Paid parking – A sure bet not a gamble – An opinion

Submitted by

Main Beach Fernandina

Tony Crawford

In my Opinion article of July 31st I expressed what I felt were the real
world issues facing the “Pay for Parking” proposal. A summary of this would
include the fact that this could bring in probably only $116,000 and could cost
us $41,000 should it fail. It will cost all tourists, as well as all non-City
residents, $5 per day, $30 per week, or $95 per year for the privilege to park at
the beaches within City limits. It will put every beach front business at risk of
reduced revenue or the potential of not being able to do business in our City.
It will create a parking issue along all beach streets that will all but prohibit
non-resident family and friends from parking on these streets to visit City
resident family and friends for fear ofbeing ticketed year round. This is not
to mention the installation ofmany many more NO PARKING signs. You
know that more signage is just what we need around the island to help keep its
quaint appearance and small town image intact! These are the downsides to
the issue. The upside is that we can bring in most likely $116,000. Or, as the
report also stated, we could suffer a potential loss of$41 ,000.

David Lotts’s reply to these concerns are well taken, but still the plan
has many holes in it. I understand that the committee was charged with a
difficult task and in no way is this a reflection on him or those who put their
time and energy into presenting this. Any arguments here are not meant to
“shoot the messenger” –just the message.

David pointed out that the Committee didn’t take into account the
economic impact it could have on beach businesses and that it would
admittedly place pressure on some, and others seem to be doing ok as they
have spaces they have paid for. I know one way that they may have gotten a
feel for what effect this plan would have on these businesses.—Simple, ASK
THEM. I have spoken to a few owners and they were not approached by the
committee to have their input included in the overall thought process that
developed the plan. Who better to ask what impact it would have on a
business other than the owners ofthese businesses.

True enough, some places such as Sliders have spaces they pay for, but
let us not forget, the owner ofSliders was one ofthose who spoke about the
potential loss ofrevenue and the effect the plan would have should it go into
effect. Ifmemory serves me correctly, the owner ofSandy ‘Bottoms once made
a gesture to give his keys to the Commission the last time this issue was brought up as he felt it would effect his business so much he would have to
close. This could be a death sentence for Sandy Bottoms. How many are
willing to pay an extra $5 to eat there or for that matter to play Putt Putt? Let’s
not forget the impact on those who live in Fernandina Cay with respect to
their guest parking. I, for one, would have to really like someone who invites
me knowing I had to pay and extra $5 to have a drink with them. Where do
Sandy Bottoms’ customers park without paying this fee? During the off
season, will non residents be willing to shell out the extra $5 to patronize
them? A rather big gamble I would think.

In my discussions with various members of  the Commission as well as
David, one oftheir points is that this has worked in other communities in
Florida. The two I have repeatedly heard are –Jacksonville Beach (population
21,500) surrounded by Jacksonville (population 827,000) and St Pete Beach
(population 9,300) surrounded by St Pete ( population 244,000) This gives
both those places a lot of folks to draw from. Let’s look at us. The population
of all Nassau County is 74,000. If we subtract City residents (approx 11,000),
it would give us 63,000 potential beach goers to draw from. I understand that
we get a share of folks from Georgia who come down, but just compare the
potential numbers between us and St Pete or Jacksonville. We are not a
volume town; as I have said, we are special and have to respect that.

Another talking point is that those who come over the bridge dirty our
beaches and don’t support local business, buying their ice and beach supplies
outside the City. I really don’t have an answer to this. I don’t know how many
families come here from Yulee, or Georgia and buy their ice before they cross
the bridge. I don’t know how many after going to the beach have a beer or a
burger at a local restaurant, and I don’t know how many go to local shops
downtown as part of their outing. I really don’t. The simple fact is neither
does anyone else. I admittedly don’t know, but does the committee? Does the
Commission? Simply put, these are just speculations folks have formed and
are using as talking points to justify this plan.

The Citation issue is still a thorn in many sides of those who live on the
effected streets. A complaint-driven system can be a real devil in disguise. A
law is a law. As well intended as it may be, should someone have a 4th of July
party, or a family function on a hot day, how is the officer going to know those
folks aren’t at the beach? How is another resident going to know this and not
issue a complaint, thus putting an officer in a position of having to issue citations? A very slippery slope to say the least.

I also wonder what minimal signage is. If you put a person in a position
to get a citation, I would think there would have to be a sign visible warning
them! This alone would bring many more unwanted signs to the island.

Many of us,  myself included, will complain about various issues we are
concerned about without offering a reasonable solution to the problem we are
complaining about. This doesn’t sit well with many on the Commission, and
who can blame them. They hear complaints day in and day out, and I would
guess for the most part very few ideas on how to solve some of these
problems.

I think there is a simple solution to this issue. In fact it is a sure bet,
sort ofa no lose way ofraising almost three times the $116,000 for our
beaches and do so year after year. It will not cost the City residents or the
non-City residents one cent. It will not hurt beach business. It will not affect
street parking and there will be no signage. And it will affect our tourist trade
in a much more positive way than the proposed $5 per day. This idea was
brought up at the very same meeting David presented the power point report.

I have spoken to our Chamber of Commerce and our Tourist
Development Council (TDC). Did you know that we have 1,701 rooms that
are available to rent in the City? I didn’t. Did you know that in 2011 we had
an occupancy rate of 56.4%? When you do the math, this translates to approx.
350,000 room rentals in the City each and every year. That’s a lot of rooms.

WHAT IF??? (remember all ideas -good and bad-start with a “what if’)
we put a $1.00 a night fee, tax, surcharge, beach usage fee (whatever name
they want to use) on each room rented each night. This would bring in
approx. $350,000 a year. Yes, you read that right—$350,000 each year.

I ran this by the TDC thinking that this was going to go over better than
Mom’s apple pie. Wow. I found out quickly they don’t like pie, not even sure
they like Mom. It seems the TDC feels it can only support something that
affects everyone and not just our tourists. I tried at length to explain that ifI
was a tourist I would be a much “happier” tourist ifI only had to pay $1.00 a
day rather than $5.00. In fact, should I decide to stay 7 nights I would be
ecstatic paying only $7.00 as opposed to $30. It would make me very happy

knowing I was saving $23 a week for the privilege ofusing the beach. I can’t
understand how paying $23 more a week could possibly be better for tourism.
Admittedly, I don’t understand a lot about how the tourism business works,
but this was the answer I repeatedly got from them. Maybe it makes sense
and paying more is better for tourism?

I have communicated this idea to all the City officials. It seems that in
human nature, not just government, most have the old knee-jerk reaction to
first find fault and just say –NO, THAT CAN’T BE DONE. What I asked
each ofthem to do is ask another question–HOW CAN THIS BE DONE?

The little bit of research I did convinced me that it can not be done by
the City. I did go a step further and called Janet Atkins’ office and, ifI was
told the correct information, such a extra fee could be imposed through the
county or even through legislation at the State level. The question is—-is it
worth the time and effort by the City to at least pursue this idea? It took a lot
of time and effort by Mr. Lott and those on the committee to look into the
beach parking plan and I give them all credit for their efforts. Would it be
worth it to look at this idea knowing that the end goal would be $350,000
each and every year and not effect business, residents, and having a far less
cost on the folks that support us—-the tourists. It’s just an idea.

I urge all who are concerned about this issue to call or email all City
Commissioners and let them know how you feel, pro or con. They will
appreciate your input now rather than after this is voted on.

Editor’s note: Tony Crawford is a 14 year resident of the city of Fernandina BeachThis is his second opinion article for the Fernandina Observer regarding the paid parking discussion. Click here to view first articleClick here to view David Lott’s opinion.

August 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dwlottbellsouth-net)
11 years ago

