My take on the Harrisburg parking deal, Part 1
July 2, 2008
Since the deal was announced to lease the Harrisburg public parking garage system, I’ve held off on chiming in so that I could watch the scene unfold from the sidelines. This does not occur everyday, and I didn’t want to be the first into the fray.
The noisy and growing Anti-Reed faction was quick out of the gates to denounce the whole idea as just another attempt by our mayor to send our city to financial ruin for personal gain and to cover past blunders. This squawking is of no surprise. Everyone, including the mayor, knows that there is a a vocal contingent in opposition of his every move. I appreciate that they are presenting as a counterpoint to the Mayor’s rosy picture. But there is merit in this proposal that should be considered.
The city would abdicate virtually all control of the 11 parking garages and parking lots, as well as the parking meters. In return, we as a city would receive $215 million in one lump sum, plus additional annual payments. This is not pocket change. Harrisburg is a city that has been burdened with financial troubles for many years. That $215 million is real money that would immediately enter the city coffers and change the financial picture. According to the mayor’s proposal, this would include major improvements to city services, such as the immediate hire of 15 additional police officers. For a community that has been struggling with crime recently, additional cops on the beat could make a real difference.
There are drawbacks to this. Parking rates surely will rise, but this was bound to happen anyway. There is troubling language in the contract that would allow Harrisburg Public Parking (HPP), the leasee, to place meters on residential streets. Rates could be increased astronomically, and vaguely defined “compensation events” would require the city to pay HPP. HPP representatives claim that they have no intention to double rates overnight or put meters up and down Green Street, but they could if they chose to. These sections of the contract are unacceptable to the people of Harrisburg who use these streets daily.
For these technical reasons, I am opposed to the deal as the language stands. The residents of Harrisburg deserve contract language that preserves the residential feeling of our neighborhoods and the living economy of our city.
The idea of leasing the parking facilities is a good one, given the current state of affairs. We as a city need to consider this openly. We should demand of elected officials not to scrap the deal, but to renegotiate parts of the contract. We should put the promises of HPP into the legal, binding document.
If the lease agreement kept meters off of residential streets, and only allowed for modest, realistic rate increases, I would be in favor of it. Bankruptcy for the city is not an option, and this is the best idea proposed to get the city on its feet. We need to consider this now.
I’ll rest for the night, now that I’ve drawn a line in the sand. I’m on stay-at-home vacation until Tuesday, and I need to celebrate. In the next few days, I plan to post part 2, and perhaps 3, of my take on the Harrisburg parking deal. I’m just getting started, and I think that there is much about this topic that needs to be discussed.
July 3, 2008 at 9:55 am
Thank you for your reasoned, objective and intelligent comments on this Josh. They underscore the kind of debate and review that this proposal and issue should be generating.
In that the meter issue seems to be a frequent point of contention, it is important to note that City Council retains all approval rights over anything having to do with meters..where to place new ones, what hours they operate, what amounts can be charged and the amount of any fines for overtime parking. Council would have to receive a request from the proposed concessionaire HPP and take action on it, after the normal Sunshine process. It would not be possible for HPP to simply and arbitrarily install meters wherever they wanted, or make any other changes to the on-street meters. This is one of the bigger pieces of disinformation that the naysayers have been pushing, in order to instill fear in the residents.
Now the argument that HPP could declare a ‘compensation event’ in the event Council refuses to do so, and would then be eligible to receive some kind of ‘relief’ from the city, is also somewhat fallacious. Any dispute over such matters between HPP and Council, or even HPA, in the event a rate increase request for the garages from HPP was denied, must go to arbitration by an objective third party arbitrator to decide. By signing the agreement, all of the involved parties agree to that form of dispute resolution, rather than by suing in County Court, for example. The Arbitrator’s decision would then be binding, and trust me when I say that no arbitrator in this state would rule in favor of an unwarranted and publicly-opposed action by HPP. If your children and grandchildren are as active and intelligent and engaged as many on this forum, that’ll never happen.
