Staff graphic
Nearly three years to the day since first hearing Mayor Lioneld Jordan’s idea for a downtown parking deck, the Fayetteville City Council will be offered three options on where to build it.
On Nov. 27, council members are set to hear a presentation detailing the three sites being considered. One week later, on Dec. 4, they’ll be asked to make a final decision.
Aldermen were expected to decide this summer to build the deck either on the main Walton Arts Center parking lot (WAC Lot) or at the south end of the arts center’s campus where Grub’s Bar & Grill is located (Theatre Lot).
Once board members re-opened discussions about a third lot – located just south of Kingfish on School Avenue (East Lot) – it became clear the decision would be delayed.
Once a site is selected, city staff will secure funds for the project. The council last fall authorized Jordan to issue up to $6.5 million in bonds to finance the deck. The bonds would be repaid over 25 years using money collected from the downtown paid parking program.
Construction on the deck would likely begin in mid-2013 and end by late 2014.
What a waste of money.
Alright Coody, get over yourself.
I vote for both the East lot and the Theater lot ensuring parking for nor and future generations and it should be plenty of parking to turn the WAC parking area into a GREEN park exposing the creek and a trail hub for all the pedestrians.
So, we agree to build the WAC one-percenters a new parking deck and in return they decide to hold their board meetings in secret. Welcome to the Estate of Arkansas. Thanks Lioneld.
http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/08/15/walton-arts-center-requests-attorney-generals-opinion-on-public-status/
RE “So, we agree to build the WAC one-percenters a new parking deck”
See Question 5 at http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/projects/Downtown_Parking_Deck/Copy%20Of%20Background.cfm
Doesn’t anybody else read up on stuff anymore? The Internet is the great equalizer, and your tax dollars are paying to put information out there. Yet here you are, whining about inequality and spending– on the very Internet that can help you address your issues.
RE “Thanks Lioneld.”
While you are egesting expressions of gratitude, remember that Mr. Coody had the study done showing the projected need for a parking garage, and he took steps to set the thing in motion. Also remember that Mr. Coody still supports building a parking garage.
Dan Coody said we should re-evaluate the parking needs based on the WAC not building their facility here, and not rush ahead using 2008 data.
Dan Coody also stated that we wait until we can have a private developer commit to build a structure, incorporating a garage into the plans, and not depend solely on parking fees for a bland, non-descript structure.
Jordan is a joke.
RE “Dan Coody said we should re-evaluate the parking needs based on the WAC not building their facility here”
Mr. Coody also said that we do need a parking garage, and that he would build a parking garage; the only difference would be that his garage would be better, because it would have better liner buildings. He started the ball rolling in 2007.
RE “and not rush ahead using 2008 data.”
The MAB parking study was done in 2005. It projected the need for a parking garage even if the WAC never expanded. And remember– he was rushing ahead in 2007. I guess that’s one of the perks of serving during a good economy– you get to be visionary instead of hasty.
RE “Dan Coody also stated that we wait until we can have a private developer commit to build a structure, incorporating a garage into the plans”
And we all know how well private/public ventures work out for Mr. Coody and the rest of us. Otherwise, given the current hoo-ha over the supposed high price and inconvenience of paid parking, do you really want it to be in the control of an unaccountable private entity?
RE “not depend solely on parking fees for a bland, non-descript structure.”
The current proposal includes liner buildings. I agree that the parking garage should be buried amidst other uses. However, you should understand that this can be best accomplished only on the existing WAC lot, and a lot of people want that to become a park.
RE “Jordan is a joke.”
Yet more people laugh at Mr. Coody.
Since this whole deck is only for the WAC’s benefit, and the WAC doesn’t really want the East Lot, then I don’t know why we’re throwing it on this cluster by reopening that discussion. Or just maybe… some wise soul has figured out the best way to end this lunacy is to obfuscate the discussion.
I’m sure this will probably all end with us losing Grub’s on a gut feel. With no reason, justification, or inkling of how this will affect Dickson Street.
RE “With no reason, justification, or inkling of how this will affect Dickson Street.”
Reasons and justifications:
— Even if significant additional parking isn’t needed right this minute, or even next year, it will be needed.
