By Kate Callen
Most parking shakedowns are simple transactions. Two guys block off a curb space with orange cones. If you hand them cash, they remove the cones and guide you into the spot.
San Diego is seeing a new kind of parking shakedown on a broader scale. First, build so much housing with no off-street parking that curb spaces are completely full. Then offer “residential permits” so people can pay to park in their own neighborhoods.
The idea was outlined in a July 14 Times of San Diego article, “Permit options pitched to planning group amid housing growth and parking concerns.” The story reported that “dense housing adds more vehicles — and more pressure — to already crowded streets.” (Who knew?) To ease the pressure, YIMBY-affiliated advocacy group Ride SD is presenting “a new framework” for residential permit parking.
Of course, it isn’t news that overbuilding has choked off street parking in too many neighborhoods. But it is news that density forces are admitting that.
For over a decade, when residents have complained about parking shortages, YIMBY Democrats, the building industry, and City Hall have given a cavalier response: Let them take transit and ride bikes.
I wish San Diegans could take transit to get where they want to go. I wish I could take transit as regularly as I did in Philadelphia, New York, and Washington D.C.
What I learned back east is that the only mode of public transit that can move legions of commuters around a metropolis is underground rail. No system that travels above ground can provide the necessary speed, reach, and capacity.
As for our much-touted bike lanes, they have become a failed experiment that has cost taxpayers a fortune. The allocation for the University Avenue Bikeway is $44.5 million. That is roughly 80 times the $540,000 it would have cost to keep all 28 Mission Bay Park restrooms open.
Bikeways are notoriously underutilized – “Those goddamn empty bike lanes!” is a familiar rant. And they can impede mass transit by disrupting designated bus lanes, like the ones on Park Boulevard leading to the Zoo.
This means that for nearly all San Diego commuters, cars are the only mode of transportation that will convey you from your North Park home to arrive on time at your Sorrento Valley job.
Manny Rodriguez, who is president of Ride SD and of the YIMBY Democrats of San Diego, apparently grasps the reality of widespread car dependence. He is presenting the residential permit idea to planning groups as a way to mitigate the impact of density that YIMBYs promoted.
On July 9, as reported by the Times, Rodriguez told the Navajo Community Planning Group that “Ride SD’s petition-driven process would allow each community to choose its own rules, including permit limits, distribution methods and visitor policies.”
And he “pointed to Barrio Logan, where a residential permit district was created after motorists coming for Petco Park events kept overwhelming nearby streets. Existing districts charge $11.50 for an annual permit.”
But there’s a catch, and it’s in the fine print in the City’s “Residential Parking Permit” webpage:
“[Permits are] intended for residential areas that are severely impacted by all-day commuter parking generated by a nearby facility or institution. Areas that are impacted by heavy demand for on-street parking by residents are not candidates for residential permit parking.”
San Diego has five residential parking permit areas: Hillcrest (UCSD Medical Center), SDSU/ College Area, Logan Heights (Petco Park), Mesa College, and El Cortez/ Downtown. None qualified simply because residents needed more parking.
In response to a Rag query, Ride SD explained that its proposal “would require amendments to the municipal code” and that would “require a Councilmember who is willing to introduce an ordinance at the Council to amend the municipal code.
“Our goal with presenting to CPGs and stakeholder groups is to build public support for this idea so as to compel the Council to take the issue up.”
It seems unlikely that the City will open the permit floodgates so that any neighborhood could sell parking rights.
But then, it didn’t seem likely that the City would charge for parking in Balboa Park (due to expire December 31). And we never thought trash collection fees would be twice the estimate promised before we cast votes to approve them.
And just think of the City’s windfall if residents paid for curb space near their homes!
Let’s open the floor to Rag readers. Post a comment if you feel desperate enough pay for street parking or if you think this is yet another a bridge too far.
Residential parking in the college area is an abysmal failure. It’s a roughly M-F 8-6 zone that does nothing on weekends or Viejas events while the neighborhood has been blown up with ADU rentals leaving minimal parking at best. The idea was to allow 4 passes per address, but once you add another address on the parcel, voila, that doubles the passes. SDSU could fix a part of the problem by imposing a mandatory parking fee in their registration so the cheap ass kids parking outside of the zone stop. But I’m expecting 7 students renting across the street from me and another 7-8 two houses up. And you thought AirBnB’s were bad? Hah!
“Those goddamn empty bike lanes”
I’ll be riding on 30th later today on my way to get some Thai food.
Bahn Thai off park blvd is my favorite!
It is indeed, but tonight we’re going to Kin Len.
Parking permits may help in some areas that have a lot of “visitors”, but will do nothing to help residential areas that have more cars than parking. It will look like a bunch of people with parking permits looking for parking. The math just doesn’t math. If you add 25 new backyard units with no on-site parking and give them permits for the street, you just added 25-50 more cars trying to park in front of 1 house. This is what San Diego residents warned about when Mayor Gloria began unilaterally changing single-family neighborhoods to multi-family neighborhoods with no upgrades to the infrastructure that is needed for the increased density.
