Walton Arts Center releases FAQs on parking proposal
Several questions have been raised about the new parking initiative announced last week by the City of Fayetteville and the Walton Arts Center that would allow the WAC to manage three public parking lots surrounding the arts center.
Click to enlarge
On Monday, the Walton Arts Center released an FAQ sheet on the proposed parking initiative to answer some of those questions.
The Walton Arts Center and the city are exploring converting the lots from free to paid during peak times and are primarily being fueled by what the Walton Arts Center sees as a growing parking problem around its facility during events. The concept on the table currently proposes that the Walton Arts Center will staff the lots surrounding the center to charge for parking.
According to the FAQ sheet, the parking ordinance required to relinquish control of the public lots on Dickson to the Walton Arts Center has not been drafted.
The concept currently proposed for discussion will include the following:
- WAC will lead the effort to develop a Dickson St. parking map and communication plan
- Public Parking lots will remain free during the weekday hours
- Competitive fees will be charged during peak parking times (evenings & weekends)
- Suggested fees will be $3 – $5
- WAC will staff the lots to provide premium customer service and help people find parking
Under the proposed plan, the WAC would use the money from the paid parking “to cover the costs of staffing and management,” and for “upkeep of the facility on Dickson St, and programming and promotion of the Entertainment District at large.”
The information released also addresses the question of how the parking issue will affects the WAC’s decision on future locations.
From the FAQ:
The Walton Arts Center is not moving—we have invested major resources in our Fayetteville buildings over the past year and plan to actively use them as our home for many years to come. As the region grows, the Walton Arts Center will consider expansion opportunities. But the parking initiative is about serving our patrons today so we can continue to draw visitors to the Entertainment District. By managing the lots and the traffic flow, we can make parking easier, which will provide a better overall experience.
The next steps of the proposal are for the Mayor to draft an ordinance to be heard by the Fayetteville City Council. The WAC will solicit feedback from patrons and the business community through public meetings, and through their website/social media.
The newly released FAQ sheet, along with a fact sheet, maps, and other relevant documents can be found at a newly created page on the WAC website.
More from the Web
- WAC Parking FAQs – released by WAC 10/26/09
- Walton Arts Center Parking Initiative Information – waltonartscenter.org
- Walton Arts Center Considers Parking Charges – The Morning News
- Drivers Against Paid Parking in Walton Arts Center Lots – KFSM
- WAC May Charge For Parking in Dickson Lot – KNWA/Fox 24
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Offcamber
October 27, 2009
Who elected WAC to levy and shepherd the “Dickson Entertainment District?” Were residents, local businesses, and their patrons asked who should organize and charge for parking in the area, or if anyone even wanted to pay to park in a city lot?
Parking doesn’t require “premium” customer service. They would have staff there primarily to make sure that people who park there without paying get towed. Also, limit public access to a city property. Per the FAQ, “Walton Arts Center may, as part of managing the lots, reserve some parking spaces for donors and/or season ticket holders.”
If the WAC is in desperate need for parking, Fayetteville can sell them the lot at a fair price and let them operate it as they choose. Otherwise, this is a serious conflict of interest unless everyone else nearby gets a piece. For example, George’s next door brings in sizable live acts and paying turnouts, as well. The lot being a public property, shouldn’t other “Entertainment District” destinations be allowed to rent out or make profit on a proportional part of the lot?
This plan is absurd, unethically partial, and ill-democratic. Very poor marks for Lioneld Jordan. Hey, if the city will give me free facilities and let me make money from them, I’m getting into the arts and entertainment business, too!
mpetty
October 27, 2009
I guess you would have also been against the original land giveaway, too.
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
This is what happens when there isn’t strong leadership within city government. Things are just kind of floated out as “collaborative efforts” with no focused goal.
I suppose where there’s leverage from the threat of leaving, and something to be gained, the WAC people would be stupid not to try.
If anything, I would like to see all the spaces metered. Give WAC a smaller lot or two which can be signed as “Reserved During WAC Events”. Sell those spots to patrons along with their tickets.
Maybe allow them to reserve the front row of parking in the big lot via meter covers, like the U of A does for football games.
The rest of the parking lots, the city puts meters but charges a reasonable fee of .50/hr. This leaves the city with a revenue stream, which can be used to float bonds for parking and entertainment district improvements (like burying those godforsaken power lines) and eventually a new parking garage.
Someone needs to step up with a plan that benefits the city and show us a goal from parking fees besides some nebulous pseudo-guarantee that the WAC will stay and expand.
We need a leader.
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
In fact, I’d support metered spaces all over the Dickson area if the city would say: “The funds from these meters will go towards Dickson area improvements.” Hell, I’d pay $2.00/hr if they could find a way to bury those big fugly powerlines that block the view of Old Main these days.
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
ONE more idea. To allay concerns about drinking and driving and towing, how about a “no-tow” policy at all city meters, but rather a $25.00 ticket instead, for those who leave their cars there up to 12 hours. $50.00 per 24 hr period.
