Mr. Bucola:

The fundamental public policy question here is not whether the Downtown Parking Meter fees are "Free Market" fees. Or whether any individual does or does not like or has a problem paying the Downtown Parking Meter fees.

The fundamental public policy question for the City and its taxpayers is have the promised results from this parking meter program [i.e. all "net" revenue derived from this paid-parking regulatory gambit would go to 12 designated programs, including, among others, enhanced police services, increased maintenance of downtown streets, and landscaping] materialized? And if not, why not?

And regarding that point, why has the City Manager failed to provide the public with simple cost-benefit performance metrics for this program yet, even though this program was enacted by the City Council back in January of 2010, nearly eighteen months ago? [See URL above for link to City Council Administrative Report]

To paraphrase Mr. Reagan's speech in Berlin.. "Mr. City Manager, tear down the wall of bureaucratic secrecy which you have erected around this controversial Downtown Parking Meter program.."

During his Administrative Report to the City Council during the January 25, 2010 meeting, Mr. Cole stated, “. It is anticipated that Downtown Parking District revenues could be sufficient to repay this loan (i.e. $456,000 for start-up capital) in 2-3 years..”

Well, it’s now May of 2011, nearly eighteen months later, and just seven months shy of the two year loan repayment target Mr. Cole identified above.

The operative public finance stewardship question for Mr. Cole is, has the City’s Downtown Parking Meter program paid for itself yet? Including repayment of the above $456,000 start-up capital loan, referenced in his Administrative Report to the City Council dated January 25, 2010? And if it has not, why not?

In other words everyone who has a stake in the Downtown Parking Meter program, both supporters and opponents, let alone City taxpayers in general are asking, “..Where is the Downtown parking meter revenue beef, Mr. Cole??..”

Release the parking meter revenue figures, now Mr. Cole!
Either the program made money, or it cost the City money..
Which is it, Mr. Cole?

Inquiring downtown merchants, the City Council, downtown shoppers and visitors, and City taxpayers need to know the answers to these questions, Mr. Cole!

Mr. Bucola, even though you are a supporter of the Downtown Parking Meters, I would hope that you too would want to know the answers to these questions as well.

NostraDemus

NostraDemus:

"Well, it’s now May of 2011, nearly eighteen months later, and just seven months shy of the two year loan repayment target Mr. Cole identified above."

The meters went live in the City on September 14 2010. That is when the clock started ticking on revenue collection, not when the program was approved. I expect transparency and accountability from my local government as well, but the program go-live has not yet seen its first birthday.

Using your 18 month checkpoint as a guideline, the City should give an update in March 2012, no?

Here's a question for you - let's say Mr. Cole's projections were mistaken - suppose the meters pay back starting on month 38 (November 2013). So what?

Good points raised, NostraDemus. Rick Cole is indeed being unresponsive to the public's questions and concerns regarding the parking meters and this has helped fuel the fire of opposition that's growing by the day to get these god-forsaken things removed.

At the time they were installed, they were touted by the City Council and the City Manager as huge revenue-producers that would solve all of the problems downtown and as something the downtown merchants whole-heartedly supported.

Wrong on both counts.

We have not received any kind of report from the City on how much revenue they've generated since they were installed last September. Absent any data, one can only conclude that they are producing a lot less revenue than promised and the City Council, of course, doesn't want to deal with that much egg on their faces right now.

I would hope Councilmen Monahan and Andrews would demand a report from their recalcitrant City Manager on the performance of these butt-ugly things that, besides not delivering the revenue, have created an eyesore in the downtown for our residents and visitors alike.

I'm surprised that a City Council that is so concerned with aesthetics in the buildings and structures that are built in this City, would allow such visual blight in what is supposed to be the prime destination for tourists in the City. These things remind me of the gas pumps on the old Saturday morning cartoon show - The Jetsons.

The same goes for the graffiti-covered freeway overpass downtown. How long have they been supposedly "working on that one?"