— Interest rates for bonds– a significant part of the cost for any such project– are very low right now.
— Construction costs, though not as low as they were two years ago, are still relatively low, and lower now than they will be next year– providing more bang for the buck in construction.
— Garage parking will provide– at, we are told, the same price as surface parking is now– covered parking. Isn’t it nice to park in the shade during hot weather, or in a dry area during rainy and snowy weather? Good for you; good for your vehicle.
And here’s an inkling:
As for the effect of a parking garage, it should be good for Dickson Street, regardless of its location. (I prefer the WAC lot for a number of reasons.) When parking areas are stacked vertically, it frees up surface parking lots for other uses. Many, if not most, of the complaints about paid parking– complexity of the system and booting among them– are because of the private lots. A parking garage provides an incentive to build more retail and other uses on those troublesome private lots that are being held until developing them becomes more profitable. How could putting in more retail, restaurants and residences not improve Dickson Street, especially if this eliminates some of the private parking lots? And there would still be room for Grub’s.
For that magnitude of building, we’re going to need something better than the vague feeling that it will be needed at some point down the line. Additionally, just because something is on sale doesn’t mean you need it. $7 million dollars is a ton of money no matter how you spin it. Covered parking is nice, but I’d also like a Fayetteville Downtown Monorail, we could get that at a cheaper bond rating and construction cost, too, and I wouldn’t even have to park at all.
I do not associate the replacement of private parking lots with city owned lots to be a good thing. In my experience, the private lots are simpler than the city system (which has no graphical interface or foreign language options, twice I have had to come down to help international guests just figure out how to pay). The city has no business as a landlord of private for-profit establishments for the planned retail space in the new deck, we are not a private enterprise. Additionally, the cost of deck parking is invariably more expensive than open parking. How will that impact the bars, restaurants, and retail businesses? That’s not an automatic positive, the customer is going to have to pay more to park downtown. That would tend to mean less would come, not more. Especially since there’s no difficulty finding spots currently. Are we catering to the hordes of patrons driving around Dickson on Friday and Saturday night with bags of parking money who finally give up and limp home in frustration because they couldn’t find a spot to give it to?
This debate can go either way forever. The way to solve it is to put some facts behind it. We need a parking use study, and we need an economic impact assessment. Give us Data we can debate. Period. Otherwise we’re spending money frivolously, and at a grand scale. When I put my money down, I want to know what I’m buying, and the city money is my money.
RE “we’re going to need something better than the vague feeling that it will be needed at some point down the line.”
It’s not a vague feeling. It’s a fact. Especially if they eventually build the Hanging Gardens of Dickson Street megastructure that I have proposed, and fill in the remaining open lots with more stuff.
RE “just because something is on sale doesn’t mean you need it.”
Parking fees are dedicated to the project, and the funds accrue whether the garage is built or not. Didn’t Mr. Coody campaign against money-hoarding by the Jordan administration? The city saves money by building now rather than later, even if fund savings earn interest.
RE “In my experience, the private lots are simpler than the city system”
Note that I said they add to the complexity of the paid parking system. They add another kind of parking, with different prices, different rules and different ownership, to the overall system. I wish people would read as carefully as I write.
RE “(which has no graphical interface or foreign language options, twice I have had to come down to help international guests just figure out how to pay)”
That issue would be easy to address in a parking garage.
RE “The city has no business as a landlord of private for-profit establishments for the planned retail space in the new deck, we are not a private enterprise.”
The occupiable space in the garage will not necessarily be for private for-profit establishments– maybe The Attic could be a tenant, for example, and the WAC wants more office space– but I’ll bite anyway: why not?
RE “Additionally, the cost of deck parking is invariably more expensive than open parking.”
Invariably? The city has said that the rates will be the same, and payoff of the parking garage bonds was calculated at the current rates.
RE “That’s not an automatic positive”
It’s not an automatic negative, either. What little effect that paid surface parking has had on Dickson Street might well be ameliorated by the better amenity perception of covered parking. Since you think that anecdotal evidence is valuable: if I’m going to pay for parking, I’d prefer to park in a garage than on an open lot.
RE “the customer is going to have to pay more to park downtown.”
