By Richard Bailey
How much will the new paid parking at Balboa Park, the Zoo, and the increased meters rates actually generate for the City? More importantly, will it even make a dent in the city’s structural deficit?
San Diego just raised parking rates on two fronts: (1) higher rates and longer hours at existing meters including $10/hour “special event” pricing around Petco Park, and (2) the start of paid parking in Balboa Park, including the zoo lot under a pending lease amendment.
City budget documents and the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) say the meter changes are expected to add $18.4 million in FY26 (about $9.6M from doubling the base rate, $6.3M from special-event pricing, and $2.6M from extended hours/Sundays). The mayor’s FY26 budget message also plugs about $11.0 million more from launching paid parking in Balboa Park.
Together, that’s $29.4 million in new revenue for FY26.
Since spring, the Balboa Park number has crept higher. City officials now publicly estimate $15.5 million in FY26 (reflecting an earlier start and the zoo lot coming online), which would lift the total parking haul to $33.9 million.
For context, last fiscal year the city’s budget pegged meter revenue at $9.6 million before the rate hike took effect. Historically, 45% of net meter revenue was reinvested in neighborhoods through Community Parking Districts under Council Policy 100-18. However, when the Council doubled meter rates in January 2025, it waived sharing the incremental increase with the districts – so the added funds won’t return to communities; they’ll backfill General Fund expenditures instead.
So, will $29–34 million fix San Diego’s deficit? Not even close. The City’s Five-Year Financial Outlook shows a baseline structural shortfall of $258.2 million in FY26 and $217.6 million in FY27 – that’s the ongoing gap between normal revenues and costs, before one-time maneuvers.
In other words, even the rosier parking scenario barely chips away at a hole that’s 7 to 9 times larger.
Here’s why you should care: a $10/hour Petco Park meter or a new Balboa Park daily fee means it costs more to go on a date downtown, take your kids to the zoo, or meet your bridge club in the park.
But while nickel-and-diming residents for $30-ish million a year makes San Diego less affordable, it won’t solve the city’s $200-plus-million structural deficit. The only real fix is a leaner City Hall through organizational restructuring, a refocus on core services, and performance-based management.
Until that happens, San Diego inches closer to a financial crisis, not because we pay too little, but because City Hall spends too much in the wrong places.
Richard Bailey is a former mayor of Coronado and a local San Diego business owner.
I am not going to defend the fiscal responsibility of the City of San Diego but this is a lot of tough talk coming from the former mayor of a city that collects over 40% more tax revenue per capita than the City of San Diego. Maybe Richard Bailey should have lowered the tax burden on residents and visitors to Coronado when he was there?
City of San Diego revenue for 2023 was $4.4b with a population of 1.36m so that’s 3.2k revenue per person.
City of Coronado revenue for 2023 was $100m with a population of 22k so that’s 4.5k revenue per person.
Hi Greg – fair point mentioning the disparity in rev per capita between the two cities.
Respectfully, I’d offer Coronado’s per capita expenses are also higher bc we have fewer residents to spread costs over functions that are not necessarily population dependent.
Ultimately, the same budgetary principles should apply to both cities, but San Diego seems to be ignoring them.
Hey Richard who did you vote for for President in 2024? I saw the conversation below and since you’re here posting I think it would be nice for you to set it straight.
Thanks.
Hey why is the progressive OB Rag lifting up Richard Bailey, the Trump supporting, Tucker Carlson guest starring, Republican mayor of Coronado to talk about San Diego issues? Gross.
First you say, “thanks,” and then an hour later question our integrity. We’ll work with Republicans and anybody who is not a trumper and we have no evidence that Bailey is one. Hell, we’ll work with a 5-star general if they work against trump. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bill B.
Thank you for featuring Richard Bailey, he always provides a well-reasoned argument.
Here he is on Tucker. https://x.com/RichardPBailey_/status/1631840510766899200
Here he is endorsing Ted Cruz in 2016 – https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article71240132.html
Here he is refusing to talk bad about Trump – https://patch.com/california/san-diego/politics-report-dont-ask-richard-bailey-trump-or-recall
Here he is on Fox AGAIN – https://x.com/RichardPBailey_/status/1671581546975993856
And again – https://x.com/RichardPBailey_/status/1665822072914755587
And again – https://x.com/RichardPBailey_/status/1661824574470627367 (this time saying Coronado, an island, solved homelessness)
Yeah, definitely not a Trumper at all. Frank this is so gross from you, is your hatred of Todd more valuable than your morals of who you’re joining forces with?
Stop calling yourself progressive. Between supporting Linda Luckas’ republican D2 run in 2022, stopping affordable housing in Famosa Slough and more, this is a reactionary website.
Bill, I looked at each link you provided, and none of them have Bailey endorsing Trump — in fact he backed Cruz in 2016. He does have right of center views on some things. But he’s not this rabid trumper MAGAist. So, again, we posted one op-ed of his. In your eyes, that makes us “turncoats” in some kind of litmus test that only you have. Hey, but thanks for your insights.
Why don’t you ask him who he voted for, you obviously have his email.
You post non-stop about the dangers of Trump and the damage the GOP is doing to this country and yet you allow a card carrying member of the party to write for this outlet. Unreal.
You’re the one being “unreal.” You’ve sent us no evidence Bailey is a trumper; he did endorse Cruz, but that was in 2016 when even Cruz hated trump. If you can’t work with Republicans who are not trumpist, then you’re squeezing yourself into a tiny corner. One op-ed doesn’t mean he’s writing for the Rag. Get real. Your holier-than-thou approach is a real turnoff. Good luck with it.
I do not agree with Bill B’s litmus test stuff, but Richard Bailey does seem to support or at least defend the high-level policies of Donald Trump. Doesn’t mean you can’t agree with some of his ideas.
His response to Scott Lewis at 32:00 until about 34:00 makes it pretty obvious.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5xt0HEm2mEHM9inGtXf3Rt
Greg, thanks for the link; I listened to more than 5 minutes of the interview; he stated it would be okay if Trump didn’t achieve his goal of deporting 20 million people; that he resigned from the local Republican party because he didn’t like the direction it was going; he opposed the Carl DeMaio wing of the local GOP — DeMaio is the most trumpian local GOP politician. So, it’s not all that clear.
But in the end, Richard’s views will have to stand on their own, especially if he chooses to toss his hat in one of the local rings. Again, however, his post here is more on policy and not partisan political.
I was focused on former Mayor Bailey calling the policies of the Trump administration broadly popular, although he did take issue with the details of their implementation. I don’t think people hating Carl DeMaio is indicative of anything. Hating Carl DeMaio seems to be a non-partisan uniting issue.
Are you really “Bill B” or are you “Jim Hoover” — the name attached to your earlier comments?
Great article on a non-partisan subject we all care about! Thanks for including his viewpoint which reflects mine too, no matter what our national political bent is. This is a local topic. Keep it local.
No matter which side he’s on, this is a good piece on the parking issue. Take it for what it is. I think we can all come together to hate the way the City is managing its budget by tacking on more fees and charges to the citizens while no cutting staff expenses sufficiently. No one in office who votes for this should ever be voted in to another public office again.
Todd Gloria covers-up the big elephant in the room. The pension mess. The city of San Diego’s pension deficit is a $3.4 billion shortfall, with the pension plan being 74% funded as of May 2025. This underfunding contributes to budget deficits, with the city facing a projected $170 million deficit in 2025 and a total of $1.03 billion in deficits from 2026 to 2030, exacerbated by rising pension costs and the undoing of a voter-approved reform.