I know many business owners downtown who were not even consulted before these meters were approved by the City Council. What kind of a way to do business is that? Back when I used to play football, they called that a blindside. Most of the merchants I've spoken with downtown are very unhappy with them. They've told me their revenues have dropped since last September and it has nothing to do with the economy. They feel like the City has just slapped them in the face and, worse yet, won't even discuss the idea of removing them because when you're right, you're right, right? Let's not confuse anyone with the facts.

You can contact Carla Bonney, at cbonney@west.net, if you wish to help with the signature-gathering effort to qualify this measure for the ballot. She'd be more than happy to have your assistance.

Until then, I will continue to make my plea: "Mr. Cole, tear down those parking meters!"

Mike,

Do you have any data about the revenues being off in the Downtown?

It shouldn't be hard to glean - just pull sales tax collections for the last two quarters and we'll compare it to the same quarters in the previous year.

Why does the tea party support taking medicare and social security away from senior citizens in order to give tax cuts to billionaires? This must be why 2/3rds of voters have now turned against the tea party and GOP.

Mr. Bucola:

Yes, I was aware that the City's Downtown Parking Meters did not "go-live" until September 2010, but a quick scan of the City Council Agenda's for the month of September of 2010 did not reveal any report to the City Council changing the original program metrics and loan repayment target goals included in the January 2010 City Council approval item.

So on paper, it appears that the City Manager never acknowledged actual changes in his own operating constraints by contemporaneously documenting the operational reasons for changing the loan repayment target schedule he originally reported to the City Council and public back in January of 2010.

As to your question what does it matter whether the Downtown Parking Meters generate sufficient revenues to repay the $456,000 inter-fund loan for start-up capital in November of 2013 or later. The answer is simple. Time is money.

Assuming the City fund that served as the source of this start-up loan has a fund-specific use authorized by Statute and City Charter policies, one assumes that it needs all of its own revenues to fulfill those specific missions. Unless it is flush with excess cash over actual expenses. And if so, that potentially is a Proposition 218 problem for the City..

Accordingly, each month that this inter-fund loan to the Downtown Parking Meter program appears as "Unpaid Account Receivables", in the source fund accounts, is one month more that projects dependent on that revenue stream do not materialize in the fund that served as the source of this loan. It’s as project cost-accounting forensically simple as that.

Finally, for me the matter involves the programmatic and fiscal facts, just the facts. Based on its own published City Council Reports, it cost the City a total of $855,000 ($755,000 for installation + $100,000 for wireless transmission capability) to install these 65 pay stations back in September of 2010. And the $456,000 inter-fund loan for start-up capital appears to have been embedded in these costs. If my math is correct, that amounts to about $13,200 in capital costs per each of these 65 pay stations. Accordingly, I reiterate the following three direct, simple and factual questions to Mr. Cole:

1. How much "gross revenue" has been collected from these 65 pay stations from their go-live date in September of 2010 to the present? In other words, have the Pay Stations generated sufficient revenue to pay for their installation yet? If not, based on actual revenue collection experience during this seven month period, when are they now projected to do so by City staff?

2. During the last seven months, how much "net revenues" was collected from these 65 Pay Stations? In other words, has the City Manager’s promise to downtown merchants and City taxpayers been met yet? And, if it was met, how was that "net revenue" spent?

3. And, finally, from a big-picture standpoint, how was the City's receipt of Business License and Sales Tax revenues from the downtown businesses most affected by these parking meters impacted during the seven month period following the installation of these 65 Pay Stations back in September of 2010? Positively? Negatively? and by how much?

Frankly, I don't see why Mr. Cole and the entire City Downtown Parking Bureaucracy struggles so mightily with such basic program performance metric cost-accounting and reporting functions. This is not a debate over repaying the Federal debt. The fiscal facts are the fiscal facts. And by delaying the day of reporting same, whatever they may be, the City Manager, and his bureaucracy, are doing a disservice to all concerned.