Something like that could be enforced by the city parking guys, and it would be enough to disincentive permanent parkers, while being something reasonable for a person who has had too much to drink to decide “I’m going to catch a ride home, and pick up my car tomorrow, and pay the $25.00 ticket”.
Matt Petty, take some notes brah.
07stiltd
October 27, 2009
Riiiight. So if I go out for a night on dickson and decide to leave my car there overnight. I pay the original parking fee of whatever from 8-2am. Then catch a cab for $15 and then pay $25 for leaving my car overnight? So I’m out ~$45 without even having a drink or dinner. Don’t think so.
With budgetary concerns in fayetteville, why is the city even thinking of giving away a piece of property? Wouldn’t the city benefit more from the direct revenue generated by the lot? I’m not seeing how this proposal helps the city in any way shape or form.
Dickson St will most likely say goodbye to any revenue from my pocket, if finding a free spot becomes even more difficult than it is now.
Me
October 27, 2009
So what benefit does the city get?
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
The point is, the parking situation, if it goes to pay, needs to directly, tangibly benefit the Dickson Street area.
If you sell the pay parking proposal with actual capital improvement goals in the Dickson Street district, then business and property owners won’t complain about it as much. Longterm improvements need to be discussed, maybe even voted on in priority by property owners and entrepreneurs. Treat it like a TIF, only without the same strings that come with property taxes.
And IMO, leaving one’s car in a city lot overnight should be an “emergency” type situation, not how a person plans his weekend.
If overdrinking is that important, then ride your bike in, ride with a friend, or take Safe Ride. Or, park on a street outside the Dickson area and walk a few blocks.
mpetty
October 27, 2009
I am taking notes, and I’ve already been thinking about this a lot. I think I know where to build the parking garage, and now I’m looking for funding sources.
I’ve also been investigating more modern metering systems, because part of the argument against metering is the cost for installation. Central metering systems are the way to go, and they are a lot more modern now than what you see in Eureka.
@those who won’t use Dickson any more – I’m sorry, but I think you are bluffing. Maybe the sales tax dollars will prove me wrong, but parking a few blocks away is a perfectly acceptable proposition in any other community. You don’t have a right to park at the door.
That said, you do have a right to expect reasonable fees. The city isn’t a for-profit business, and we aren’t going to approach paid parking as a profit-motivated venture. Any paid parking plan will only be implemented in order to benefit the future of downtown, explicitly.
vax
October 27, 2009
I for one think more paid parking on dickson just further discourages people from going out and would hurt the already ailing economy. if the WAC really is that hard up for cash, then a 3-5 dollar flat fee is reasonable, however I think the 25 dollar overnight charge is going to result in a serious increase in drunk driving and that needs to be taken into account. leaving the car there and admitting inability to drive is already a hard decision for alot of proud males, when money is involved that could be the tipping point resulting in bad choices (though I know the county probably makes alot off of DUI and DWI’s too so if this is a revenue thing I dont know if that argument flies, but really people whats more important, money or the safety of the roadways? I drive for a living and I dont want any more excuses for drunks to be on the road than there already are, and I dont think money is worth losing my life, but thats my opinion.)
anyway, I’ll get off my soapbox, but I think making college students pay more fines or to get their car out of tow lots isnt really a progressive stance. the city parking tickets on dickson are annoying enough, I got two in one day the other day and I was there maybe four hours at most. Had I had a street view of my vehicle that wouldnt have happened but I was working in Georges at the time.
I think fayetteville needs more free parking to encourage people to go out, but thats my wild opinion, we already have a huge pay garage and no one even uses it.
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
I see this as a transition for the city of Fayetteville.
Heck, you can’t even park in downtown Fort Smith without paying a meter. You can’t park on campus at U of A without paying a meter or a garage. Those rates are high, though, if you ask me.
I like the idea of a centralized meter system, and one that is reasonably priced. 50 cents an hour sounds very reasonable to me. That shouldn’t discourage anyone. Heck, it might even encourage those starving college students to carpool to Dickson, rather than keep them away altogether. More people in fewer cars.
Start small. Stick some money back.
Put it in writing that the funds can only be used to improve the Dickson area. Make the public aware via signage at the pay meters what their parking fees will pay for.
Figure out the amortization on a decent-sized parking garage. Consider a mixed use structure with retail fronts. Factor in renting that space to private business. Perhaps grant that space to new entrepreneurs or creative businesses. Further increase the critical mass of unique businesses and destinations downtown.
Funds could even be considered for alternative transportation like a campus to The Sqaure trolley.
Making idle threats about being pissed off about not having a free parking space to leave your car overnight doesn’t help this city move forward. Look at the bigger picture. It wouldn’t be for profit. It would be a contribution towards making Dickson and Fayetteville better for all.
