Parking, especially in downtown Port Townsend, remains a contentious issue. The popularity of our quaint seaport community sees tourists flocking who, for better or worse, have become the main source of revenue for most of the businesses. But accommodating this near constant influx of visitors leaves locals, business owners and employees — as well as those who live downtown — scrambling to find a parking space.

Further exacerbating the issue is our public transit system which in some respects remains a frustration for its lack of adequately frequent service downtown. Averaging about once every hour, its operating schedule is also not conducive to those whose jobs require hours past 8 pm.

Adding to this dilemma is the city’s recent action to do away with off-street parking requirements for new developments. An example of this can be found in the new hotel planned between Ichikawa and the Pizza Factory. This Motel 6-looking box will have a 50-room occupancy, but only 11 off-street parking spaces.

The City’s $20,000 Proposal: Parking Fee Pilot Program

The city is now considering a paid parking pilot program. If pursued, it would run for 18 months and cost taxpayers approximately $20,000 to implement. At the February 10th city council meeting, Police Chief Tom Olson presented the details of this initiative.

Originally, what the council approved was a small scale pilot program that was only one block long. However, Olson’s presentation showed a much larger, full scale “parking plan” (see illustration at top) because, Olson relayed, the meter company couldn’t accommodate the “smaller” pilot plan.

Large or small, the plan appeared to lack some important considerations. For instance, it relies heavily on the assumption that everyone has access to a smartphone in order to use the parking software being considered. One must, at the very least, have access to a phone of some sort to enter a code and payment details in order to park.

In addition, while the current cost of a parking infraction is $15, this program would see it increased to $65. It was implied that the projected revenue generated by the increased fines would fund a parking enforcement position.

Finally, there is no provision that makes exceptions for those who work or reside downtown to have free parking. (Further details on this proposal can be found here.)

Council member Ben Thomas was concerned about the significant increase in the scope of the project — that it now appeared to be more than a pilot and could have broader overall impacts. Council member Libby Wennstrom commented that if all parking spaces were 24-hour, people would just keep feeding the meter (a figure of speech — no meters are involved) and not move their cars, thereby defeating one of the objectives to have more traffic/visitor circulation.

Mayor David Faber seemed disappointed that the pilot area wasn’t larger and didn’t cover all of downtown, adding that he definitely wanted Madison Street added to the pilot area. A public comment from Scott Walker, a long time Transportation Lab member, suggested that the hours of paid parking should be increased to run from 10 am to 7 pm thereby capturing more revenue from people going out for dinner or a movie.

Social Media Erupts

On February 12th, The Leader reported on the parking pilot. I also posted the details of this plan on February 14th to a couple of social media platforms including NextDoor. The response was immediate and robust (4,200 views on one site), with most people strongly against the idea for obvious reasons. Comments focused strongly on the adverse effects of the pilot program, but also included mention of collateral issues that have become a familiar refrain over the last couple of years.

One comment included the relationship of budget deficits and the city manager’s salary in a reply:

“I read the Leader article and noted that all that was discussed was the financial benefits to the city. Now we find that the city is budgeting for a $1.8 million deficit, while they have a city manager that gets paid more than the governor. No mention of the chilling effect on downtown business which is commonly the result of paid parking.” 

Another included the lack of adequate public transit considerations in relation to the paid parking idea:

“The paid parking ‘pilot’ program will adversely affect those who work and live downtown. These fees have a minimal impact on tourists but will have a profound impact on residents and workers. We live downtown and are not wealthy. We do drive neighbors, who are in need, to appointments, grocery stores, etc whenever possible. These people have difficulties navigating the public bus system (which has not been expanded to meet the needs of this endeavor). I would like to see the environmental impact assessment of this pilot. As you know EIAs include the potential impact on members of the community. I cannot imagine that anyone would implement this system without regard for workers, business owners or residents.”

Still another noted that many are not so much attached to their cars as dependent on them, and that the cost of living in PT has a substantial impact on most households:

“Some of us would love to be biking and walking around a lot more. I know I used to. Ah how I remember it, having time, because I had more money and didn’t have to spend all my time working carrying tools around to pay for the high cost of living here. I don’t see any large tool carting racks on buses, I can’t get to my jobs by bus on time. I’m not car loving, I am car dependent, and yes gas costs but I try to plan my trips carefully. I can’t afford an electric vehicle. And, having been a caregiver as well for years, there are lots of mobility issues which affect what kind of transport and what kind of disability placard you can get. The issue isn’t really are we so much in love with our cars as what kind of transport those of us who work trade jobs here but can barely afford to be here need. I can’t see paid parking helping me with any of that. It certainly won’t help downtown.”

