Seattle city budget: Paid parking at Lincoln Park (and others)?

We’re watching the latest meeting of the City Council Budget Committee right now – they’re taking a closer look at Parks and Recreation budget items, and potential changes in the mayor’s original proposal. One that’s just come up is a new plan to study the possibility of paid parking at about half a dozen city parks – including, a city staffer told the council, possibly Lincoln Park. Specifics weren’t mentioned, but they envisioned possibly $1/hour for parking, which, if put into place at “6 or 7 parks” under consideration, could bring in almost $1 million/year. City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen noted that this idea has come up before and was not received well by the public, so he urged plenty of “public outreach” before that idea moved much further. (Note: There’s an explanatory paragraph in this document; the study wouldn’t be finished till middle of next year.) Also at this hearing, it’s been mentioned that they intend to put back 3 Parks apprenticeship jobs that were targeted for cuts. We’re still monitoring the hearing and will add anything else that comes up; you can watch it live here.

rw October 25, 2010 (4:26 pm)

Sometimes we park in the Lincoln Park lots, and other times we park around Lowman Beach (which gives us a chance to check out the duckies!!). Charging for parking in the official lots, even if only a buck per hour, would result in more people parking in the neighborhoods north and east of Lincoln Park. I grudgingly accept the idea of paying for parking at state forest trailheads and sno-parks, but a parks fee smacks more of “because we can.” As an alternative, perhaps the city could impose a fee on car prowlers or people who turn their cars into steroidal boom boxes.

Kelly October 25, 2010 (4:39 pm)

Lincoln Park seems like the perfect place to charge a parking fee. The park is highly accessible by bus, bike and foot. What percent of cars are there for the ferry, anyway?

Tim October 25, 2010 (4:51 pm)

Been to the lower lot at Lincoln park many times, including for swim lessons with toddlers. The lot is already crowded, and forces people onto the street as it is…won’t this just push more people into the streets?

moxilot October 25, 2010 (5:14 pm)

I think $1/hour is nominal and wouldn’t necessarily force people onto neighboring streets. They would be banking on convenience, and hopefully use the funds to prop up the deteriorating park budget. Would you really find another place to park that’s further away rather than pay $2? I wouldn’t. Plus, they’d make money off of the parking tickets for expired fees.

knm October 25, 2010 (5:43 pm)

That’s just wrong.

rw October 25, 2010 (5:50 pm)

“Lincoln Park seems like the perfect place to charge a parking fee. The park is highly accessible by bus, bike and foot. ” Interesting observation, Kelly. Perhaps one third of the time my wife and I visit Lincoln Park via bike (from Admiral). But this is still a neighborhood park, which people visit when they don’t have time to visit via bike, foot, or bus, or with kids or the elderly. If I recall Marymoor in Redmond charges a parking fee. I see no reason why Seattle parks, including Lincoln, should follow suit.

marty October 25, 2010 (5:50 pm)

What next? Why not consider spending less when money is tight? It has always worked for me.

Albert October 25, 2010 (6:38 pm)

@Marty – residential street parking meters along any area where people park for free.

xyz October 25, 2010 (6:51 pm)

As someone who used to live at the north end of the park, on street parking was always difficult with all the apartments and condos, especially in the summer months. Putting more cars onto the neighborhood streets to avoid a parking fee only adds to the problem. If they want to charge for parking why don’t they look at all the “no parking” areas along Alki Avenue between Alki Beach and the Duwamish Head Viewpoint. This is just empty space that is not currently utilized, they could install those new computerized pay stations and restrict parking to only park hours.

Brian October 25, 2010 (6:57 pm)

If folks all rode a bike or public transit more instead of relying so much on cars you wouldn’t sound like such a bunch of babies.

This is directed 98% towards the facebook posters who immediately went into cry mode.

J October 25, 2010 (7:12 pm)

Okay, Marty–maybe we should spend less by closing parks?

We want our parks and our free parking and our police protection and our animal control and our garbage pickup and our maintenance, but we don’t want to pay for it, oh, no!