Not according to the city. But covered parking is a tangibly better product regardless.
RE “Especially since there’s no difficulty finding spots currently.”
I’m talking about the future. Have you no vision?
RE “Are we catering to the hordes of patrons driving around Dickson on Friday and Saturday night with bags of parking money who finally give up and limp home in frustration because they couldn’t find a spot to give it to?”
Hordes? Really? You apparently have no vision, but you certainly can exaggerate. Anyway, a parking garage would eliminate that problem, however great or small it actually is.
RE “This debate can go either way forever.”
There’s no need. The city is about to build a parking garage.
RE “The way to solve it is to put some facts behind it.”
You have some catching up to do on that score. But we’ll find out regardless.
RE ” I want to know what I’m buying,…”
We already know that you argue in favor of an inferior type of parking.
RE “…and the city money is my money.”
Not if you don’t use paid parking.
BONUS!
RE “$7 million dollars is a ton of money”
According to Investopedia:
“We may all have a different idea of what constitutes a “ton of money”, but according to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a ton of $1 bills amounts to $908,000 – nearly $1 million!
“If you’re talking about a ton of coins, then it’s a different story – a ton of quarters is worth $40,000, and one ton of pennies (363,000 pennies to be exact) is worth $3,630.”
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tonofmoney.asp
In other words, $7 million might be several tons of money. However, I talked to David Jurgens the other day, and the figure he used was, I believe, $5.5 million. It’s still a lot of money, of course.
Dude, you crack me up, but at least you rode your flaming argument down with some humor peppered in it. Lots of people aren’t such good sports and tend to get all nasty.
A. Of course, duh, you said it, must be a fact.
B. Yes, we should definitely blow it. Because it would be less effort to build a massive structure than find a good use.
C. ORlly? Blaming private lots for the parking issues that arose in the wake of the city installing their own paid parking system? We didn’t hear constant complaints before the paid system went in, because it wasn’t freaking confusing. Now we have multiple payment systems all bumping up against each other with boundaries that aren’t clearly defined. That’s on the city who installed the jacked up system that connects all these lots together with an incompatible payment scheme. The same $1 million system that has the acknowledged fatal flaw that it can’t handle large volumes of traffic, and has to be partially shut off so paid attendants can be brought in to man the lots during WAC. And then blame the private lots! Lol, with an awesome track record like this, nothing could possibly go wrong.
D. Mmm, yes. The old system sucks, we should definitely spend more on a new one.
E. “The city is not a private enterprise” is self explanatory. Chalk that one up to political differences, I guess, but many of us believe municipalities shouldn’t be commercial property managers.
F. You’re right, I’m sure the parking rates will never be raised over the entire planned 25 year payback period.
G. Study of Parking Needs 0. Shady Parking 1.
H. Consumer Parking Costs 0. Shady Parking 2. Well Played, Shady Parking
I. I don’t know you, your vision may also involve Helipads or mimes. Lets ask someone qualified to collect some data.
J. I detect your sarcasm detector needs calibration.
K. Of course, Fayetteville would obviously crumble without it.
L. Still waiting on those fact things. Especially the financial benefit part. Feel free to post ‘em when you find ‘em.
M. Damn you, Shady Parking!!! If only any other type of parking had something to offer that could hope to measure up to the endless merits of Shady Parking… Like sustainability, or cost effectiveness, or… something!
N. This is my city (actually, its our city). Any city money is our money. Which makes it mine by inclusion. I don’t like some of the rest of you included in that ‘our’ part wasting it.
O. Nice. The bonds are still $6.5 million. I exaggerated a ton of pennies in there.
RE “Dude, you crack me up, but at least you rode your flaming argument down with some humor peppered in it.”
Thank you. Nice of you to notice. Of course, there was lots of other stuff going on that you missed.
RE “Yes, we should definitely blow it. Because it would be less effort to build a massive structure than find a good use.”
The revenue from parking is designated for building a parking garage. There is no other use for it.
RE “RE “We didn’t hear constant complaints before”
You weren’t paying attention. Ever heard of Terry’s Towing?
RE ” Now we have multiple payment systems all bumping up against each other with boundaries that aren’t clearly defined.”
