Blog: West Hollywood Parking Politics

By extending the parking meter rates until 2 am and removing 60 spaces on San Vicente, the City wants you to spend $9 to use the new parking structure.

Last month, the West Hollywood City Council postponed extending the parking meters along Santa Monica until safely after next March’s election although it was obvious there were four votes to adopt the proposal of extending the meter hours west of La Cienega until at least midnight.

During the city’s budget deliberations the city manager had proposed increasing our law enforcement budget by a million dollars and fund same by extending the parking meter rates until 2 in the morning on the west end of Santa Monica Boulevard. Given that the city had already doubled the parking meter rate, there was a good deal of protest from Boy’s Town businesses and patrons.

Rather than characterizing the extension of the meter hours as a simple money grab, the city retained a high priced consultant to come up with a convoluted rationalization for why extending the meter hours was good thing for local businesses.

The study asserted that after 8 p.m. much of the parking was taken up by employees of local businesses. By extending the parking hours until midnight, there would be more turnover in the parking spaces for patrons, which ultimately would create more parking for local businesses.

Aside from this rationalization being more than a bit contrived and detached from reality, it was pretty obvious that turnover and helping local businesses was hardly the city’s actual priority.

The elephant in the room was the obvious reason the city was extending parking meter hours was to force patrons to use the city’s underutilized and expensive parking structure in West Hollywood Park.

While council members claimed there is a severe parking shortage on the west side of Santa Monica, they failed to remember that they have recently removed at least sixty parking spaces on San Vicente between Santa Monica and Melrose.  Given that Boy’s Town is one of the city’s most vital business areas, taking away street parking for any reason makes no sense.

It seemed rather cynical to blame the employees of local businesses for our parking shortage when the city is eliminating parking spaces. Given that it costs anywhere from fifty to seventy thousand dollars per space if you have to build a parking structure, removing the parking on San Vicente represents a loss of millions of dollars. But since the San Vicente parking meters were competing with our new parking structure, the city removed them to force Boy’s Town patrons to pay nine dollars for an evenings parking rather than simply a couple of bucks at a meter. 

Only Councilman John D’Amico pointed out that if West Hollywood is trying to keep Boy’s Town relevant by making it accessible to younger people, providing reasonably priced parking was essential. 

But the majority of the city council cynically blamed the area’s parking woes on the employees of local businesses. When representatives of Mickey’s and Yogurt Stop provided horror stories of being extorted due to the limited amount of parking available to provide employee parking, John Heilman was dismissive, saying it was not the city’s business to provide parking for employees.

While this is technically true, John D’Amico pointed out that by approving so many new businesses without sufficient parking that the city was responsible for creating a parking shortage that has proved costly to both patrons and employers.

Like much of West Hollywood, Boy’s Town evolved without creating sufficient parking as employees and patrons were allowed to park in residential areas. After incorporation, the city created permit parking zones to protect the tranquility of the adjoining neighbors. While this was the right thing to do, it immediately exacerbated a critical parking situation. If the city wants to keep our local commercial areas vibrant, then the city needs to invest in creating parking and then charge reasonable rates to patrons and create an affordable program for employees of local businesses. The horrific cost for providing employee parking is a drag on our municipal economy. Visionary leaders would recognize that the city needs to be a partner in finding a solution rather than simply shoving the blame for our parking problems on businesses.

As several people testified, West Hollywood has developed a bad reputation for being more interested in ticketing patrons of local businesses than encouraging visitors. The city seems far more interested in money raised via parking tickets than fostering a visitor friendly city. The attitude is "Welcome to West Hollywood, here’s your $63 parking ticket." (It also wouldn’t hurt if the City bought the ticket appeal process in house so that you could actually deal with people who understand West Hollywood).

Even the city’s revenue estimates were suspect. Transportation Commissioner Scott Schmidt pointed out the staff projected a million dollars in income when the recommendation was to extend the meters until 2 a.m. and then quoted the same figure when the hours were shortened to midnight. Obviously those estimates raise suspicions as to the competency or veracity of staff.

The under estimating of revenue is an old accounting trick that the city uses so that our finance department always looks good. The only upside to under estimating revenues is that it gives the city council fewer opportunities to squander money. 