By use of simple, but factually correct, temporally current, performance metric graphics on the City's website [i.e. gross and net revenue attainment thermometers for each of these 65-pay stations on a GIS Map] the City bureaucracy could lay this issues to rest, once and for all.

I say again, ".Mr. City Manager, tear down the wall of bureaucratic secrecy which you have erected around this controversial Downtown Parking Meter program. Release the parking meter revenues received and expenditures made figures, Now! Be they the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly!"

NostraDemus

John,

I am going by what the business owners I've spoken with about the meters have reported to me regarding their revenues dropping since the meters went in. I don't have access to the sales tax information you're referring to, but if you have data that contradicts what these merchants have told me, I'd love to see it.

Apparently, NostraDemus has requested this same information from the City and Rick Cole and the Finance Department have refused to release it. The same goes for the revenue generated by the meters. Absent any hard data, we can only go by the anecdotal data that we've received from talking to the business owners.

Again, if you can enlighten me further on these questions, I'd love to see it.

First, I don't have a dog in this hunt other than as a resident and frequent patron of the downtown area.

The easiest way to get the information is to go back to the businesses that are reporting sales are down and ask them for their filings to the Board of Equalization.

It's also possible to do a Public Information Request to the State but you'd have to filter for businesses in the Downtown area.

Regarding "NostraDemus"'s request from the City, he/she hasn't come back to respond to fallacy of their argument -- we're not even past the one year point on the meters! My sense is the meter usage will be seasonal and that the Summer will have a larger expected share of meter revenues.

Honestly though, it seems the opponents to the meters are seeking facts to support their conclusions rather than the other way around.

If the meters have a payback within a few years and the merchants haven't been materially impacted, something tells me there's a vocal minority that will still find a reason to whine.

Can we please move past this? It's a distraction. Seriously. And for the local Tea Party to grandstand on this issue makes it positively ridiculous.

My apologies for stating NostraDemus had not responded to my statement earlier - and what a response it is!

NostraDemus, why can't you wait until the one year point from go-live to request this analysis? I'd expect that the revenues would be seasonal and thus skewed by the interval of your request.

Regarding your "time is money" response to my question on whether it would matter when the program would be self-sufficient... Isn't everything from the break-even point on a net positive for the City? In other words, so it took an additional xx months beyond projections... so what?

My sense is the naysayers will find a rationale to oppose the meters even if the their arguments are proven wrong. In other words, it strikes me as plain bitching.

John,

Not sure what your background is, but if you're a business owner you'd know that businesses typically don't like to release their financial records because doing so can put them at a disadvantage with their competitors. I believe the City has access to this data, however, because they have a need to verify that the amount of sales taxes the City received from these businesses match up with what's been reported to the State Board of Equalization.

Jay Panzica and the Finance/Budget folks at the City would certainly be able to produce this data, but don't hold your breath. Installation of these machines was a damn the torpedoes move by the City, so they certainly don't want information out there that would disprove their position that these things won't have a negative impact on the merchants down there.

This is not a matter of "whining" or "bitching," as you put it, but a quest for the truth because, frankly, this has pissed a lot of people off, many of whom are business owners downtown who do have a dog in this hunt. It's tough enough for these folks to be dealing with a continuing weak economy, without sticking them with another impediment to getting through these tough times.

Pull them out, Cole, or we the people will make you pull them out!

If the meters are shown not to materially have impacted Downtown businesses, will you stand down and move on to another one of the myriad issues facing this City?

So we're clear, we'd compare quarterly tax collections, year over year to adjust for seasonal noise; downtown businesses vs. the rest of the City to adjust for any other noise. Q4 2010 and Q1 2011 to pull full periods.

Without being intimate with the numbers, I'd think anything greater than a 5% variance would be material but I'm not married to that threshold.