Thank you for the article, Kate! I really appreciate the recognition :)
RideSD is delighted to be receiving positive reception from CPGs and stakeholder groups about this new residential permit parking proposal.
Many San Diegans are frustrated with the status quo of parking, and our presentations have opened up great discussions on how we can solve those frustrations by empowering neighbors like you to manage this public resource (street parking).
We’re happy to present to more people on the these neighborhood-empowering solutions. We’ve presented to various Community Planning Groups, the Community Planners Committee, Neighbors for a Better San Diego, and more stakeholders. If you’re reading this and you’re interested in a presentation, please email manny@ridesd.org
Warmly,
Manny Rodriguez (he/him)
Spoken like a true Democrat!
Claiming that reality is different than reality doesn’t change reality.
Remember kids, you get what you vote for.
Rob (us/them)
Manny you and YIMBY Dems advocated for the City’s bonus ADU policy that has caused a mess in neighborhoods throughout the city and now you want to take the lead on fixing the damage it’s created in regards to parking?
You’re joking, right? How about starting with an apology?
I at one time lived in the Hillcrest/UCSD permit parking area and, in my experience, residential permit parking totally sucks.
Yes, it was nice to know that I would (probably) have parking space when I returned home, but a space is not guaranteed. And what really burns is the fact that the cause of the problem, UCSD medical center, which causes the problem absorbs none of the cost and inconvenience of having to deal with the permit system. Similarly, the causes of the current problems, the developers of too-dense, no parking space apartments and ADUs, will take their profits and leave. The impacted residents are the ones who would have to pay.
Oh, by the way, forget about having friends and family come over to visit, unless it is outside of the hours when parking is restricted.
You make some very good yet often overlooked points, especially about having family or friends visit, and important part of making a house into a home.
There are many other hassles resulting from not finding a parking spot close.
When you are ill or injured.
When you have been shopping
When it’s late in the evening and dark
When the weather is inclement (yes, it happens here)
When you are in a hurry
If you have children
The list goes on an on, butthe proponents of “no parking needed” continually say things like SDRE’s lawyer Schuyler Hoffman as reported in the Rag (Oct 1,2024):
“Millennials and Gen Z-ers do not own cars in the typical fashion that we did twenty years ago,” said Hoffman. “They’re taking Ubers. They’re taking public transportation. They’re working from home.”
Don’t you love it when someone else informs you of what your behavior is, especially while they take in money handover fist ?
Parking permits should be issued only to existing residents, by address, in neighborhoods where new housing is being/has been built recently with no off-street parking. We also need ample designated spaces for the Disabled.
The City decided under Todd Gloria that people no longer need cars because of our wonderful public transportation facilities, including Bike Lanes, so absolutely no one living in this new housing should be eligible for a Parking Permit. There should be no, or a minimal charge, for these permits so that all existing residents who are eligible can afford one.
To me, permit parking makes sense, places like Barrio Logan have people parking on their streets every day for workers at the shipyards, 24/7 shifts. So there is incredibly limited street parking for residents.
Growing up in the College Area we had permit parking due to all the SDSU students who didn’t want to pay for on campus parking and it worked. We had parking available on our street and had a permit for it.
Many people already pay for parking, I pay $100 a month for my parking at my apartment, so a permit program that could be in the 10s to 20s per month would be amazing. There really are a lot of places it could help ease parking concerns. Some that come to mind are North Park, Barrio Logan (as I mentioned earlier), San Ysidro, Hillcrest, and more.
Articles like this are so baffling to me. I don’t agree with much of what you say, but I can accept that you have a different view point than me and are frustrated by the way things are. But it just comes off as complaining and you offer no solutions.
First off, the $44.5 million number attached to the University Bikeway encompasses far more than just bike lanes, but one wouldn’t know that by the way you phrased it. I couldn’t find a detailed cost breakdown, but much of that money will go to pedestrian and other safety improvements improvements. This stretch of University is considered a “Safety Focus Network” which makes it part of 6% of roads which account for 54% of fatal or serious crashes. You have density, many people that do not drive and very little pedestrian infrastructure. There have certainly been safety improvements on this road in the past 10-15 years, but nothing comprehensive, which this project seems to be doing. Arguing against safety improvements in underserved areas isn’t a great look.
Manny Rodriguez and RideSD seem to be attempting to solve a problem, rather than just sit back and complain. Is their solution perfect? Probably not, but they’re trying to provide localized options for communities. And despite the fact that their whole mission seems to be about public transit, they are willing to accept that some people drive cars and trying to figure out a way for people to continue driving cars as needed.
Rather than just complain about the changing state of the world, please outline for us what you would like to see and how it would be accomplished. The OBRag claims to be progressive, but it seems stuck in a progressivism of yesteryear. When bike lanes, transit and housing come up The Rag sounds pretty conservative and doesn’t seem to like change.
Should we change state law and stop building housing? Or stop the urban density and continue the sprawl into our backcountry? Both of these would certainly have undesirable effects.
Should we throw up our hands and say the existing way we have implemented parking districts in the past won’t work for our changing city and call it a day, let those residents that drive cars fight for parking and live with the uncertainty of what that means on a day to day basis?
