By Kate Callen
City Hall fiascoes in San Diego follow the same playbook. Elected officials rush into decisions that benefit people important to them. They seem bewildered when their choices detonate. Then they shrug and start planning their next political campaign.
Six Councilmembers – Joseph LaCava, Jen Campbell, Marni von Wilpert, Kent Lee, Henry Foster III, and Sean Elo-Rivera – adhered to the playbook November 18 by voting “Yes” for the detested Balboa Park parking fees. In essence, they chose to inflict pain on their weary constituents so they could protect the jobs of their cherished staff.
Two Councilmembers, Vivian Moreno and Stephen Whitburn, voted “No” to side with the public. And a third, Raul Campillo, voted “No” with a blistering takedown of how the city government has breached its fiduciary duty by refusing to curb its spending.
Campillo also echoed the concerns of two dozen public speakers: What if the new fees reduce park attendance, drive down park revenues, and generate less-then-projected funding?
After toying with higher fees, the Council settled on charging residents $100 and non-residents $300 for yearly permits. The original estimated revenue of $12.5 million this fiscal year would have helped shrink the $350-million budget deficit. The revised estimated revenue of $2.9 million to $4 million won’t make a dent.
Campbell, Lee, and Foster had the good sense to say nothing before casting their “No” votes. The other three should have followed their example.
As usual, Council President LaCava just wanted to get the whole thing over with. Since the idea had already been debated, he said, “we owe it to operations to take an up-or-down vote on the proposal that is in front of us.”
Von Wilpert painstakingly teed up City staff to “assure us that this [new] funding will be spent in the Park.” They eagerly complied. That has been a major selling point for the new fees. And it is a cruel deception.
The new fees will not increase the funds the City allocates for the park. They will replace those funds. Every dollar in parking fees that is spent on the Park will free up a dollar the City should have spent on the Park. That dollar can now be spent on other things, like creating new City Hall management positions.
Elo-Rivera once again took to the stage to deliver a bombastic performance. He rebuked critics who have called for a reduction in the city workforce. “We never have folks show up here and say they want fewer firefighters, fewer lifeguards, fewer librarians,” he thundered.
No, Mr. Elo-Rivera, folks never say that. Folks say they want fewer City apparatchiks earning six-figure salaries. As the Union-Tribune reported in July, “the Municipal Employees Association stressed that there are more than five times as many high-paid middle managers known as ‘program coordinators’ and ‘program managers’ at the city as there were a decade ago.”
Moreno decried “the multiple rate increases San Diegans have taken on in the last few months.” Charging the new parking fees, she said, “is asking low-income seniors and families living on fixed incomes to pay more into the system and essentially get less.”
Whitburn voted against the fees “on principle. This feels like an admission charge to Balboa Park, and that rubs people the wrong way.”
Campillo began by asking staff basic due diligence questions:
- How much will the City spend on verifying residential status? The vendor (chosen “informally”) will charge $5 per resident.
- Was market research conducted to help set permit prices? Um, no.
- Was an economic analysis done to determine the impact on sales taxes if fewer people visit the Park? “We don’t have that level of analysis.”
Campillo then proceeded to dismantle his colleagues’ justification for the fees. The others looked stricken. Members of the public routinely call out city leaders for mendacity. Members of the Council almost never do.
Here are excerpts from Campillo’s remarks:
“Charging for parking at one of San Diego’s most important assets is a bad idea. It will have unintended consequences that will undermine the very purpose of introducing these fees. We’re rushing to collect money instead of focusing on improving the experience which would bring in more visitors. Charging more money for the same product communicates to the public that we might be wasting or mismanaging their money.”
“The whole budget process of plugging a $350-million budget hole was supposed to be about living within our means. But what the City keeps doing is living within our residents’ means. We haven’t looked inward to scrutinize our spending before turning to the taxpayers. When City Hall fails to do this, we undermine the public’s trust, and we weaken the integrity of the entire budget process.”
