No more free Sunday parking in San Luis Obispo

April 6, 2011

The San Luis Obispo City Council voted 5-0 Tuesday night to begin charging for Sunday parking downtown beginning July 1. [Tribune]

On a second 5-0 vote, the council also agreed to raise the price of parking in the “core” downtown area from $1.25 to $1.50 per hour.

The vote came despite pleas from local church leaders opposed to the new parking fee, which will be in effect from 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.

The new combined parking fees will bring in an estimated $325,125 each year—$206,125 just from the new Sunday fee.

The City is looking to increase revenue in order to finance a new parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets.

The council also voted to spend $223,235 on 400 new parking meters for downtown that are designed to accept credit cards as payment.

“We’d all like parking to be free,” Councilman Andrew Carter said. “But it does cost the city to provide it.”


Loading...

25 Comments

  1. JesseJames says:

    You do realize a “fee” is to deter activity, right? RIGHT? As in deter parking. *face palm* These guys are absolute morons.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
    • JesseJames says:

      I still remember when I asked Katie Lichtig about the parking fee increase and she said with a straight face that it hadn’t increased. I began to question myself and then asked again, “Didn’t they go up to $30 and now again to $33?” To which she replied, “The cities fees haven’t increased.” After a lot more back and forth I find out the state has increased fees to the city so they passed them in the form of fee increases.

      That is how these guys think. Parking fees = revenue. I’m gonna blow your mind here Katie, fees/fines are not revenue. They’re activity deterrents. If you want to deter people from staying downtown for long periods then you increase the fees. We have other options. Not sure if you’re aware of this but we can easily go shop elsewhere.

      (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. Smacks Forehead says:

    Parking structures = more customers = increased city revenue = maintain the cities bloated payroll…wait, I think my math is wrong.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  3. DashRiprock says:

    “We’d all like parking to be free,” Councilman Andrew Carter said. “But it does cost the city to provide it.”

    Oh really? the last council member i had a little faith in has now sold his soul like the rest. He has joined the rest of the extremely boring city coucil members and poorly chosen city management position personnel in skinning the noses of us average joes one more time, until the next time…..i guess the rest of our taxes just vanish into thin air….hey Andrew, who feeds the quarters into you meter whiler your making your bad decisions on council meeting nights?

    (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
  4. TaxMeAgain says:

    Wow, a new fee. A tax or fee is a discouragement; government is trying to modify my behavior. The SLO City Council has discouraged me from going to thier downtown on Sunday. I’m sorry I was a bother. See ya.

    (5) 9 Total Votes - 7 up - 2 down
  5. Paladin says:

    Well no more of our money will be spent in SLO, downtown. Good luck businesses. Hey! The village of Arroyo Grande (hopefully it doesn’t change to Arroyo Greedy) is still free.

    (7) 9 Total Votes - 8 up - 1 down
  6. shelworth says:

    Remember years ago when someone figured out that if you trimmed the edge off of a penny you could use it as a dime in the parking meters? So SLO had to replace them all to thwart the thief. At a cost of $$$$$$$$$$! Ah for the good ol’ days.

    (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
  7. Crusader says:

    Why are we going to build yet another parking structure? How does it benefit the average SLOC citizen? If the landowners and merchants want to build more parking structures why can’t they create a taxing district that will apply an additional tax on those that actually benefit — the landowners and merchants?

    It wasn’t long ago that we had no parking structures in downtown. Now we have 3. We don’t need a 4th or 5th one to service local citizens. If landowners/merchants want more parking let them and their customers pay for it. They can even use the parking meter revenue just so long as it’s not raised in a way that impacts local citizens.

    Imagine having taxpayers pay for the parking facilities at Madonna Plaza, Irish Hills or one day and the Dallidet property. Having local taxpayers pay for a 4th and 5th downtown parking structure would be just as irresponsible and offensive.

    (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down
    • zaphod says:

      why can’t they create a taxing district that will apply an additional tax on those that actually benefit
      the DBA spent the money fighting ErnieDalido’s overpass, this is why we can’t have nice things.

      (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down

Comments are closed.