Aside from the rather heavy handed attempt to force patrons into our new parking structure, my other issue is the way the city conditioned the much needed increase in our law enforcement budget on the meter increase.

During the budget process, the million dollar increase to the law enforcement was something of an afterthought. Ideally the council should calculate the cost of providing the level of law enforcement that we need as a priority. Instead it came after the council added $100,000 to our arts program budget and created a new Special Events Manager position that will cost the city approximately $200,000 annually. Ideally these less than priority items should have not taken precedence over providing sufficient funds for public safety. Indeed when you throw in the nearly $100,000 we paid for the rainbow cross walks at San Vicente, these "extras" total almost half the money we need to provide adequate law enforcement. This is without even looking at the nearly million dollars we spend each year on Halloween. Obviously this is not rational budgeting.

The long and short of it is that the city needed the revenue for law enforcement and it wanted to increase the use of our new parking structure. 

We could have saved the $100,000 plus we probably paid to the consultant who drafted the meter rationalization if the city council would have just been honest about our budgetary needs. Alternatively the council could have looked at alternatives to raising the meters during the budget process. Of course that might have meant making hard choices.

If the city really wants to keep Boy’s Town vibrant and relevant as a regional center of gay culture, it really needs to stop harassing businesses with various bans and limitations on parking and start treating our gay businesses as partners rather than adversaries. Parking will continue to be a source of conflict as long as the city does not do everything it can to maximize parking opportunities.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

joninla January 19, 2013 at 09:57 AM
@Shiela You are absolute correct in needing to understand the "why". Though the language has changed slightly, "LAW ENFORCEMENT" does not necessarily (and in this case does not) mean additional funding to our local Sheriff's Department as the only appropriate source of "Law Enforcement" for our City. As I recall, the additional "Law Enforcement" coming from the parking revenue, was to go towards staffing a full time 24/7 'professional' private security guard service for the new Robo Garage. 24/7, 365 days a year will require a full time staff of many (perhaps a dozen) at annual sararies commesserate with the bloated payscale the City doles out to it's official city employees (which is what a city hired private security guard for the robo garage will get paid ... plus benefits). The Sheriff's budget was cut serverly a few years back (I trust you know the dollars and date) and I sense a big rift between that decision and the feelings/attitude our Sheirff's Department has for the City Council, particularly Heir Heilman. So for $16 million we get no new parking, an outrageous annual cost to run the robo garage, a staff of security to watch the precious 'toy' (quoting Duran during one city council meeting) and the parking revenue (FROM TICKETS ... NOT FROM MONEY IN METERS) will come from residents and visitors with NO NEW FUNDING FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
joninla January 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM
After using the new "crossing light" daily (numerous times) it really is stupid how they did it. When I cross the street, I don't mind waiting a moment if there is a good flow of traffic, which will cease when the light at westbourn changes, but pressing the dumb button light gives no clue to the drivers if/what/when it is necessary for them to stop and after years of exercising a very small amount of patients crossing that street without any care or concern ..... I now find it more difficult and the confusion of the drivers has put me (and my dog) at more risk, not less, of a rogue car speeding unaware of the odd NOT-A-TRAFFIC-SIGNAL flashing.
joninla January 19, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I agree ... It is absurd to target the employees of our local business for the city parking. BUT IT IS THE EASIEST GROUP TO VILLIFY AND POINT THE FINGER AT SINCE THEY HAVE NO REAL VOICE. SERIOUSLY - is the city saying that are local business are thriving so well, that their employees are the cause of the parking problem and not the close to 100,000 weekend cars/people who come into weho for all things (not just nightlife). Are the stores so packed with employees that there is no room left for patron to enter and shop??? The city council should be ashamed for their glaring lack of logic in making up this stupid excuse for our city's parking problems.
martel January 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM
west hollywood has a city parking director?!
David Bonfiglio August 06, 2013 at 05:21 PM
Very good blog! Heaven forbid that employees should have an affordable way to park at their low paying jobs, we can't have that now. The streets belong to everyone, not just business owners and their patrons, but to workers as well. And how about taking Amex at meters!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »