ACL Live at the Moody Theater
Time to Rethink Valet Parking Ordinance
RECEIVED Wed., Nov. 2, 2005
Dear Editor,
The Valet Parking Ordinance that council passed some years back was a golden egg for some while the taxpayers who pay for the signage, enforcement, and maintenance of the streets get screwed.
For a small fee of $250 a year per parking space in a public street, business owners contract with valet parking services who report very little sales tax and abuse the ordinance, knowing they will only face a fine of $20.
At a recent council meeting with a video I took of the problems caused by the valet companies, COA Jason Redfern told a KXAN reporter that stiffer penalties would be used.
But the stiffer penalty is only $25; valets make that with two vehicles.
I wonder when staff created this ordinance if they took into concern the cost of signs, installation, and enforcement of the ordinance in deciding how much the parking spaces were to be leased for.
According to the COA, there are six valet parking operators that have control of the valet parking spaces located on public streets for approximately 30 businesses.
With parking being a premium in the downtown area, it's in no way fair for certain valet parking services to take over parking spaces marked for valet if the business is not using them.
It's my opinion that some of the valet parking companies could be trusted to comply with the ordinance as much as a sex offender working in a day-care facility!
According to the COA parking management, a parking meter in the downtown area nets an average of $300 a month.
So, tell me, how are the taxpayers getting a good deal with the use of our tax dollars by allowing a business to secure a block of parking spaces for only $250 a year per space?
The Valet Parking Ordinance that council passed some years back was a golden egg for some while the taxpayers who pay for the signage, enforcement, and maintenance of the streets get screwed.
For a small fee of $250 a year per parking space in a public street, business owners contract with valet parking services who report very little sales tax and abuse the ordinance, knowing they will only face a fine of $20.
At a recent council meeting with a video I took of the problems caused by the valet companies, COA Jason Redfern told a KXAN reporter that stiffer penalties would be used.
But the stiffer penalty is only $25; valets make that with two vehicles.
I wonder when staff created this ordinance if they took into concern the cost of signs, installation, and enforcement of the ordinance in deciding how much the parking spaces were to be leased for.
According to the COA, there are six valet parking operators that have control of the valet parking spaces located on public streets for approximately 30 businesses.
With parking being a premium in the downtown area, it's in no way fair for certain valet parking services to take over parking spaces marked for valet if the business is not using them.
It's my opinion that some of the valet parking companies could be trusted to comply with the ordinance as much as a sex offender working in a day-care facility!
According to the COA parking management, a parking meter in the downtown area nets an average of $300 a month.
So, tell me, how are the taxpayers getting a good deal with the use of our tax dollars by allowing a business to secure a block of parking spaces for only $250 a year per space?
Pat Johnson