Tony and I have had some good discussions about this issue and I certainly understand his points and don’t dismiss them. That being said, let me offer again some additional perspective. Yes, the TDC if authorized by the state legislature could impose a nightly fee; but such a new fee would require a lot of work to get this “local” issue through the state legislature. From previous discussions with Gil Langley of the TDC I’m pretty sure the County does not have the authority to impose such a tax/fee. TDC is already earmarking 10% (maximum allowed by state law) of their bed tax money to helping pay for City and County expenses related to beach maintenance and operations. I think Gil Langley will argue that the hotel/motel/lodging guests are already paying their share – certainly they are paying more than non-City residents are currently paying.
Of course, any business that would be negatively impacted by its customers having to pay for parking is going to be against the idea. But what about the businesses across the street that had to pay to construct their own on-site parking to meet parking requirements (i.e. Hammerheads)? Is it fair to them that what might be a competing business gets a “free ride” on parking? Mr. Hartley of Sandy Bottoms attended one of the Committee meetings and expressed his strong opposition to the paid parking idea as well as the idea of the business being able to purchase a designated number of spots, employee permits, etc. While the P&L model didn’t have a line item for this as any amount there would be speculative, I assure you the issue got a great deal of discussion and was one of the outstanding issues listed by the Committee for further discussion should the idea move further. Maybe the enforcement cut-off time occurs at 6:00 pm so customers at these places would still enjoy free parking for dinner.
I agree that some additional research on current beach users would be helpful and allow for the refinement of the data and the projections. It would be helpful to understand from people that currently parking at the beach accesses and city lots: where they reside; how long are they staying; what type of accomodations; what would they do if a daily fee was implemented. Maybe one of the local service organizations would be willing to staff such an effort as it would require a substantial amount of people to cover all the City access points over an extended period of time to get a blended response level. Any ideas?

tony crawford
tony crawford (@guest_746)
11 years ago

I would like to thank David for his comments. We have spoken many times and shared views and i thank him for his work and his input.
I agree that in order to impose the $1 a night hotel room fee it would take a lot of work. My thoughts on that are simple. —- So what!!—- It took a lot of work to prepare the present report for a potential $116,000. I would think it would be well worth the work to figure out a way to profit $350,000. Remember folks, that is over $1,000000 every 36 months. Think it’s worth the work?

I also agree the TDC wouldn’t support this extra $1 a night fee. They will however support a $5 a night fee. They can talk about the current bed tax all they want. At the end of the day a tourist will still be paying the same bed tax plus a $5 a day beach parking fee as opposed to the same bed tax and a $1 a day beach parking fee. Someone out there PLEASE explain to me why this is better for tourism. I just don’t understand this. I don’t think the tourists really care if the cost of maintenance is spread out between all who use the beach. I think they care about what comes out of their pockets.

As far as the free-ride theory. The owner of Hammerhead was at the meeting where the report was presented and from what I remember he wasn’t in favor of this. If we want to be fair about the free ride thing, this should also effect the downtown area. Aren’t businesses downtown getting a free ride when it comes to parking? Why are beach businesses any different than downtown businesses. Isn’t the beach the main attraction that brings people into town. Why punish just them? For the record, I am not for paid parking downtown, but in all honesty, you can’t use this free ride thing as a valid point of argument.

David it right when he points out that further information may be needed. I still believe that this should be an issue that should once and for all be put to bed and we move on with more productive ways to generate income.

Thanks
Tony Crawford

judith harris
judith harris (@guest_787)
11 years ago

I do not understand why our City Commissioners are even considering the proposal before them concerning paid beach parking. It is a terrible idea, and I most sincerely hope they will follow up on the suggestion that has been made to them to sit down with Janet Atkins who has offered to help solve the problem of raising more money for beach maintenance in Fernandina. I heard several good suggestions made at the meeting I attended and I think the one dollar a day addition to hotel bills is an excellent option; and every effort must be made to see if the law can be adjusted to bring it about. Perhaps Janet Atkins might even find a simpler solution .I just read Mr. Crawford’s article and it makes very good sense to me.
I do not think it’s fair for the businesses along Fletcher Ave. to potentially lose customers and perhaps even to end up following so many other local businesses in the way of closing up shop. The loss of revenue to the city would far outweigh any possible benefit, especially since the proposal actually states that it may cost money instead of earning money. How crazy is that? It would be terribly unfair for residents living near to the beach to have to worry about their guests and visitors getting ticketed when they come to visit; but if the present proposal is accepted, that is exactly what will happen. The present idea is an insult to people who are now paying city taxes on top of county taxes. Is there anywhere else in the town where local residents are inconvenienced this way?
In regards to charging for public parking, it would make more sense to give city residents stickers and charge for parking in the public parking lots downtown where there would be no need for additional and unsightly signs, and homeowners and businesses near the beach would not be discriminated against.