By David Garrick / San Diego Union-Tribune / April 21, 2026
A new analysis by Balboa Park leaders says paid parking has caused already-falling attendance and revenues to drop even more steeply, warning that the decline could lead to layoffs and program cuts.
According to the nonprofit Balboa Park Cultural Partnership, average attendance is down nearly 34% at museums and other park venues in the months since paid parking began Jan. 5, compared with the same period last year.
The partnership also says revenue is down $5 million total across its organizations year-over-year and is predicting revenue will be down $10 million for the calendar year.
City officials released parking data from Balboa Park on Monday that show revenue has kept rising since January, raising questions about why museum attendance would be down if more people are using the park.
The cultural partnership, an umbrella group for organizations within the park, is calling on city officials to make “swift and meaningful changes” to the parking rules and policies but also contends a major city retreat in February actually made things worse.
“The latest data make clear that those changes are not reversing the decline in visitation, and the impacts on our institutions are becoming more serious,” said Peter Comiskey, executive director of the cultural partnership. “We are urging additional action by our regional leaders before potentially irreversible damages take hold, and jobs and beloved programs or even organizations are lost.”
In February, the city introduced “free parking” passes for city residents that let them park for free any time in seven of the park’s 12 lots — all but the five lots that are most convenient to the park’s central mesa.
Before the changes, drivers could only get free parking for three hours in the parking lot farthest away from the park’s most popular attractions, lower Inspiration Point.
The cultural partnership said that despite those changes, attendance and revenue trends are moving in the wrong direction.
“Despite adjustments made by the city earlier this year, the updated data show that visitation losses are not stabilizing, and instead are worsening,” the partnership said in a new release.
Partnership officials declined Monday to provide data supporting its claim that attendance and revenue drops have worsened since the city policy changes.
In a prepared statement, the city said revenue from paid parking is important for the future of the park and that city officials are carefully tracking impacts of paid parking.
“We will continue to monitor the program, make adjustments as needed, and work with park stakeholders to ensure it is working as intended,” the statement says. “Balboa Park’s paid parking program creates a reliable source of funding to support the care and operation of the park.”
The partnership says the biggest impact of paid parking has been on small and mid-sized organizations, including gardens, galleries, cafes, retail spaces and smaller museums. That’s because they rely more heavily on foot traffic and spontaneous visits, the partnership says.
Attendance and revenue at some of those organizations are down by 60% year-over-year, according to the new analysis.
“The data show we are at a critical moment,” Comiskey said. “As we approach the summer tourism season, we need a clear, region-wide recovery solution that restores accessibility, rebuilds public trust, and sends a strong ‘welcome back’ message to residents and visitors alike.”
Many critics of paid parking in Balboa Park have argued that county residents should get the same or similar discounts as city residents, leaving tourists to provide the bulk of the revenue.
Partnership officials note that the $10 million in losses they estimate from paid parking may be in addition to cuts in city grants that arts organizations across the city are facing in Mayor Todd Gloria’s proposed budget.
The partnership estimated that Balboa Park nonprofits make up 10% of the organizations that would be affected by the mayor’s proposed cuts, which the City Council is scheduled to begin debating in early May.
On Monday, the city released data on citations for the first time since enforcement of paid parking in Balboa Park began March 23.
The data show 956 citations have been written — an average of 34 per day — for just under $41,000 in total fines.
Since paid parking took effect, the city has collected more than $1.9 million from meters and parking kiosks in the park and another $332,000 from people buying monthly or annual passes.
Meter revenue on Sunday was $33,000 — up from $24,000 on April 12, $27,000 on April 5 and $30,000 on March 29.
In late January, the partnership issued a similar report that made similar claims about declining attendance and revenues.
The impact of paid parking goes beyond the museums and cultural institutions.
The San Diego Lawn Bowling Club says it has lost more than 30% of its members since paid parking began. Membership has dropped from 122 to 80, club treasurer Kathleen Wageman said Monday.
The park’s Redwood Bridge Club has lost about 18% of its members, with membership dropping from 400 to about 330, since paid parking began.
“It’s not precipitous and we’re still OK, but we’re not thrilled with paid parking,” club president Mary Platter-Rieger said Monday.
A January poll of San Diego residents conducted for The San Diego Union-Tribune and 10 News found that 80% wanted paid parking in Balboa Park eliminated or reduced, and 69% said the fees would make them visit less often.
Of course the parking REVENUE has increased – because there was no revenue when parking was free! The administration spins information. The city has NO REFERENCE NUMBERS to how many cars parked in the Park prior to implementation and ZERO way to know what the impact has been. We at the museums however have clear data about our attendance and revenue changes year over year that we provide to the Cultural Partnership for their analysis.
“… raising questions about why museum attendance would be down if more people are using the park.”
This article relies on a propositional logical fallacy and it’s driving me up the wall.
I *think* it technically constitutes the “Affirming a Disjunct” fallacy, because Garrick assumes that the “or” in “parking revenues are up” or “admission revenue is down” is an exclusive or—it is an inclusive “or”! But I haven’t taken formal logic in a while, so I might be wrong.
If a, then b. A is not true. Therefore, B is not true.
If parking revenue is down, then admission revenue is down. Parking revenue is not down. Therefore, admission revenue is not down?
It’s an unusual misstep and one that deserves clarity—it actually makes the most sense that the city would be collecting new revenue and that the people paying those fees aren’t staying in the park as long or visiting other museums.