Expecting people to feed a meter for 2-3 bucks for a night downtown isn’t unreasonable.
burgerboy
October 27, 2009
Perhaps the University of Arkansas Architecture students could propose a fitting parking/retail structure for downtown to be paid for by the fees.
Keep the parking fees low. If the spaces stay full, bump the fees slightly. If they don’t stay full, lower them. Find the happy medium that keeps people downtown and maximizes revenues without hurting business.
I generally park up on Block Ave and walk down to Dickson from there. It doesn’t bother me at all, and there’s almost always an open spot.
07stiltd
October 28, 2009
I rarely leave my vehicle downtown due to vandalizm concerns (can’t have nice things these days). Although I have on a few occasions. It’s not something that’s planned, it’s a contingency if I end up haveing too much of a good time.
My point about paid parking downtown is this: Once you start charging for parking, EVERYONE will move to the street spots that are free. The paid spots will only be used as a last resort. Street parking downtown is more than a PITA now and it will only get worse with all the lots downtown charging and forcing the capacity of those lots onto the street. Take all those cars that the lots hold and fill up the street spots with them. Now how far away are you going to park and walk to dickson st? So now we’ll have overcrowded streets with no parking and a giant empty lot with a few cars in it. That benefits everyone right? Everyone being the WAC ;)
It’s enough of a PITA to go to the city admin building and have to pay to park so I can run in and do something there. I rarely carry cash, let alone change.
And I really like the suggestion to get drunk and ride your bike, that’s full of win!
burgerboy
October 28, 2009
I don’t believe this will happen.
The pay lots are empty most of the time right now because there is ample free parking. Why pay for something you can get free right down the block?
Once the big city lots go pay, those street spots you refer to may become really valuable to a few, but the pay lots won’t remain empty.
I suppose the city could screw up by charging too much for parking, like those other pay lots do now.
If the fees are kept reasonable, I’m talking 50 cents to $1 per hr, it shouldn’t be a problem.
anon
October 28, 2009
1) Shouldn’t the Advertising and Promotion Commission or Fayetteville Convention and Visitor’s Bureau be promoting the Entertainment District?
2) Why not charge during the day? The lot is filled with UA students parking and walking to campus.
3) When the lot does become a pay lot, how is the City/WAC going to handle the complaints by the neighbors? Will the City then be forced to implement and maintain an urban neighborhood parking program?
burgerboy
October 28, 2009
Good points.
The A&P can promote Dickson all day long. The sort of promote it as part of a larger promotion of the city and surrounding area. It seems like their hotel/restaurant taxes could be used for downtown improvements. I think there is wording in those tax documents that the collections have to be used for things primarily utilized by out-of-towners or to attract more visitors. That was the logic behind the Town Center. The Town Center bonds are sucking up all their revenue currently. I don’t think that was really a great investment. It seems like they are going to focus on fixing up MLK from the bypass to School Ave, kind of like how College Ave has been revamped. I heard something about that a while back but I haven’t heard anything recently.
I think reasonable, small fees for parking during the day make sense. The on-campus garages and parking passes are pretty danged high. I could see students paying to park on Dickson if the fees were half of what they get charged on campus. Take away the two-hour limit on parking before 6 pm, and trade that in for small parking fees. Maybe make the parking spaces further off Dickson, and not likely to be used by in-and-out lunch patrons could maintain the 2-hour limit.
The guys currently buzzing around making sure no one overstays the parking spaces could monitor that.
Spring Street is already full of cars later evenings just about every weekend. It wasn’t like this just 5 years ago.
We really need a public garage or two, preferably with retail fronts hiding them away. The only way to get it without a tax increase is for the city to get a new revenue stream.
Now if the WAC lot wasn’t full just about every single weekend, I wouldn’t say now is the right time. As it stands, parking demand seems to be at an all-time high on Dickson.
I hope the city focuses on the city’s needs more than they appear to be right now.
I hope this “turning it over the WAC” idea isn’t a way for our mayor to avoid taking a stand on this idea that he seemed to oppose during the election.
burgerboy
October 28, 2009
Wow. I need to proofread.
mpetty
October 28, 2009
@burgerboy – Would you email me? I’d like to discuss this more with you. http://matthewpetty.org/contact
Laurie
October 28, 2009
The arts centers of other metropolitan areas of the country are partially subsidized by the city they reside in. WAC has never received any money from the city of Fayetteville to support their operation, or to encourage them to stay in the city and contribute the proceeds of their sales taxes to the citizens of it. I have no problem when I go to the BOK in Tulsa to see shows paying $3.50 to help support the arts there – why would anyone have a problem with it here? It’s only going to mean you get to drink one less beer on nights when there is a show going on at WAC.
employee on dickson
December 7, 2009
I think that the main thing that’s unfair about this is that people who work on dickson (and help pick up the litter on the street, yet aren’t paid by the walton arts center to do so) will probably have to start paying to park while at work. Sometimes I work up to 13 hour shifts, I shouldn’t have to use the tips I make to pay ANOTHER tax for working.
Trackbacks