Confusing Rules to be Sorted by Retailer’s Scanning Technology
Despite a high, six-figure settlement relating to allegations that its cash register scanning technology was overcharging customers, the San Jose City Council has decided to move forward with a multi-year contract for the Walgreens drugstore chain to manage its new downtown parking fee structure.
“Keeping track of the new rules is more complicated than keeping track of baby Jesus figurines,” said Abi Maghamfar, the Redevelopment Association’s parking liaison. “The only way to make sense of the algebraic formulas was to hire Walgreens or Team San Jose…...........................…exactly.”
The Gordian knot of fee vs. free parking downtown has a majority of restaurants and retailers fearing that a new structure will further discourage patrons from visiting the core, especially after the city plummeted to third safest big city in the U.S. this year.
“Do you think it is a coincidence that parking fees and crime went up almost simultaneously?” asked Steve Fleischer, general manager at P. F. Chang’s. “I think not.”
A representative from Walgreens promises that if anyone catches them overcharging for parking they will pay for the cover charge at any nightclub of their choosing.
What? No mention of me, no joke at my expense?
Speak, Forrest, speak…we all need a laugh in these tough times.
Free parking or parking fee revenues are always controversial. Look at Ivor Samson, the attorney for Cedar Fair. Samson is insisting that Cedar Fair get the parking lot revenues from 49er games if the stadium is built in Santa Clara. By the way, Ivor has not told the City Councul that his firm also represents the St. Louis Rams.
Humans tend to go towards the path of least resistance. Having to pay for parking is, a nightly “mini-tax” that no one wants to pay.
Thursday’s MERC editorial called for Reed to, “establish better diplomatic relations with the South Bay Labor Council and it’s head, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins.” What possible contribution can “Labor” make to the city’s budget crisis? Many feel that they’re a major source of the problem, given the many expensive concessions that they have received over the past decade.
It is not against the law to hire non-union employees/firms to do work for the city…it’s just against “policy,” and the desires of the city council majority that are placed (and kept) in office by Labor, et al.
Pete Campbell
Pete
Easy to talk about labor’s “many expensive concessions ” but what about many wasted tax millions given corporations, developers, stores, restaurants, sports teams and badly managed arts, museums and non profits each year?
#5 You’re right…don’t get me started about the Taj Mahal. Don’t know if the number has changed, but I once calculated that the average yearly payment on the thing (debt + principal) was $26 million! Ironically, that’s what next year’s deficit is projected to be. The signature building “makes a statement,” but that’s about it. Form was placed before function, ceremony over substance…but isn’t the rotunda cool!? And, are they stilll keeping all 18 floors lit at night? I thought we were trying to be GREEN? Thank former Mayor Gonzales for delivering perhaps the most expensive public building west of the Mississippi, and maybe the greatest “waste of space” in modern architectural history!
Pete Campbell
#6 Pete, Question for you.
(1) Sounds like a big dollar number Pete, $26 million a year to service the debt the new City Hall created. Blame it on Gonzales, O.K. but Pete who were the leaders of our city that were behind him, he had support, pushing to move the City Hall down town ??
(2) Pete are we about to go one better than $26 million a year. At least with the $26 million came a state of the art building with no thought of “green” buildings.
Our leaders, our movers and shakers, political insiders are “pushing us” into the BART system with a membership cost of $30 million a year for the next 30 years. What do we get for the $30 million a year for the next 30 years…nothing physiscal, nothing we can “see—feal—touch”, Just a simple membership in BART. Is this a smart move ??
How are we going to pay for the next “Big Dig Tunnel” under our city? Where is the money going to come from for both the direct and indirect costs of this huge project?
The insiders in Boston told the residents of that city that their 3 mile tunnel was going to cost $2.5 billion and it came in at $almost $15 billion just for direct costs and costs are still climbing. Question Pete,” they are telling us our BART project is going to cost us $4.9 billion ( without the membership costs) , do you think we can believe our insiders too on their costs estimates, $4.9 billion ??
#1 Forrest,
In all sincerity I believe the City Government is on our side…and the government is not out to get us. I do have a deep feeling though that “Corporations are out to get us”. The City officials should be our friend and protect us from corporate greed.
The question we all have about our political leaders is,“before the City Council decides what to do, they pay attention or give thought to what citizens think? We ask ourselves do we believe we have a great deal, some or no opportunity to participate in discussions that effect us and our neighborhoods. “Just one example would be the condition of our city roadways, when we pay taxes and are asked for a special tax to fix the roads, does that money go to repair roads or does it ($$$) get moved over to some political project that doesn`t have anything to do with roads?
This is why I believe Corporate Greed is going to sink our city. Things arn`t good here.
Richard #7:
I’m not sure BART is coming to San Jose anytime soon. Heard on the radio that the 1/8 sales tax might not go on the ballot until 2010. Apparently, the state will not release any more money until it can be demonstrated that the annual operating costs for BART (around $45 million a year) can be funded.
Regarding your question about who supported the fancy city hall at the time, the city council accepted a “bogus” report that dismissed alternative city hall projects as being too expensive. AND, the Mercury News didn’t cover the story. Had they done so, the people of San Jose would have learned that the authors of the city’s report applied the high construction costs of the Meier designed building to their analysis of the old city hall site. In essence, they “cooked the books!” It’s all there in black and white for anyone to read. (corrupt politicians and a lazy press produced the 18 story hood ornament at 4th and Santa Clara!)
Pete Campbell
Pete I`m not against Rapid Transit. But the more I hear about BART the more I`m opposed to BART. I believe the people pushing it are out for their own financial goals, mainly developers and large corporations that own property along the BART corridor.
Quickly,” Alameda County can build the BART system to the south and it won`t cost them $30 million a year for thirty years because they are already a “Member of BART”. San Jose is not a Member and the cost for us to join and become a member is $30 million a year for thirty years.
My guess is Oakland has had enough of BART and their experience with the system`s cost has told them enough is enough.
San Jose doesn`t need BART, we need to fix our own transportation problems.
Read the front page article of the Mercury news from this week, December 29th titled, “THE ROADS WE HATE MOST”. This is about the top 12 freways we hate the most, they are all in San Jose/Santa Clara County, the I-880 corridor didn`t make the top 12 list.
The real problem is we haven`t seen real problems yet ! With all this construction of high density housing that is underway especially along I-280 and Hwy 87 and Hwy 85 things are going to get worst.
I think VTA officals have lost their focus. We need to put San Jose First.
Insiders will tell you anthing you want to here. Didn’t the enviornmental impact report on Santana Row say it wouldn’t create any problems with regard to traffic. Take a look you can’t move out there. It’s always the same. They tell you what they think you need to hear.
#6 Pete
I have recieved a correction from a friend online regarding my statement that “membership for San Jose to join BART was $30 million a year for 30 years”.
Really not a correction but a clarification, $30 million a year was the old number before we decided to do the “Big Dig”. The correct number I`m told is $50 million a year for 30 years.
Seems this amount of money ($50 million a year times 30 years) would help the BART people out of their financial problems.