“We owe our residents a budget built on accountability. Instead of tightening our own belt, the City is tightening the belts of the very people we’re supposed to serve. We’re shifting the responsibility away from internal reform and placing the entire burden on folks who want to visit Balboa Park. We have to stop making our city government’s budget problems into every San Diegan’s problem.”
“As fewer people spend their money at Balboa Park, the institutions will see their revenues drop. They’ll be faced with two options: raise their prices, which means inflation, or reduce their workforces, which means job losses. Chances are they’ll do a little bit of both. A policy that causes inflation and job losses will never have my support, particularly as it devastates one of our best assets, Balboa Park.”
Another great accounting of what happened, Kate.
You wrote “The revised estimated revenue of $2.9 million to $4 million won’t make a dent.”
You are correct, for sure.
Was there any language in the motion about how long the fees they are setting now will remain unchanged? Or how often they can raise them? Unfortunately, for me, this reads like a typical public project wherein they announce a cost that turns out to be half the actual cost, that they knew about in the first place.
If a yearly pas costs $100 what does it cost for one day? I can’t find that in any of these articles. Most people don’t go to the park every day. I may not go to the park ever again unless I have to, but I am curious about what the charge would be for one day. Can anyone help me on this?
John, we reporters have skipped over the daily fees because they are unbelievably tangled. The City says “hourly and daily rates … will vary depending on the location of the lot and its proximity to the central park attractions.” And they do mean “vary.” There will be four tiers of fees for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 lots plus metered in-park roads. And lot rates will be bifurcated into resident and non-resident rates.
Let’s say you’re a resident visiting the park for a few hours. In the close-in Level 1 lots, you can pay $5 for up to 4 hours or $8 for the day. A non-resident would have to pay double, $10 for up to 4 hours and $16 for the day. Here’s the catch: How will parking enforcement know by looking at your parked car that you’re a resident? This probably means that even residents who don’t want annual or monthly permits would need to obtain some kind of placard to prove their status and save on parking fees. And, of course, they would have to pay for the placard.
The City tries to untangle the parking fee mess on “Inside San Diego,” a reservoir of press releases that masquerades as a news website. The link to the page about Balboa Park parking fees is below. The Rag will follow this closely to keep readers informed and also, honestly, because it is so much damn fun to write about this buffoonery.
https://www.insidesandiego.org/city-establishes-parking-pass-rates-balboa-park#:~:text=Today%20the%20San%20Diego%20City,for%20the%20first%20three%20hours.
Thank you Kate, for your response. It is unbelievably tangled and I’m not surprised. I’ll say it again, I may never go to the park again.
I was up in the park with 5 friends earlier this week to have lunch at the Mingei (I didn’t see the full bill but I’m sure it was in the vicinity of $200+ for the restaurant), and to visit the Fifth Avenue Design Center exhibit at the Mingei. As I looked around for parking (it was the once a month residents’ free day for the institutions), I found myself thinking about the many years I’ve enjoyed Balboa Park and how, like you, I may cease going there.
The monthly “free day” will no longer be “free” because everyone will have to pay for parking. The range of impacts on anyone who comes to or has a business in the Park seems never-ending.
LISTEN UP Neighbors!!! I want all of you to vote for this boy, Josh Coyne! He knows Todd and is even an integral part of the downtown establishment. He is endorsed by a who’s who of local GREAT politicians who all care for you and want to help you. REMEMBER Coyne!! D2 SDCC He is certain to continue our incredibly productive city policies.
Cindy,
I’m assuming — but I’m not positive — that your comment is a parody, but if it is, I’m concerned that it can be misunderstood by those who don’t have the time or interest to closely follow San Diego City politics.