Some expressed concerns about the smartphone app required:

“What about the people who do not have a smart phone? Are they just not going to be able to park?”

“…or left it at home, or let the battery run out, or lost it, or dropped and broke it getting it out to scan the damn QR code…”

And a few which considered specific businesses that would be adversely impacted also spilled over into comments in a Feb. 22nd NextDoor post:

“Off-street parking appears ‘not’ to be in the plan, so the Quimper Merc plaza and other publicly available lot parking will be jammed by fee avoiders. ‘Customers Only’ signs will need to be enforced to be effective, a new cost for businesses who are already paying a premium to have convenient customer parking.”

“If most downtown parking is paid, it will push people into private parking lots behind downtown buildings (a headache for downtown businesses) and fill up the spaces outside the Mercantile and Don’s Pharmacy, making it harder for local shoppers to dash downtown for a few necessary items. Tourists will happily pay for a spot for a few hours and be unfazed. Locals who work, live and shop downtown will not be happy.”

“I think we have to acknowledge that paid parking will overload the private parking lots behind the Kuhn Building, the Palace Hotel, The Bishop Hotel, and other places, and that will create problems for managers of those lots. People will not pay. They will do almost anything to avoid it.”

Others took a more neutral or supportive tone:

“I’ve used an app for parking in other small towns, it’s pretty easy. Trying to figure out if you’re going to be 2 or 4 hours is usually the hardest. I personally will most time park over in the park and ride or take a bus or just visit more businesses in Uptown.”

“The city/county needs to monetize more of their assets. Property taxes should not be the only avenue for revenue. For those seeking more $ for roads this seems a reasonable first step.”

“I see nothing wrong with this as long as the $$ goes to road improvement. Parking at Haines place is free – so is shuttle. Make it mandatory for city workers/federal/state workers to use it, after all isn’t the current city plan to be more green?! What a shining example this would be!”

Mayor Faber Responds

Many wrote to the mayor and council members directly, expressing their concern for the negative impacts this pilot program would likely cause. In fact, there was so much pushback on this idea, Mayor Faber posted a long-winded response on Facebook which some likened to “word salad.” He also read it in its entirety for the record at the February 18th city council meeting (posted on NextDoor in full, and now close to 200 comments).

To much amazement, the last paragraph of that word salad produced this jewel:

“My question to our community is ‘do you consider the downtown parking problem to be serious enough to warrant the type of solution the city can actually implement (paid parking)?’ It’s okay to say ‘no’, and if that’s the general community sentiment, I would rather council and staff not spend any more effort trying to solve a problem for which no reasonable solution is sufficiently popular to enact. Please reach out to me and/or the rest of council by email at citycouncil@cityofpt.us.“

Mayor Faber’s words give the impression that he is willing to yield on the implementation of a paid parking program if he determines that the general community sentiment is opposed to the plan. In that case, it seems a simple tally of comments received by the city, perhaps including comments from the main social media platforms (NextDoor and Facebook), which are also a collection point for many voices, would provide the clear answer.

A completely transparent process for determining the actual community sentiment would have to occur, of course. And, if indeed the mayor acts with integrity on his words, it would demonstrate a necessary course correction by our electeds for the inclusion of this community’s collective voice as part of implementing sound policies.

In conclusion, while I believe the city’s intent behind the paid parking pilot — to reduce the number of cars on the road — is a positive vision, the comprehensive rollout of this strategy still has a number of “potholes” that need to be addressed.

————————-

Mayor Faber’s missive creatively transformed by ChatGPT into a Haiku format:

Port Townsend’s Parking Dilemma: A Haiku Series 

The Problem
Lines of cars wait still,
each space a battleground fought,
who deserves to stay?

Footsteps echo past,
shoppers lost in fleeting time,
while wheels never move.

Conflicting Views
Workers curse the crowds,
tourists linger far too long,
businesses despair.

“Build more space!” they cry,
but steel and stone bring a cost,
one too steep to pay.

“Enforce the old rules!”
but hands to mark time are few,
and fines change nothing.

“Clear the streets of cars!”
but the old and frail still need
paths to walk with ease.

The Proposed Solution
A coin for your stay,
turn the wheel, free up the space,
fairness in motion.

Not a fortress built,
not a rule left unenforced,
but balance through time.

A choice in your hands—
park, or let another claim
the waiting moment.

The Call for Voices
Speak now, shape the streets,
is this change a needed path,
or wind in closed doors?

Tell the council now,
should the meters rise or fall?
Only you can say.