An Opinion
Submitted by
Tony Crawford
After reading Mr. Lott’s article concerning paid beach parking I felt compelled to give some thoughts as to why this whole idea makes absolutely no $ense and is a bad idea with a lot of unanswered questions. After reading this article several times it became clear to me that it did not address the “real life” issues that this would bring to our City. I fully agree with Mr. Lott’s view that if such a system were put into effect this would be the least costly of the fee collection systems. Somehow it
reminds me that lethal injection may be less costly than constructing gallows, but the end result would be the same. Doing this is just taking Fernandina a step closer to the financial gallows.
I agree that we need ways to raise money. I think that our focus has to be just
that– how do we as a City raise money. I also have the basic philosophy that every
worker in the world expects a pay raise from time to time. Along those lines I feel
every City needs a pay raise from time to time. If the budget is cut efficiently,
the productivity of its employees are at an acceptable level, and the funds are
spent wisely, then and only then should taxes need to be increased —so be it.
The only positive thing that Mr. Lott stated with respect to this goal of raising
money was that the most likely case would add $116,000 to the pot. What Mr. Lott
failed to mention was that in the very same power point proposal he outlined to the
Commission was a projected $ 41,000 loss should it fail. This would be money out of
the pot—-IS THIS GOOD $ENSE?
I am sure the folks on this committee who prepared this report had the best
interests of the City at heart. I do feel that many questions were not addressed
concerning the effects this would have on us. I would also argue that Mr Lott
pointed out this was meant to be non-punitive. As I hope to show here this is about
as punitive as you can get. It will punish business, workers, non city residents,
tourists, as well as those living on streets near the beach.
FIRST: SOME COMMON $ENSE POINTS
Many come from Yulee or south Georgia to visit our beaches. They know
the area, they are not tourists who are new here. Why in the world would
someone choose to park on any of our beach annexes when they can simply
drive to Peters Point, Burney Park or Scott Road and park for free? They
would get life guards, bathrooms, showers, picnic tables all for free! I
went to Peters Point a few weeks ago and on both a hot Sat and Sun there
were 172 open spaces in the middle of the afternoon. When I first asked
some of those on the committee if this fact was taken into
consideration, I couldn’t get a conclusive answer. If this simple fact
wasn’t in the mix, how can a bottom profit line be measured? This is
just COMMON $ENSE.
SECOND: EFFECT ON BEACH BUSINESS
I asked some on the committee if they had taken into account the
potential effect a $5 a day cost on non residents would have on our
beach front business? What will happen to places like Sliders, Putt
Putt, Sandy Bottoms, or any business along the beach roads? I think it
is important to remember that during off season these places count on
locals to support them. How many non residents will be willing every
time they want to have a beer or a meal fork out an extra $5 to do so?
What will the effects be should a business suffer or, worse case, can’t
stay open? How will another empty store front effect the City? How much
tax loss will be felt by such a closing, and how many folks will loose
their incomes due to the lack of business? Does this make good $ENSE?
THIRD: WHAT EFFECT ON TOURISM?
I have been told that many other cities in Florida have put such a
system into effect with good results. I don’t doubt it. I do have to ask
a simple question. Why do folks come to Fernandina? I have come up with
two basic reasons. The first is that they took a wrong turn off I 95.
The second is that they– WANTED– to come here. Many of the cities
that have put in paid parking are volume cities. One could compare them
to Mc Donald’s; they rely on volume. I think of Fernandina as more of a
finer restaurant. We get folks to come back based on quality and
service. Ask yourself, do they come here to visit downtown or the beach?
Should we wake up tomorrow and find the beach has dried up, will our
economy survive on downtown to attract tourists?. Lets face it, the
beach is the prime mover. With that in mind, does it make good $ENSE to
charge these folks $30 per week to use it? REMEMBER, THE MOST LIKELY
UPSIDE IS STILL ONLY $116,000 WITH A DOWNSIDE OF $41,000——GOOD $ENSE
OR BAD $ENSE?
FORTH: LETS MESS WITH ALL THOSE ON FIRST, FLETCHER, TARPON, AND ALL THE CROSS STREETS
Ok, I asked how will they keep beach goers from just parking on streets
close to the beach? Simple enough question I would think. The answer is
not only punitive, but down right unbelievable. First off, they will
put up a lot of NO PARKING SIGNS. I hope this will crank up many who
have stuck with this articale this long. That is just what we– need
more signage. As outlined, each City resident will get two free
stickers. This no parking law will be in effect 8 am to 8 pm 365 days
a year along the streets near the beach. I asked this simple question.
