).

Since Smith brings up parking meter use from 25 years ago (1984), I thought I might dig up a little data from the era. Data from a 1987 (Ann Arbor had 102,000 residents then) multi-day, observational study done by a University of Michigan researcher found that street occupancy hovered between 95-98 percent day and night. Furthermore, (and interestingly) the study concluded that metered parking was not impacted by the availability of off-street (garage) parking. The average stay was 42 minutes at a 2-hour meter. In 1987, the researcher concludes that:

“One of the major goals of on-street parking meters is to provide short-term parking at a short walking distance close to the final trip destination (i.e., for shopping, personal errand, etc.). As the length of stay becomes shorter, more drivers can utilize this premium limited space, which is so vital to bringing patrons to downtown. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that the average stay was of 41.5 minutes (standard diviation. Also, the median of 40.0 minutes was close in magnitude to the mean. Based on this measure, one has to conclude that the meters seem to do what they were designed for, to provide curb, short-term.” 

Rock on, Rocket Scientists. People will circle like vultures for on street parking even if there are 5,000,000 open spaces in the parking garages. It’s the animal instinct— flight, flight or circle for parking. Garage parking signifies a long-term commitment, like an engagement ring. People don’t use meters long-term. They park near their destination for short term periods. At least they did in 1987. Have 25 years, a different mix of businesses, and 10,000 more residents completely changed the parking behavior of people in A2?

Ready to be dazzled with more facts and data?

We’ll move, still slowly, into the present, with information from that survey contracted by the DDA itself by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting. That survey concludes that, “Overall parking supply is sufficient to meet existing demand. Average daytime peaks of 83 percent are characteristic of a parking supply that is being optimally used. Off-street utilization is higher than on-street during weekdays. Policies aimed at preserving on-street spaces, including off-street discounts, monthly permits, and time limits at meters, appear to be effective.”

Any City Council member who supports this resolution by relying on Smith’s suspect data from a pseudo-study is simply guilty of supporting an effort to (yet again) squeeze more parking money out of Ann Arbor residents and visitors who are still suffering through the worst recession in 70 years. Roger Fraser tried it in November with his “Golly gee, we haven’t looked at the structure of parking fines in five years,” ploy, his “study” presented to Council filled with cherry-picked facts and data. Now, First Ward Council member and DDA Parking Diva Sandi Smith is back in December with her “Golly gee, we haven’t looked at ‘customer need’ of parking meters in 25 years” ploy, and her resolution supported by a mail-in survey of 490 people who responded to a survey left on their windshields on a single day in a single year (2007) to extend metered parking until 10 p.m.

Parking Diva Smith wants to jam through her resolution on Monday December 21st, right before Christmas with little notice to the public, and no data to support her allegations that evening businesses desperately “need” those meters to turnover more quickly because they’re not. The Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce has asked Council to postpone voting on Smith’s resolution. Council should do just that, and realize that “studies” such as Roger Fraser’s and “resolutions” such as Sandi Smith’s make them all look foolish and sorely unprepared to lead. I am positive Sandi Smith “shared” her plans for this ill-conceived resolution with several on Council. That no one offered to co-sponsor it, and that the City Attorney’s office (which must approve the language of all resolutions) let stand the mistakes in spelling and grammar in the resolution, leaves me not sure whether to laugh or cry at the sheer ineptitude.

Alas, some people never learn. Once again, the Council majority has stood back and let Sandi Smith to do their dirty work, as they did when they convinced her to attack Fifth Ward Council member Mike Anglin’s resolution to release all of the City Council emails sent during public meetings. I wrote about Smith’s performance at that City Council meeting here. It’s still one of the most popular posts on the site.  

There are 1,750 curbside meters. Click here to see a map of DDA meter coverage that includes the Council/DDA fantasy projection (in green) of extending parking meters outside of the DDA area into our neighborhoods. In May of 2009, when Council members and Roger Fraser came up with the bright idea to proliferate parking meters, the Ann Arbor News editorialized that the move “smacked of desperation and poor public policy.” On January 3, 2010, AnnArbor.com editorialized that, “…expanding metered parking hours into the evening to bring in $380,000 a year (and even the DDA is skeptical that much money would be generated) is a risky proposition that could backfire. It could ultimately cost the city more in lost tax revenue if it pushes even just a few more merchants to shut down because of lost business.”

Sandi Smith’s current resolution is more poor public policy. Poorly thought out. Poorly documented. Poorly written. 

Oh, one last thing Sandi Smith ain’t never gonna tell you, my fellow A2 politicos, but I will: In October of 2009, CBS News reported that the City of Oakland, California rolled back a parking meter enforcement proposal almost identical to Sandi Smith’s. “The city had extended the hours on July 1, 2009 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. to help close an $83 million budget deficit. Along with higher meter rates and aggressive ticketing, the city expected to bring in more than $1 million in extra revenue. Merchants quickly objected, saying their business has dropped 30 percent since the new hours were in place.”

Maybe you’d like to put another quarter in the meter (Sandi Smith voted to raise parking rates by 40 percent in August, remember?) and write Council about Smith’s proposed Christmas present to the people of Ann Arbor? To email Mayor and Council, click here. Want your Council member to read this blog entry before Monday evening’s Council meeting? Forward the link in your email.

Popularity: 25% [?]