My comments on “Firm but efficient enforcement” elicited strong comments from Brandy and Keith. I bring them out here so they can be seen on the blog and on Facebook. First Brandy:
You know I can’t resist a comment on this one. Not every municipality treats enforcement like a police state. Certainly municipalities are all over the board, but in the last 10 years, more and more are starting to “get it.” Our industry is being noticed by VC firms, large investments firms and a lot of technology firms and there is a much greater amount of exposure and recognition across the board, including municipal governments. There’s a lot of education about parking going on and the understanding of how parking ticks is slowly making advances.
In a nutshell, a lot of us municipal managers know that “firm but efficient enforcement” aimed at getting people to change their behavior rather than make a profit adds to the potential for increased property values. Increased property values equals increased property taxes, which outweigh parking revenues by a VERY large margin. I’ll give up 10% of my enforcement revenue in return for happy customers and vibrant businesses any day. Elected officials get that – if it is explained to them. A lot of private sector firms live in the parking world and don’t have a stake in the bigger picture.
And Keith:
Our City has had a compliance orientation for many years, not least because the district court (by state statute) keeps more than half of our citation revenue to run their operations. Simply put, we generate more revenue when our customers, the parking public, pay for parking and don’t get tickets. That said, there are those who, for any number of reasons, refuse to play by the rules. Even when given the option to move from an unpaid space, some folks end up getting overtime citations.
It’s difficult to share your rosy optimism about the private sector providing better, faster and more efficient service. For example, we could have a long discussion about surface lot operators with their predatory towing practices (now outlawed in our city).
And what of the private company in Chicago increasing rates by double, with more to come? We installed pay stations and increased revenue without raising rates for the first three years of operation. Our collection costs were brought inside, after comparing with private sector bids, reducing our costs by half.
Like Brandy, I’m just saying that the broad brush doesn’t treat either the public or private sector fairly.
First of all, congratulations to these two professionals and their ability to run their operations fairly and efficiently. I have no truck with the public sector and what they accomplish. If you read back on my post, you will note that I’m not in favor of the private sector taking over the on street operations. My post and the subsequent one, tried, and obviously ineffectively, to point out that I feel we need a business/customer relationship with between our asset and parkers. If we accomplish that, we can have happy customers, and increase our revenue and protect our asset.
Brandy and Keith – for every municipality that has your attitude about its parking enforcement (and I’m not sure I agree completely with you) I will give you 10 or 20 that see it as a way to balance the city budget and require their PEOs to drop the hammer on violators thus creating an adversarial relationship. I have not heard of one parking operation, including yours, that sees the parkers as customers and works toward a business – customer relationship. I’m sure I’m wrong and hopefully someone will set me straight.
In the meantime, as long as we see “enforcement” as our way of changing behavior the attitude of the public vs. parking will be negative.
As for VC companies and investment banks looking at parking in major cities they see an investment that will generate return. They are often restricted by rules set down by the city (rightly so) and have to work within boundaries.
If you look back on my piece, you will see that I point out that there are generic differences between private and public sector. When the public sector is in place, the free market is not allowed to work. The benefits of competition and profit driving innovation in the operation of the parking policy and management is interrupted by politics and regulation. The free flow of the free market, with all its warts, is legislated out of existence.
You two and I’m sure a few others out there are enlightened, but I am hard pressed not to bring out my paint brush for the vast majority of municipal parking operations.
Certainly technology and efficiency can increase revenue and make for a smooth running operation, but my view, jaundiced as it is, may come from a different place. The concern to me is one not necessarily of revenue or increased tax base, but how we get there and why assuming all the changes that are underway, that our customers still see us through a negative lens.
Changes in attitudes don’t come with great PR and sexy news articles. It comes when the relationship between those charged with protection the parking asset and those using it changes.
JVH
2 Responses
Your last sentence of your post regarding a change in attitude is:
“It comes when the relationship between those charged with protection the parking asset and those using it changes.”
And in your post immediately prior you say:
“the private sector changes their customer’s behavior every day without creating an adversarial situation.”
And:
“How can we get parkers to change behavior because they see that it’s easier and better for them to do so without a program of “fair, firm, and consistent enforcement?” First we have to determine what we are trying to do. Are we there to collect money for the general fund, or are we there to properly allocate an asset necessary to our customers and the community.”
I don’t and I know Keith doesn’t think that the only tool we have to change behavior is enforcement as you seem to imply. It’s not even the most effective. I have said previously that managing the on-street parking asset requires a carrot AND a stick, with the stick being the least desirable method. The carrot consists of meters taking credit cards, in-car meters, pay by cell, proper signage, ticket voids etc.
It is totally unrealistic to expect that there is a way to manage this asset without some element of enforcement, regardless of who the manager is (private or public), what your revenue goals are or what you do with the money it generates.
An on-street parking operation is a big huge parking lot with no controls in or out and no possibility of controls (sensor companies may take issue with this, but sensors don’t work as a control if you don’t have anyone enforcing). I suppose that you could require tracking devices to be installed in every vehicle and automatically charge the registered owner every time the vehicle stops in a paid parking area after a grace period. Seems a little too much like “big brother” for me and probably most Americans.
Wal-mart has security cameras, “greeters,” walls and doors, which could be considered passive enforcement. Most people who would otherwise walk off with merchandise don’t do it because there is a good chance they will get caught by the passive enforcement systems and maybe end up in jail. We don’t have walls, security cameras, doors or greeters that can screen everyone into and out of the store, and we never will. I’m also pretty sure that people don’t end up in jail for stealing parking, although if they don’t pay their tickets, their vehicles may end up “jailed” by a boot or a tow truck.
So, JVH, we know you don’t like enforcement, but do you have any other ideas on how to control a multi-billion dollar asset without it? Especially since according to your own observations on what percentage of tickets never get written, you have a 90% chance of getting away with parking illegally.
actually, the carrot hangs on the stick…