So, the scenario everyone seems to fear so much simply isn’t possible.
But let’s look at the bigger picture. 75 years ago, there were no parking garages. Does anyone really think that such facilities will be around 75 years from now in the same condition or circumstance? More likely they’ll be personal jetpack stations or other alternatively fueled vehicle storage areas with recharging or refueling stations.
And, does anyone really believe that the Midtown area will be just as it is now in 75 years? With Pennsylvania’s antiquated laws, Harrisburg cannot grow beyond its current boundaries, and is unable to annex surrounding communities as is the case with most western U.S. cities. Said inelastic boundaries mean that the downtown and central business district will have to expand in the decades to come. And while there’s plenty of room for now in South Harrisburg, whether it’s the Mayor’s proposed Southgate project or something else, inevitably the business district will move into the Midtown. Meters will then become a necessity.
This won’t happen in 5 or 10 years, but 20 or more years down the road, who knows?. It’ll be up to those in charge at that time to determine where, when and how do the residents still living in the area get accommodated for their parking. Who’s to say a circumstance such as the ban of motor vehicles, or heavy licensing fees to get into the central business district won’t occur by then, much as central London has done today. All kinds of possibilities exist.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I felt it important to state the facts in this case. The fear mongering of the misinformed on this forum drives me crazy sometimes, and its obvious you haven’t bought into the chicken-little mindset that permeates this forum and community. I strongly support this lease – over the life of the deal it means over $2.1 billion in direct revenue and avoided costs to the city. If these revenues can be wisely spent and invested into our community, the economic impact will be even more profound.
Frankly we need a takeover of these garages. They are poorly maintained, as any downtown worker who has stepped in the puke or beer cups left by nighttime revelers can attest. The employees are sullen, unfriendly and unmotivated, making customers feel like they’re bothering them, and their operations are a joke. It’s a shame HPP is being forced to accept this workforce. You only have to look at how the Laz people currently running the Crowne Plaza’s parking conduct themselves compared to the Parking Authority employees to see the dramatic difference.
July 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I enjoyed reading your post. I am not going to bother responding to Token18’s comments (as I have on pennlive already). However, I must respectfully disagree with a few points you raised.
I won’t shy away from disclosing I am not a fan of the Mayor. But I do not think that because I do not like how he has handled the responsibilities of the office precludes him from having good ideas. A lease of the garages may be a good idea.
The problem is that I do not think the HPA can legally hand over the remaining millions to the city after it retires its own debts. The City cannot pay down its general debt with the proceeds of a lease with the HPA.
I could be wrong about the legality but my research indicates to me (even though I am not a lawyer) that this cannot be done. If I am wrong than your argument gains great merit I think. Retiring debt of the City is a good idea. This just isn’t a way to do that.
I agree with you that everything we have been promised by the HPP needs to be part of the legally binding contract. It needs to be in writing.
I think that a lease can be negotiated that does benefit Harrisburg. There are probably other solutions to enable the city to legally obtain the revenue from a lease. Perhaps the HPA can transfer its assets to the city and dissolve itself, and then the City can lease the assets it now has. But the set up now does not legally allow for it. We should not look the other way with the law in order to benefit, we should make the law work for us.
I agree we could use more police, but I think we can be more fiscally prudent in order to achieve that goal. The lack of police does not necessitate a lease. It necessitates more police and there are other solutions.
Lastly, I think the majority of people are looking at the asset of the garages and parking in a way that isn’t most beneficial to the city. What if instead of taking money from the HPA each year the HPA lowered its rates. Maybe they only lower meter rates. Maybe they can allow for free garage use during daytime hours on the weekends.
Lower rates would promote growth by lowering the cost to go downtown. If it cost me less money to go downtown, and I could stay longer for cheaper, I would likely not only spend more time downtown, but spend more money at the shops. Certainly there is a benefit to that.