Doubling parking fees could drive away downtown customers. Don’t do it, SLO

The city of San Luis Obispo could double downtown parking fees and do away with the one-hour-free policy in the parking garages?

With all due respect, that’s just nuts. The City Council should consider other alternatives at its June 7 meeting.

The city says it needs to raise fees to $3 and $4 per hour, depending on parking location, to cover the increased cost of building an additional parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo streets. It would be part of a cultural arts hub that would include a new home for the SLO Repertory Theatre.

When it was approved in 2019, the estimate for the garage was $31 million. It’s since climbed to $53 million, according to a city staff report. On top of that, the city lost $4 million in revenue by offering free parking during the height of COVID.

And yet the city still expects to finance the new garage — and maintain the existing garages — through parking fees and fines.

That’s unrealistic.

What will happen if costs go even higher, which is common with large capital projects? Will the city just continue to pile on the parking fees?

It would make more sense to dedicate a portion of other streams of revenue, such as sales and/or bed tax, to the project. After all, additional parking will make it more convenient to shop and dine downtown, leading to more business and increased sales tax revenue.

But in its staff report, city officials warn that could have dire consequences.

Some examples:

• If the city were to keep the one-hour free parking, that could necessitate eliminating two police officers in the downtown core.
• If General Fund or COVID relief money went to the parking garage, the city might have to cancel the Prado Creek Bridge project and reduce safety, maintenance and recreational spending.
• And if it were to try to find ways to reduce the cost of the project, it would have to hire a consultant and that process could delay the project another year. Such a study would “most likely” recommend features like solar panels and EV charging stations, the staff report says.

Those sound like scare tactics.

Would a city as environmentally conscious as SLO ever build a new parking garage without EV chargers?

That’s just silly.

We don’t advocate ditching or even delaying the parking garage. But surely, a compromise is possible that would keep fee increases as low as possible by backfilling with some General Fund money.

For example, charge $1 for the first hour of parking.

Increase fees by 50% instead of 100%.

And look for ways to cut costs that don’t require an expensive, year-long study.

Doubling parking fees — in part to create a “cultural hub” — comes off as extremely out-of-touch when people already are reeling from increased costs of gas, groceries, utilities and just about everything else.

And what about people who work minimum-wage jobs downtown; they’re going to be stuck paying $3 an hour for parking in one of the garages, and $4 for on-street parking in the downtown core?

City officials need to read the room and recognize that they are giving folks another reason to avoid the downtown.

There are too many alternatives that offer free or less expensive parking. For instance, parking is free at the Target and Home Depot centers, Madonna Plaza and the SLO Public Market. The first two hours are free in downtown Paso Robles.

While doubling parking fees won’t drive away vacationers — people don’t plan their road trips based on which city has the lowest parking fees — it could very well discourage locals from nearby cities from heading downtown.

That’s a big hit.

If it doesn’t want to risk alienating regular visitors to the downtown, the City Council will find a way to keep parking fees as reasonable as possible.