I'd certainly change my position and join your side should the data prove out.

Hello first time reader long-time blogger:

It just seems so risky to me. They're parking meters. If you guys can't take down a few parking meters...? How are you going to take down politicians?... I don't like it. The reward gain things all screwed up... The whole thing just seems scary. Atleast come up with a catchy name like "The Parkinators" even then I still think it's a bad idea.

Mr. Buccola:

First of all, let me state that in spite of the City bureaucracy’s failure to release program cost-benefit data to date, I have an open, though constructively-critical mind regarding the public policy value of installing these automated parking meters downtown.

Second, for the record, I have not signed the petition to place the Downtown Parking Meters on the ballot, yet. I have not yet decided whether or not I wish to support such a measure on the ballot. I’m waiting for the City to publish actual monthly and accumulative program performance numbers to help inform my political judgment of actual program costs and promised program benefits.

But one thing is certain, in my mind there is an inverse relationship between the City bureaucracy’s prideful unwillingness to release such programmatic performance data to date, and my willingness to sign such a petition when it is presented to me before it is too late to matter. I suspect that there are many others of like-mind.

Third, let's try and de-construct this issue into very basic program cost-accounting realities. Namely, let’s ask the simple and direct question as to whether the City’s Downtown Parking Meter Program has recovered all, some, or none of the $1,495,494 in projected first year costs during the first seven months of operation?

The projected first-year costs for the Downtown Parking Meter Program were detailed in Mr. Cole's January 25, 2010 Administrative Report to the City Council [See URL Link Above for independent verification].

My earlier posts inadvertently focused ONLY on the $896,925 in start-up capital costs. I hadn't realized until I read the City Manager's January 2010 report more carefully that his projected first year TOTAL costs for the Downtown Parking Meter program were MUCH GREATER.

So, from this point on in this post, my cost-benefit discussion reflects an analysis of the forensic framework by which one can assess the potential recovery of both the $896,925 in start-up capital costs, and $598,569 in projected first year annual operating costs [i.e. $199,523 four months projection times 3] as outlined in Mr. Cole’s January 2010 report.

Assuming that the City Manager's previous program projection figures have not changed substantially, this means that the first year "Break-Even" point for the Downtown Parking Meter program will be reached when the City earns $1,495,494 in total annual program revenues.

Now, let's see how that "Break-Even" target breaks down per hour, for each of the 62 parking stations installed last September [3 stations serve as spares].

According to the City Manager's January 2010 report, these stations will be active from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., Sunday through Thursday. These daily hours of operation equate to a maximum of 161,200 hours of revenue earning potential each year for this period of time (i.e. this figure reflects earning parking revenues ten hours per day times 62 stations times five days per week times 52 weeks).

In addition, the City Manager's report states that the parking stations will be active from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., on Friday and Saturday. These daily hours of operation equate to a maximum of 77,376 hours of revenue earning potential each year for this period of time (i.e. this figure reflects earning parking revenues twelve hours per day times 62 stations times two days per week times 52 weeks).

Accordingly, assuming that all 62 meters are operational at all times, and earn revenues 100% of the time during the above-referenced daily periods of operation during the year, this means that there is a MAXIMUM of 238,576 hours per year available to recover Downtown Parking Program costs (i.e. 4,588 hours per week for all 62 stations times 52 weeks per year).

If we divide the $1,495,494 in projected total first-year annual costs by the maximum of 238,576 hours potentially available to recapture first year program costs, we get a very straight-forward program cost break-even metric of $6.26 per hour for each of the 62 stations during the first year.

For sake of simplicity, my analysis assumed that the parking meters would recapture revenues 100% of the time during their published hours of operation. While not likely, I did this purposefully to provide the “Best Case” per hour break-even metric projection possible.

In other words, if program advocates are accurate, and there is such a high-demand of willing “Free Market-Based” parking meter fee-payers willing to plunk down their dollars for these spaces, the use of 100% utilization rates in my analysis LESSENS the break-even dollar metric point for these meters, and SHORTENS the period of time it will take the City to reach that point.