To be clear, Josh Coyne is Todd Gloria’s annointed candidate in District 2. He will support across-the-board fee increases, destructive high-density high-rise development in our residential neighborhoods, and the rejection of any effort to reduce the city’s bloated midde-management workforce. He will marginalize D2 residents who oppose the Mayor’s developer-driven poltical agenda, and hire a staff that will favor the building industry, it’s lobbyists, and its “environmental’ front groups, while shutting out politically “unconnected” residents.
To my mind, Mandy Havlik is the only D2 candidate who will continue to listen — and act on — the interests and concerns of D2 residents.
I’m confident that D2 residents will do their homework and understand where all the candidates stand on issues of importance to them, before they vote.
Thank you, Mister Krueger. What about the lady, Nicole? She is a good Democrat. Are there any other people running?
Thank you, some members of the council, you seem to be hearing your constituents. There are a few brave independent thinkers.
What I do not understand is…
If the city has overspent and we are in the red, how is the city going to roll out this parking fee? Parking meters and installing them will put us further in debt.
If the trash project is going to cost to implement the new program, how can the city even start the project? … Oh I forgot, the city has already overcharged homeowners in advance with property tax. No matter what size trash can we were forced to order, the City is already collecting. I’m thinking this feels like a SCAM. Our City Council and Mayor are ripping off it’s own citizens.
Despicable, DESPICABLE, DESPICABLE.
We used ApplePay for a meter downtown about a week ago and were surprised to receive a receipt from ACE Parking. Are they also managing the annual passes? Why wouldn’t the city be managing these meters? This seems like another grift for someone’s crony
I was honestly so bummed that Campillo made such effective comments so late in the game. Yes, the market survey was an incredible oversight – and, we knew that wasn’t happening months ago. Why can’t we ask the good questions when they matter? Taking this stance so late in the game feels like a transparently obvious attempt to curry favor for his impending mayoral race.
I had a similar reaction to Von Wilpert’s comments – even the questions asked for “clarity,” like “Can visitors expect increased services?,” are opaque, because not once did they mention that they are filling a budget hole and will need to reallocate funds from Balboa Park to other general fund needs. Honestly, I think there may actually have been factual omissions in that regard during the Council meeting.
I’m posting here what I wrote in comment to the other OBRag article about Balboa Park parking fees because I went into pretty specific detail about the huge range of park uses and users who will be negatively impacted, as Councilmember Campillo references in this article.
My post:
I’m sure I’m not the only San Diegan who will reduce or even cease visiting the park. I don’t live where there’s reasonable public transportation for getting there. I don’t use Uber or Lyft, either of which would probably cost as much or more round trip than I’d pay in parking fees for what is often a short visit of a couple 2-3 hours. It’s not worth $150/year to me. Paying per visit might easily approach the $150/year pass.
What about families of low/limited incomes? Talk about regressive fees!!
Both Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park are dedicated as *regional parks*! But, higher fees will be required from regional residents who live outside of the city of San Diego.
Often when I come to the Central Mesa I buy an expensive caffe latte, at minimum, or enjoy a meal at one of the restaurants as I did two days ago at the Mingei’s Artifact for lunch with 5 others. What about anyone wishing to attend the summer weekly concerts at the Organ Pavilion.
I think about all of the park institutions and businesses which depend on commerce from visitors, be they local or from out of town: museums, restaurants and other food providers. I think about the artists in Spanish village. What about the Old Globe performances? Would parking fees apply to Handicapped placards/license plates?
Are the fees limited to the Central Mesa or the entire park? West Mesa (I’m sure is included)? Morley Fields sports complex & velodrome? East Mesa golf course? Then there are the Navy Hospital employees and SD High School people who utilize parking south of Park Blvd.
This is going to be very messy and the city will not gain the kind of revenue needed for operation and maintenance of the Park. I’m also concerned that any revenue gained will be subtracted from amounts the Mayor and Council might normally allocate for Balboa Park. My thoughts on the myriad negatives to this plan to force everyone to pay for use of their own parkland just keep spiraling.