For my part, if paid parking will help keep parks open, maintained, and monitored, then I say, go for it!

visitor October 25, 2010 (7:24 pm)

charge for parking at all the parks in the city!!!!! $1/hour is ridiculously low. People can park for four + hours for the cost of a latte. I think Parks are just as/more deserving as/than Starbucks. Would much rather have paid parking than shuttered facilities!!!

Joseph October 25, 2010 (7:46 pm)

Wow lets have more people move out of Seattle. This mayor is such a loser , when will we kick him out. Sorry he has now vision for the city. He should come out and admit he does not like cars and be done with it. It seems he is trying to fix the budget by increasing car tabs , finding places to put parking meters. There must be other ways of fixing the budget with out taxing cars.

marty October 25, 2010 (7:48 pm)

J: The city has $52 million owed in unpaid parking fines!! Let’s start by figuring a way to collect that first. http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Investigators-Seattles-high-tech-crackdown-on-parking-violators-hits-snag-99338879.html

visitor October 25, 2010 (8:29 pm)

Joseph: it’s the city council, not the mayor, who is looking at this idea. sheeesh.

Alki Resident October 25, 2010 (8:55 pm)

Whats next?$5.00 a night to park in front of your own home?

bluedog October 25, 2010 (9:32 pm)

Yes please, and start charging for non-resident parking along Alki Beach so can we pay to have the trash picked up that all the visitors leave behind.

Citizen October 25, 2010 (10:14 pm)

Lincoln Park ‘parking’ is a joke – there is hardly any already which creates parking issues in a neighborhood that is already restricted in parking space. I have an idea!! Let’ s just add $ 5 to our car tab costs and call it good! Maybe another $10 to fix pot holes, and while we’re at it add $20 to increase the size of ferry dock so that Fauntleroy isn’t so jugged up, and maybe $5 for a street light so that poor officer can do something more productive than direct traffic……arrrgggg!

Yardvark October 26, 2010 (1:04 am)

There are tons of ways to get down to Lincoln Park without having to pay that parking fee. $1 seems incredibly low.

For those that need to drive, it’s definitely worth the $1. For those that don’t, it’s an added incentive to walk, bike, or ride the bus.

Ernst October 26, 2010 (12:07 pm)

I don’t believe this…… This city is becoming so anti family it stinks. I can just see all the kids crying because their cash strapped parents can’t afford to take them to the park…. Today its $1 tomorrow its gonna be $10. Get rid of the mayor and council. This what we pay taxes for so that people and families have a place to go to.

Mickymse October 26, 2010 (1:28 pm)

What is wrong with people here? Do you not get that we’re CUTTING funding for Parks?
.
What is wrong with charging a small fee to folks who want to drive over to use Lincoln Park (or Alki — good idea)?
.
Would you rather the city just lock the lot and restrooms and stop collecting trash? That wouldn’t make for a very safe “family space” or somewhere you’d want your children to play, would it?
.
There’s clearly demand, since the parking lot is full. More importantly, this might shake out the ferry riders and other non-Park users from the lot.

Chris Mowery October 26, 2010 (1:33 pm)

As someone who lived across the street from Lincoln Park for years, I can promise you this will only force the parking to the side streets. Whenever there was an event at the park or over at Vashon Island, the parking infront of our house was insane. Our neighbors (we) had to have cars towed off our driveway and alleyways so many times during the summer. All the swimmers of the Coleman pool will stop using the pool if they have to pay. It is a beautiful free place to take your family for a day outing…..Please NO!

Chris Mowery October 26, 2010 (1:36 pm)

J October 26, 2010 (5:17 pm)

Marty–that’s already being done. It won’t be enough:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013196746_parkingboot19m.html

nmb October 27, 2010 (12:00 am)