The City Manager’s January 2010 report states a projected “85% utilization rate,” for these parking meters. Until the City publishes actual parking meter program metrics, including revenues earned, costs incurred, and utilization rates for all 62 stations, the range in utilization rate projections is conjectural.

However if one wishes to apply the City’s projected 85% utilization rate to my forensic analysis, one will have to INCREASE my projected dollar per hour break-even metric proportionately, and thereby DECREASE the overall efficiency of the City’s projected program benefits.

So until the City releases program metrics for these 62 parking meters, including actual utilization rates experienced during the first seven months of their operation, I would assert that my forensic analysis actually gives the City the benefit of the program doubt. If the City has actual program performance data to the contrary, let them release it and we will all see.

Assuming that all of the $896,925 in one-time start-up capital costs are recovered during the first twelve months of the program, and the City’s projected annual operations cost figure of $598,569 does not vary appreciably after the first year, the projected program break-even metric should drop to $2.50 per hour per each of the 62 stations in the second year, all other program cost factors being equal.

And when Downtown Parking Meter revenues exceed this LOWER $2.50 per hour parking fee revenue earnings metric in the second year, it will be an important public policy milestone for the City.

Since it is at that point when the City Manager's January 2010 political promise that any so-called “net-revenues” earned above this figure would be available to fund the 12 designated programs, including, among others, enhanced police services, increased maintenance of downtown streets, and landscaping, will begin to become a fiscal reality.

So, my question to Mr. Cole is: When will the City post a cost-benefit performance thermometer for each of these 62 parking stations on your website detailing whether the station has met, exceeded, or failed to meet its cost-revenue break-even metric targets? Both cumulatively, and in any given sub-reporting period (i.e. day? week? Month? Quarter?)

Real-time, proactive, web-based program performance metric reporting is a hallmark of effective, efficient, responsive and transparent City government in the 21st Century. Frankly Mr. Cole, it’s time for the City’s entire Downtown Parking Meter bureaucracy to ".walk the accurate, transparent and real-time program performance metric walk, not just talk the talk.”

And Mr. Buccola, to use your own term, "my dog in this hunt," is precisely that. The City Manager and the City bureaucracy should, "say what they mean, and mean what they say." Nothing more nor less.

If you choose to characterize this as “just plain bitching.” So be it.. It is a free country, and you are entitled to your opinion, just as we all are.

On the other hand, I choose to call it keeping the City bureaucrats fiscally honest, as well as forensically frosty perched on the nimble tips of their program metric reporting toes.

NostraDemus

NostraDemus:
Why won't you wait for the one year mark? Why seven months? Why not eight months?

Second, if the numbers pencil out for meter performance, will you stand down?

Third, consider using your real name. I'm sure staff reads these posts and those with anonymity are likely skipped over.

John,

The impact on the downtown merchants' earnings is extremely important, but equally important is the impact on visitation and tourism. There is definitely a correlation between the two, but probably different metrics to measure them separately.

The whole notion of charging people, whether they be tourists or local residents, a new fee to park downtown is not very smart, in my estimation, especially during a bad economy. This thing was ram-rodded through by staff, with very little public input, and wasn't even a unanimous vote by the City Council (Councilmen Monahan and Andrews voted "no").

Then, as I've mentioned before, there's the aesthetics issue. Can we all agree that these things are about as ugly as ugly gets? The onyl thing that comes close is the uber-ugly "bus art" at the Mall.

While the tea partiers are fighting parking meters Obama was out taking care of Bin Laden. Word on the street is that John and Ken saw this as a loser so they pulled out of going to Ventura over this non-issue.

Mike,

So I take that as a "no?"

You can take that as a resounding "no," John.