The city took the trouble to put signs at the entrances of private lots because the owners wouldn’t take the responsibility. You’re blaming the wrong people– just like the people who blame the city for booting cars. The multiple paying systems work well for different kinds of parking. If your mind is addled by the system, park in the same lot all the time and learn how to use that payment option. There is no good reason for a frequent user of the system to complain that it is confusing– no reason that applies to the system, anyway.
RE ” That’s on the city”
No, that’s on the owners of the private lots. The city negotiated with them to have a standardized system, but the owners wanted to charge more for parking than the city wanted the parking system to cost.
.RE “incompatible payment scheme.”
Not if you always park in a city lot.
RE “acknowledged fatal flaw that it can’t handle large volumes of traffic”
But didn’t you say earlier that we’re nowhere near parking capacity? Why is this a problem, then?
RE “paid attendants can be brought in to man the lots during WAC.”
Problem solved, then. The WAC pays for that, too.
RE “And then blame the private lots!”
Again, I pointed out– and you have acknowledged– that the private lots have the effect of making the parking system more complex.
RE ” The old system sucks, we should definitely spend more on a new one.”
The specific complaints you made would be addressed by a parking garage, so yes, we should.
RE “I’m sure the parking rates will never be raised over the entire planned 25 year payback period.”
So what? Price changes can occur without a garage as well. A lot can happen in twenty-five years, garage or no.
RE “I detect your sarcasm detector needs calibration.”
It was knocked out of adjustment by the hysteria waves in your post. I plan to recalibrate it and encase it in a hysteria-proof case this weekend.
RE “Still waiting on those fact things.”
The most important fact is that the city is going to build a parking garage. Be miserable about it if you must. But it is also a fact that the need for parking has grown, and it will continue to grow. There will be more people on Dickson Street in the future. For one example, the University is about to annex, by bribe or force, a piece of land north of campus, on which they will eventually build student housing. Those students will drive to Dickson Street because it’s too far to walk.
RE “Like sustainability, or cost effectiveness”
Parking lots increase ambient temperatures and add to the need for air conditioning in urban areas; they also create runoff that must be managed. Reducing parking lot size by, say, 60 to 80% seems sustainable. As for cost-effectiveness, have you ever heard of “highest and best use”? Hint: it isn’t parking lots.
RE “Any city money is our money. Which makes it mine by inclusion.”
Not this money. You only pay into it if you use paid parking, and it can be used only for a parking garage. I guess you should keep parking in those private lots.
RE “The bonds are still $6.5 million.”
$5.5 million, as I recall.
A. We agree on this one, thank you.
B. A fatalist I see.
C. I did. I also didn’t see town meetings among local business leaders and 30 news articles a year regarding Terry’s Towing.
D. I think the system should be accessible to all people. Like tourists, and game visitors. Not just locals.
E. Sure, all private enterprises should automatically agree with the city when they try to cut into their market.
F. Locals Only, dude.
G. I’m amazed about this one myself. It can’t even handle crowds that don’t fill Dickson. We have to have paid people to help it out every time Spam-a-Lot hits town. Which won’t be happening near so often now that the big show is going up to Bentonville.
H. Then how about the WAC go one further and pay for this deck they need then instead of asking us to do it?
I. That’s rich. The city has complicated a previously simple system, so the obvious answer is everyone else should shut up shop and let them handle it.
J. A fool throws money into a poor investment and fails, and then throws more for a grander effect.
K. I merely point out the falsity of your prior statement. If “so what” is the answer, then why say it in the first place?
L. Hi-five, Top Gun style.
M. Everyone keeps talking about this “fact” that parking needs are growing, and will continue. Even though the main focus of the WAC is moving up the road, oh, and BTW Bentonville is now in a wet county. Even with all the private under-filled decks and new decks moving into Dickson. Very simply, all I ask is that someone prove or verifty this “fact”. Do a parking study. Show me some data. So far we’ve heard nothing but assumptions.
N. Cost-effective also means not blowing money when you don’t need to. Which also contributes to sustainability, we sustain our money and our environmental impact by not digging a big ass hole in the ground and filling it with a couple floors of concrete.