$1/hour to park your personal vehicle in a public park sounds like a deal to me. I say why not $2/hour.
.
And for those crying that this will force people to park in the surrounding neighborhoods, that will happen whether there is free parking or not. The Lincoln Park lots are ALWAYS full. Charging a small parking fee will drive people out of the parking lot and onto the streets; it will only generate badly needed income for the City from those that are willing to pay this small fee. I usually bike to the park, but if I was having a beach party and needed to lug a cooler, etc down to the beach, I would gladly pay $1/hour or more to be able to have a shorter walk. And look at the positive side: this may actually give park users the incentive to walk, bike or ride the bus to the park instead of driving.
.
Additionally, Parks already charges fees for reserving shelters, swimming in the Coleman pool, etc. But charge a tiny fee for parking and everyone gets bent out of shape. C’mon people, if you love your parks, the least you can do is help pay to maintain them.

austin October 27, 2010 (8:08 am)

Still cheaper than taking the bus. I’m all for it, there hasn’t been a single good reason against it put forth in these comments.

Juan October 27, 2010 (3:14 pm)

With money being tight it will be first come first serve on street parking which will hurt me and a few others who do not have a driveway for their own vehicles. Which means if I step out to the store and get back I can’t park in front of my house and may have to park in the park and pay just to get to my house, what kind of sense does that make, especially when I already pay for a zone sticker for the privilege to park in front of my house in the wee hours of the night. Don’t we have some high paid park employees that really don’t do much for the park that we can fire instead? I’m sure eliminating a couple of the 100,000/yr non-essential management jobs would put money back into the park. I’m so done. I need to hit lotto so I can buy an island and not worry about paying taxes and fees for things that I already pay for with my taxes I am required to pay. ugh!!!

Taxed enough October 27, 2010 (4:30 pm)

I will gladly pay more money to use the park that I already pay for, as long as the people that have kids pay the extra to keep schools open. I don’t have kids, but I use the park. Let’s charge everyone extra for the things they use instead of making everyone pay, even if they don’t use a particular service.
The county is doing this with toll roads. What’s next? Neighborhood snow plow fees in winter? “Because snow removal is costly and we don’t have enough in the budget.” Maybe a 911 fee. If the police or fire department get called to rescue you, it’s an extra $100.
This way the politicians can keep adding to their bloated staff and collecting benefits when they retire. Free healthcare and 90% pay for the rest of their lives. Maybe they should look at ways to cut costs while still providing the services we expect.
How did they do this 50 years ago? Why is everything getting more and more expensive instead of keeping up with inflation? I’ll tell you. Over spending and piss poor budgeting by those in charge.
If everyone keeps paying these little fees “Oh, its only a dollar”, eventually our paychecks will just be direct deposited to the government and they can dole out what they see necessary.
Come on people. Think! Every little fee is eventually going to add up. Make the politicians accountable for their spending instead of letting them come to us every time they are in a bind due to poor money management.

Juan October 27, 2010 (7:01 pm)

Agreed Taxed enough. Agreed

Bunnyfer October 28, 2010 (3:19 pm)

I used to live by Lowman Beach Park, just to the north of Lincoln Park, and there were plenty of times I wanted to park in front of my own home and couldn’t because of all the visitors (especially on hot sunny days). It was occassionally infuriating – esp. with 6 bags of heavy groceries to carry – but that is the price you pay for living in those premium locations. I had a view not to be beat, and anytime access to the parks just by walking out my door. While the idea of it being harder to park on the street is distasteful, I think the best strategy would be a nominal fee on parking, and encouraging alternative means of transportation to/from the parks by creating no parking along Fauntleroy and the neighboring side streets. After all, if a family is truly too poor to afford a couple dollars to park at the park, and too lazy or unable to park up to 1/2 mile away and walk, then the bus sounds like the perfect solution. No one needs to be “forced out” of the park, and parking is still available for short periods of time for park users, as it should be. Furthermore, the park gets maintained and serviced, which is what residents should be most concerned with, as poorly maintained parks are magnets for trouble (i.e. underage drinking, gangs, etc). Take it from someone who saw too much of that in Lowman over the last several years!!

Martin DeGase October 28, 2010 (5:13 pm)

The local govment has a way of dumping on the people. Paying to park at Lincoln is wrong.
The masses will just park on front lawns about the area. I will.
The govment needs to get real and cut the fat from city govment.
It will cost millions to put up signs and meters.
How much is spent on the endless war ?

Sorry, comment time is over.