Mike,

You've proven the "bitching" point. Even if the City is completely transparent and it is shown that businesses weren't harmed as you suggest, you'd still find a reason to oppose the meters.

In other words, a conclusion in search of facts.

To borrow from your earlier post, let's not confuse anyone with those.

If I may outside the box for a moment:

What if the citizens who downsized from Santa Barbara want meters? Maybe the people want a more upscale than to be another Walmart community.

Can't Mike Gibson use the same arguments he uses to oppose Obama's health care plan? You get what you pay for... Quality costs money and so on.

No, John, I've always maintained that they were a bad idea for the reasons I've expressed here:

(1) They're hurting businesses downtown. While it's true that anecdotal data is all we've got to go on at this point, I believe those merchants who say they've lost business since last September when the City installed these things. They can easily compare this past 8 months to the same period last year and many of those I've spoken with tell me they've done just that and revenues are down;

(2) They're driving away tourists and locals who visit the downtown. Again, the information I'm getting is straight from the horses' mouths - the downtown merchants; and

(3) They're uglier than sin. The picture accompanying this thread ought to convince anyone who has not seen the meters yet that the City was going for the Disneyland futuristic look here (think Tomorrowland). Downright repulsive!

But point (1) is reflective of point (2) - i.e. sales tax receipts are a proxy for tourism activity. It's a distinction without a difference.

So if that data didn't align with your anecdotes, you'd still be opposed based on the aesthetics.

I'd honestly consider doing the work and lodging a PIR but there's no point in attempting to glean or triangulate data with this crowd!

So... on to real issues. Let's (finally) get that trestle taken care of and figure out the next steps on the libraries and FD.

Thank you John Buccola for straight forward post on Tea Party's actions on Ventura parking meters. I am concerned about adequate funding for libraries, schools, fire and police in our city. If this is all they can find to complain about it demonstrates their lack of civic understanding. Let's focus on real issues that impact children, seniors, public servants and local business development. I shop locally and so should you.

If anyone actually agreed with Mike Gibson he might have been elected one of the 20 or so times he has run and lost. Ventura would not need parking meters if the GOP had not tanked the economy with their trickle down economics. People think Reagan started trickle down but the first President to use the term and apply it was Herbert Hoover and we all know how that ended.

"Americans Drink Coffee," thanks for having the guts to use your real name to criticize those of us who are trying to remain civically engaged by speaking out on issues that are important to us.

Just a little factoid here, I've run for City Council a grand total of two times and, yes, I lost both times in terms of garnering enough votes to win a seat. But, I won in many other respects. Campaigning for City Council gave me the honor and privilege of meeting and speaking with many organizations and individuals in the community who care about our City and its future. I got to hear about many of the good things our City is doing as well as some of the things I, and many others, disagreed with.

That's what it's all about, my friend. Getting out and finding out what's on peoples' minds and letting them know there are a lot of us who really care about our City and want to make it a better place to live.

No, I don't regret for one minute my decision to run for City Council. I would encourage anyone with the desire to better their community to try it. I guarantee it will be a unique and wonderful experience, win or lose.

Maybe you should try and do something of significance yourself sometime. I think you'll find it far more rewarding than taking potshots at people from the safety of your home computer.

So you agree then that if a majority of voters agreed with your views you would have been elected. That means your views about taxes and the parking meters and the tea party are minority views correct? Latest polls show only 27% of voters now have a favorable view of the tea party. America was founded on majority rule, yes? Are you really trying to say you don't use many fake names on this blog when we all know you most likely have? Isn't it true that the operation that took out Osama Bin Laden was funded with the taxes you claim to be against?

Coffee Man, you may recall there was a City sales tax increase measure on the November 2009 ballot (Measure A) that I steadfastly opposed during my campaign that went down to defeat big time: 55.36% - No; 44.64% Yes. I wouldn't exactly call that a minority view.