O. This one isn’t sinking in, but I’ll go again, as I’m trying to be inclusive. It doesn’t matter where the money came from, or is earmarked for, or any other exclusive nonsense. You keep trying to separate us from our city government and funding by claiming this is outside our purview as citizens. ALL city funding is our funding, ALL city decisions are our decisions. There is no separation for special people, special needs, or special funding in the Fayetteville city government that transcends the citizens of Fayetteville.
P. Recall as you like, but a few seconds on google and you’ll find the authorized bonds were $6.5 million.
one word: lithium
RE “A fatalist I see.”
No, a realist. That was the justification for paid parking in the first place. You wouldn’t want the city to back out of a promise, would you?
RE “I also didn’t see town meetings among local business leaders and 30 news articles a year regarding Terry’s Towing.”
That’s because the business leaders’ cars weren’t being towed, and towing was old news. There were plenty of complaints about parking before paid parking. The papers don’t report booting, either. The change from free parking to paid parking was big news. Any major change like that is. There were also complaints of students parking in store lots all day, residents not being able to park, and Dickson Street patrons not being able to find a parking place.
RE “I think the system should be accessible to all people.”
There’s nothing about the parking system that is too arcane for the understanding of the average driver. There are plenty of options– the gated lots are bone-simple– and there is a free lot on West Avenue. And again, a parking garage will address that issue.
RE “Sure, all private enterprises should automatically agree with the city when they try to cut into their market.”
I’m not suggesting that they should have agreed; I’m just pointing out that their refusal is the reason there is more than one set of parking rates. Should the city have matched their higher rates, just for the sake of simplicity?
RE “Locals Only, dude.”
Anybody may park in the city-owned lots on Dickson Street.
RE “I’m amazed about this one myself. It can’t even handle crowds that don’t fill Dickson.”
The only lot I know of that uses valets during WAC events is the WAC lot, which fills up during performances. Again, the WAC has addressed that problem. I know of no other lot that has had this problem.
RE “Then how about the WAC go one further and pay for this deck they need then instead of asking us to do it?”
See http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/projects/Downtown_Parking_Deck/Copy%20Of%20Background.cfm Question 5.
RE “The city has complicated a previously simple system…”
The system was simple because it was free parking. Any pay-parking arrangement is a complication compared to free parking. Even parking meters at every space is a complication.
RE “…so the obvious answer is everyone else should shut up shop and let them handle it.”
Not at all. People should stop blaming the city for the complication.
RE “A fool throws money into a poor investment and fails, and then throws more for a grander effect.”
Building has always been part of the paid-parking system. Free parking is a poor investment. See
http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
RE “I merely point out the falsity of your prior statement.”
My statement– that the city has said the rates for parking in the garage will stay the same as for lot parking– is true. See the AccessFayetteville link, Question 8. Your feeling that prices will increase, on the other hand, is a projection.
RE “Everyone keeps talking about this “fact” that parking needs are growing, and will continue.”
See Question 1 at the AccessFayetteville link above. The parking study is linked there.
RE “Cost-effective also means not blowing money when you don’t need to.”
But you are only assuming that it is not needed. People who know what they’re talking about say it is. I’ll take their expertise over your resistance to the idea.
RE “It doesn’t matter where the money came from, or is earmarked for, or any other exclusive nonsense.”
Of course it does. There will be paid parking. Period. There will be revenue from parking. That revenue– and no other revenue– is earmarked for construction of a parking garage, and for nothing else. (See AccessFayetteville link, Question 12.) If you don’t pay to park, you don’t pay for building a parking garage. If you do pay to park, you will pay for a parking garage because that is what the city promised, but it doesn’t change the cost of parking. If you don’t like the garage and want to show The Man a thing or two, don’t use paid parking.
RE “ALL city funding is our funding,”
Not the parking garage funding, if you don’t use paid parking.
“ALL city decisions are our decisions.”
The decision to build a parking garage was made as a part of the paid parking decision. There is no pending decision on whether to build it– only on where and when.
RE ” Recall as you like, but a few seconds on google and you’ll find the authorized bonds were $6.5 million.”