If you live on one of these streets and want to have company over and
they are from out of state, or are non City residents who live on the
island or over the bridge where do they park without being subject to
being ticketed? If on Christmas day you want to have family in and they
aren’t residents, they have to pay an extra $5 to see old Mom and
Dad?—–PLEASE SOMEBODY TELL ME THIS ISN’T PUNITIVE AGAINST US, OUR
FAMILIES, AND OUR FRIENDS .—- HOW THIS MAKES ANY $ENSE?
You know if this was making us a million dollars a year, I would have to think twice
about it, but folks, we are talking about, by their own admission a profit of
$116,000 (MAYBE)
AND A POTENTIAL LOSS OF $41,000.
I would urge the Commission to think of the effects should this not work. The last Commission, with the best intentions , put in new tree lighting downtown. Many complained and it is being corrected, to the credit of all who “heard the people”. If this experiment fails, can we correct it? Can we re-open a closed business and hire laid off works? Can we bring those tourists back who left with a sour taste in their mouths having to shell out more vacation money?
I know the Commission is smart enough to come up with some ways to raise money.
They have a very hard job, no one is taking that away from them . I know the folks
who worked on this committee put much time and work into it, I just argue that
many questions and concerns need to be addressed. I would like to see more
workshops inviting the public to give ideas on how we can raise money. I give all
those credit who hold their monthly meetings to hear us. There are many smart
business folks who live on this Island and we need a way to tap into them with the
goal of getting as many thoughts on this as possible. I urge everyone to call all
the Commissioners with your thoughts on this. It will effect all of us. Please
give them your thoughts, for or against. They need our input now before they vote,
lets not wait till it is too late
Editor’s note: Tony Crawford is a 14 year resident of Fernandina Beach.
July 31, 2012 9:55 a.m.
Tony raises a number of important issues and considerations and he and I have discussed some already, but wanted to put them out in the public venue as he has done. As to the $41,000 potential loss in the Pessimistic Scenario, the City would quickly shut the program down if it found that it was such an abysmal failure with out-of-pocket costs less than $8,000. The Committee felt the liklihood of the Pessimistic Scenario ever happening was extremely unlikely but wanted to show the financial sensitivity based on the various assumptions. That potential loss compared to a potential net revenue of $177,000 would be a reasonable level of risk to most.
On Tony’s points, (1) the question posed to me was whether the Committee had done a specific empty parking space count at Peter’s Point, et. al to which I said “no” as the Committee understood that there was excess capacity there and people wishing to avoid the parking permit fee could go there. The fee avoidance attribute was taken into consideration in developing the occupancy/usage volumes for the City spaces. (2) No, the Committee did not take into consideration in the economic model the failure of any beachfront business. There is no way for the Committee to have projected such an impact, if any. While certainly it would have placed some additional pressures on a couple of the businesses, all other businesses along Fletcher have had to pay/provide on-site parking and seem to be doing OK. (3) Paid beach parking has been consistently implemented by coastal FL communities of all sizes successfully. Doesn’t necessarily mean it would be as successful here, but the empirical evidence from other communities over a period of years cannot be discounted. Why would tourists have a sour taste in their mouth given that practically every other coastal. community in the area imposes a beach parking fee. Did anyone hear an outcry when the County imposes a fee for a beach driving permit? I didn’t. (4) The paid parking system would impact residents and visitors, no question about that and examples of isolated situations can easily be thought of to highlight potential hardships. The reality is that the issue of parking sprawl from people avoiding the paid beach parking lots was raised by many of the residents of the area complaining that people were already parking on the ROW, etc. Signage would have to be erected, but was planned on being as minimal as possible with supplemental educational information informing people. Also, enforcement outside the City beach access areas would largely be complaint driven, so the liklihood of a citation in the situation you described would be extremely unlikely. Again, interviews with other communities indicated they had successfully implemented programs with more intensive signage initially and then reducing the level as people became familiar.
Please don’t shoot the messenger, although I do support a reasonable beach paid parking program in order to lift SOME of the burden of the operating/maintenance costs from just City taxpayers. If there are other revenue opportunities that should be explored, then they should clearly be explored and I know the City Manager and Commission would welcome such ideas although I have not heard of any. I fully agree that the issue warrants further discussion and input. The presentation made to the Commission was done at the request of the Commission to the City Manager, not for a vote, but to bring all the members of the Commission up to speed on the potential financial impact. The financial projections were based on the assumptions stated but the Commission would always have the final decision to modify any of those assumptions recognizing that any change would have some level of financial impact.