It remains to be seen how the parking meters issue will play out. My prediction is if it makes it on the ballot it will pass. I think there is such a distaste right now for new taxes and fees in the community that the City will end up pulling the meters out if the measure qualifies for the ballot. Jim Monahan has predicted the same and I think he has been around long enough to have a pretty good sense of how the community feels about these kinds of issues.

Your statement about me being opposed to taxes that support our military defense and homeland security is patently false. I would challenge you to tell me where you have ever seen me make such a statement.

Better luck next time...

Thank you for going on record Mike Gibson for supporting taxes. I also noticed you did not deny using fake names on this blog or admit that America is about majority rule or comment on the fact that only 27% of the American voters have a favorable view of the tea party. Also while you may have been with the majority on a single issue, you would have to admit that the majority of voters in Ventura did not agree with your views when you ran for election.

I support taxes when they're used for a worthy cause. Defense of our country against foreign attack and acts of terrorism would definitely rank high on my list of worthy causes. How 'bout you?

On the other hand, government taking on health care as a primary responsibility and limiting individual choice would rank extremely low. In fact, it's big brotherism at its worst.

And I applaud Obama for taking out Bin Laden. That's the first tangible act of leadership he's accomplished as President, in my opinion.

Of course I support majority rule. It's the bedrock of democracy. When have I ever argued against majority rule?

And I wholeheartedly accepted both of my losses when I ran for City Council. It's very difficult running against incumbents, but I'd never use that as an excuse for losing. The winners ran better campaigns and were able to get their message out to the voters more effectively than I. I personally congratulated all of them after the election and I will continue to do that in the future, because, as you say, the majority rules and that's what the majority decided on.

So local taxes in Ventura to support keeping cops on the street is not a worthy cause?! A majority of Californians support having an election to vote on tax extensions, glad you agree that majority rules and therefore this should go to a vote of the people and people in the minority like Strickland should stop trying to thwart the will of the majority.

We pay enough taxes in the City of Ventura. One of the main reasons we don't have enough money to keep fire stations and libraries open and put more cops on the street is the City's mismanagement of the money it already has. Pension plan spikes for public safety employees, wasteful spending on consultants, and bad investments by the City have gone a long way towards getting us in the fix we're in today.

More than 55% of the voters agreed with this assessment by turning down a half-percent sales tax hike last November. Remember, majority rules.

I agree with you that the state tax extension measure should go before the voters. Then when it's voted down perhaps the "majority" party in the State Legislature and the Governor will finally get the message.

Have you told your buddy Tony Strickland to vote to put them to a vote of the people? If not, will you? What fake names have you posted under on this blog? What mismanagement has there been by the City and be specific. By pension spikes are you referring to the big pension that Mark Lunn receives?

The trestle deal is done. This was on the front page of the Star. Union Pacific Railroad is paying for the work and Caltrans and the city just need to get the security devices in place. It will be painted by this summer.

I participated in all the discussions on this matter with the city, CalTrans and UPRR through my work with the Assembly and the Visitor's Bureau.

On the meters: there is no data to suggest the meters are causing a downturn in business. Surveys of merchants say the vast majority like them. Nobody is forced to use them. There are thousands of free parking spots. The Downtown Ventura Organization was the entity which pushed for them and this group still supports them.

What the Tea Party folks who are pushing this have failed to do is identify who will pay to take the meters out, have the sidewalks repaired and put the old 2-hour parking signs back up.

Has the Tea Party considered that the meters were customized for Ventura and are non-returnable? Will they be privately fundraising to pay for all this? And finally, where were they two years ago when this was discussed repeatedly in numerous public forums and settings?

Will they also be privately fundraising to pay for the election costs associated with future paid parking decisions that the ballot measure now requires? It's heavy handed to extend this to all future parking projects as well and really undermines our representative government system.

I think the meters are confusing for some folks, and I'm not wholly thrilled with them, but like anything else that is only mildly annoying I moved on.