A Fayetteville Flyer article from 21 November 2011 indeed says “council members voted unanimously on Tuesday to authorize Mayor Lioneld Jordan to issue up to $6.5 million in bonds to finance a downtown parking deck”; however, see the AccessFayetteville link, Question 7:
“7) How much will the deck cost to build?
“Design and construction are estimated to cost approximately $5.5 million. Precise costs will not be known until a construction contract is awarded.”
That is the number that David Jurgens gave me the other day.
I think they should just build the southern half of the WAC lot and keep the Northern half open until they get done with it then work on the North afterwards
Is it just me, or is the WAC lot empty most of the time? So why do we need a parking deck?
Didn’t the study (feasibility 2005) on the City’s web site say we need a parking deck for the 2,500 seat WAC theater and the big condos going up on Dickson?
http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/projects/documents/Downtown_Parking_Deck/MAB%20Parking%20Deck%20Study%20-%20without%20error%20page.pdf
Dickson Street Parking Deck Feasibility Study, Revised Final Report – August 30, 2005
The parking forecasts assume a 2,500 seat theater. It isn’t being built in Fayetteville. They also assume some condo developments that haven’t happened as proposed. Based on these non-things, it was forecast that a 1,200 space deck could be financially viable.
Is there a more recent study?
The study also says that a smaller parking garage will be needed even if the WAC doesn’t expand. A couple of condo developments have happened that haven’t been occupied yet, and there will be more development as the economy continues to improve. And nobody is planning a 1,200-space parking garage. See http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/projects/Downtown_Parking_Deck/Copy%20Of%20Background.cfm Question 3. The target now is three hundred spaces.
Dang– I left you hanging.
RE “Is there a more recent study?”
As far as I can tell from conversations with various city officials, the city continues to rely on the 2005 study, and has not updated it. It would be interesting to see what an update would indicate, but it would probably cost $40,000 to get the study updated– even if that is possible. At least Martin/Alexiou/Bryson is still in business.
RE “E. Jester”
Good catch.
Maybe if we move the WAC to South Pass.
While I don’t see the impending need for a parking deck by any means, I will tell my councilmen that I would vote for the Theatre Lot if it means the possibility of turning the current WAC lot into a public space. That is truly an opportunity that should not be missed.
David, you need better spacing. Your thoughts are hard to read. Thanks management.
I do what I can. When I add more spacing, people complain even more about the length of the post. My suggestion to them: don’t read the long spaces.
The real issue is that no one is able to read long . (or short ones either)
These threads should be turned into a weekly meeting at a coffee shop.
It’s hard for people to follow, or care about these back and forth volleys of words and nonsense, normally only between a few parties. Plus, it’d support a local business, and generic community meetings are generally boring.
Just no punching… Although, add punching and name calling and it could turn into a reality TV show, now there’e a way to get AP money.
RE “These threads should be turned into a weekly meeting at a coffee shop.”
That is an interesting idea. I would like to meet some of the other people who post here. But it couldn’t be on Dickson Street, because of the paid parking.
What if the Fayetteville Flyer started charging for parking?
I think these threads are extensions of conversations already happening at local coffee shops.
So, 5.5 millon for 300 spaces? Is 18K per space a resonable price? Also, how much does the city net on parking fees per month? The payment for the bond should be over 20k a month.
Why not build it with a first floor of comercial space…like the one built by the university…put more income generating space downtown….then put parking on upper levels… do it in the wac lot …take space that has little income production value and make it revenue building…plus more parking. on top of that make the building look like historic structures from the outside and you have taken an ubly lot and turned it into something of beauty….
I think that this is an issue that became a political club for Coody and Jordan…both men fail to point out that the ball was dropped a long time ago..maybe if the city had built this years ago we would not have lost the WAC to Bentonville…. Neither guy is without blame… the focus needs to be on building for the future…I wish that Jordan could realize that Coody has some good ideas and utilize those ideas for the benefit of Fayetteville….It is sad that the state of affairs in Fayetteville is turning to such a degree that our politicians try to attack each other, even on good ideas…..We elected Jordan, but that doesnt mean that Coody is not an asset to Fayetteville…. Why is it one or the other…we are a community struggling to redefine who we are in the face of an ever changing world.