RM 10-03-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Itil QUESTIONS ON PARKING (Cont'd) a parking lot. They pay us the same amount that they paid in rent to the previous owner. - Now, this Department is a public department that is operated out of tax money,-right? Mr. Soltesz agreed. Commissioner Wiggins added, if this same money were not being applied in this depart- ment, that same amount of money would be made up out of taxes. The money collected for the parking lots goes into the operation of this Department. So that the same amount of money that the owner previously paid in taxes out of the rent that he collected all comes in here. It all accrues to the benefit of the public. The fact remains that the same amount of money that goes to operate this is not coming out of some taxpayers' po ket because it is coming out of there. Mr. Soltesz said we are talking of developing the downtown area for parking anJ yet we have physical means in which to give this parking back to people if we are talking about the development of downtown. Mr. 'Brownell asked hiin if he is suggesting the parking be free on those lots, and Mr. Soltesz said he is suggesting anything to make the downtown work, which is also a ossibility under the R -66. He suggested we go into the parking lot b iness, period! Mr. Brownell said we are not allowed to do that, because HU will not permit us to run a parking lot. Mr. Lloyd S. Taylor commented as everyone knows, he has been in all three of the situations, and up in the Board of Public Works. He said he did have an opportunity to review Mr. Slafkosky's proposal before it came in here, and thought that some of the leases were probably reviewed also, and, of course, there may be some commitments were were not reviewed, but "I think the real merit of Mr. Slafkosky's proposal is that it does not affect the City's integrity relative to the parking garage bond issue. It does not take one nickel away from the Department of Redevelopment. It really puts parking downtown on exactly the same foundation that parking is provided out in the shopping centers, and that is that the shopping center building owner pays it and passes it on to his tenants. He not only pays for the parking lot but he pays for it being swept, pays for the snow removal on it, pays for the lighting on it, and pays for any security that may be required on it. Now, the downtown merchant, although he pays much, much higher taxes, and this is the problem that needs to be straightened out, the downtown shopping area still gets its security basically free, be ause we do provide walking patrolmen in the downtown area. He gets his street lighting free. He pays for it on the tax base, yes, but everybody supposedly is on the same tax base. Unfortunately, that is not true, but that can be straightened out. I think in paying the Department of Re evelopment, until there is a higher and better use for that land, and then furnishing to his customer free parking- -and that is for a limited period of time - -you have accomplished all of the things that we are talking about. No %, this might not be acceptable to the downtown building owners, or the do ntown merchants, I don't know. Undoubtedly we will hear about that in the next few days, but it seems to me if you really analyze that proposal that it answers all of those questions that have been raised previously. The only person that loses in that proposal is the present operator, if he is making a profit - -if he is making a profit!" Ms. Derbeck's question if that proposal means a validation,.Mr. Taylor said, "No. It simply would mean putting a large sign up on those two lots, saying free two hour, or three hour parking, courtesy of your down- 17