It is not the Tea Party's responsibility, or any other member of the public's for that matter, to determine how to pay for the removal of the parking meters and associated costs. That's a ridiculous argument to make and a response that could only come from a bureaucratic mindset.

If the City screwed up by installing these things in the first place without adequate public buy-in and support, which is becoming increasingly obvious they did, then it's up to them to figure out how to cover the costs to pull them out and absorb the sunk costs that went into their purchase and installation, not the public. You seem to be a bit confused as to who works for whom.

As you might recall, the City had to eat the costs of setting up an elaborate (albeit, highly ineffective) system for collecting the infamous 911 fee when they were forced to dismantle that program under intense pressure from the public.

They seem to be in a similar predicament with regard to the parking meters, so, they'll have to wipe the collective egg off their faces just as they did with the 911 fee. That's the part they're really having difficulty with, not the costs for removal.

The Tea Party's initiative is an unfunded mandate. They are attempting to not only force a costly reversal of a well-vetted decision but they are taking it further by forcing costly elections for future routine parking decisions as well. The parking meter issue was first proposed by the Downtown Ventura Organization and numerous hearings were held and public notice was thorough. They recently voted to support the meters once again.

It is indeed our business to learn how this will be handled if it passes. You can call it a bureaucratic mindset, if you want. But I call it following through. These are not small details left unspoken by the Tea Party. You seem confused that it is the taxpayers who must pay for the Tea Party's mandate.

Left in the ground the meters will eventually pay not only for themselves, but for increased security Downtown and other public benefits. Already we have seen a remarkable reduction in crime Downtown with the addition of the nine cadets and officer. This is chief among the concerns of the Downtown business owners.

The vast majority of Downtown business owners are supportive of the meters. The Main Street metered spots are filled. I seldom see one open when I am there, so I go park in the numerous free spaces.

I like the parking meters, it is easier to find parking now then it used to be. I will write a letter to the Council telling them to keep the meters!

Marie:

Has there been an update since the "Grafitti Marred Trestle to Get a Paint Job" article ran last March?

No, Kevin hasn't written a new story. There are a lot of working parts to handle before it can get painted: new security fencing, Nu Guard protectors attached to the trestle to prevent climbing, deterrents to keep people out of the crawl spaces under the trestle (homeless live in there!), security cameras which report straight to the VPD, and lighting. When this is in place, they will do the painting at night over 2-3 days, on a weekend. It's a really big job.

The important piece was getting UPPR to agree to pay for the painting, which they did provided all these security measures were in place and a plan was in place to repaint it quickly if it was tagged again. It took awhile to negotiate all this and I can't praise city staff and Caltrans enough for their ingenuity in covering all the angles here. The folks from UPRR were terrific as well.

There are many positive things going on in our city and many good people and volunteers making it happen!

Speaking of unfunded mandates, you need to include the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), the Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Ocean, and the Coastal Commission, (which should have been disbanded years ago by the way, since it no longer serves a useful purpose).

The above-mentioned organizations cost cities and counties throughout the State of California billions of dollars annually due to their crazy and unreasonable demands regarding coastal development.

Santa Barbara County, where I used to work, spent over $10 million trying to meet these organizations' mandates on dealing with beach erosion issues at Goleta Beach. Absolutely shameful! A complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

You're misstating the level of support for the parking meters downtown. There are plenty of business owners downtown who are adamantly opposed to having them there. I've personally gotten many of them to sign the petition for the ballot measure to have them removed.

Are you opposed to putting this to the voters for a final decision? And, if so, why?

Looks like Carla and her tea partiers screwed up big time when writing their initative and it will most likely be thrown out by the Courts. She said in the Star "we had a lawyer help write it" big deal. Lawyers will do whatever you ask if you pay them and give an opinion, but guess what, opinions aren't law. Turns out the City Council gets to vote on things having to do with cars and traffic, I wonder how much of our tax money will be wasted on this poorly written initative?!