I’m sure there are plenty more options, so please tell us rather than complaining about everyone else, whats your plan?
Apartments are going up with parking and there’s 6% empty units on the market. We don’t need ADU infill without parking requirements. 7 people in an ADU converted house renting with 2 driveway spaces is a problem for everyone adjacent to the house. Depleting parking further with bike lanes doubles down on the moronic solution to bike and public transit use. Public transit does not even run 24 hrs a day for those who get off work late. Garage conversions should not be allowed. The city creating a problem and then charging you to park is asinine. Their popularity is off the charts right now. Stop converting houses to apartments without adequate parking. There’s your solution.
Wow, complaining about the complainers.
The article makes a lot of sense and has many salient points.
You take exception to the “the $44.5 million number attached to the University Bikeway”. Please tell us where you find a breakdown of the costs ? If one cares to research the project you will find that indeed it is more than simply bike lanes, yet this article is not about bike lanes per se, nor is it about a specific bike lane project. But you don’t like the way he “phrased it”. This sounds an awful lot like the agenda behind letters sent to the newsroom of the OB Rag back in May (“Framing The News About Bicycling” May 5, 2026)
You leap to the defense of Manny Rodriguez and RideSD, a group with a clear and unbending bias towards cycling in San Diego, yet he was never attacked in the article. What was pointed out the very large distinction made that excluded “Areas that are impacted by heavy demand for on-street parking by residents are not candidates for residential permit parking”.
This is a fact, simple and verifiable fact. Yet you respond with an unbased opinion that implies the article does nothing apart from “sit back and complain” ?
You barely try to make any points, falling back on whiny semi-rhetorical questions:
“Should we change state law and stop building housing? Or stop the urban density and continue the sprawl into our backcountry?”
Yeah, as a matter of fact we should. But let’s not argue opinions, let’s offer it up to the people who have to live in these environs – the voters. Let’s craft local zoning ordinances that allocate high density areas with transit focusing on those areas, and let’s leave single family areas as they are. The people who currently live there did not buy so they could be next to a 500 unit apartment building with no parking. Give people a choice instead of soe empty-headed mandate from an off-the-rails state. Are we supposed to be serving the current population or the imaginary “future population” ?
And
“Should we throw up our hands and say the existing way we have implemented parking districts in the past won’t work for our changing city and call it a day, let those residents that drive cars fight for parking and live with the uncertainty of what that means on a day to day basis?”
Why not ? Isn’t that where we currently are ? And didn’t we arrived here after the thoughtful consideration of our City government ? That would make this an acceptable side-effect or better yet ‘an unintended consequence’. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
And finally you resort to ad diurnum, attempting to insult the Rag in order to make your ‘point’ with “The Rag sounds pretty conservative”. Are you so desperate to make an unspoken point that you have to resort to insults ?
The fact is, the article is well written, but it just so happens that it does not align with your own personal preferences so of course you are “baffled” by it.
You said “But it just comes off as complaining and you offer no solutions.”
“Physician, heal thyself” – the idiom touches on the hypocrisy of offering advice or services one fails to apply to oneself
Your anecdote about “what you learned back east” needs some empirical evidence to back it up. There’s no way we wouldn’t be better off if we committed to expanding our existing train service, above-ground or not.
Perhaps expanding our existing train service should have been done BEFORE the destructive increase in density began.
It’s clear that Kate unfortunately did not physically attend any of Manny’s presentations to the CPC or the CPGs, nor did she read the actual proposal.
This piece critiques the city’s current RPP model, not RideSD’s proposal to fix it. The current RPP model is limited to a handful of overflow zones and doesn’t guarantee residents anything. That’s why people are still circling the block looking for parking despite having a permit. The new framework Ride SD is proposing fixes exactly that: it guarantees existing residents parking, something the current system cannot do, and it makes developers absorb the cost of building the bare minimum (or zero) parking rather than passing it to the street and existing residents. A developer who builds too little parking loses the ability to promise it to buyers. That’s the market working, not a shakedown.
It also lets buildings without dedicated parking sort naturally to residents who don’t own multiple cars, since those with more than are available within the building have nowhere to park, which is the outcome anyone worried about induced parking demand should want. This plan protects the neighborhoods impacted by policies like SB79.
The bike lane cost comparison is a separate issue from a different budget and has nothing to do with RPP.
And $11 a year against the annual cost of car ownership isn’t the hardship this piece makes it out to be.
Re: And $11 a year against the annual cost of car ownership isn’t the hardship this piece makes it out to be.
It’s comical for you to advocate, for the people who didn’t create the problem, to be now taxed to park at their house. Who created the problem? The city and building industry. Cherry picking the fee is also callous when not considering all the other inflationary costs going on from insurance to gas to utilities to trash and so on, particularly to those low income or retired on fixed income, some with physical mobility issues. Lastly, putting a sticker on your car guarantees nothing. People will still park without one knowing they roll the dice some parking enforcement may or may not roll by. A get it done request is a day out. And when we all have to have stickers, in all of our neighborhoods, it becomes a moot point, huh?
The YIMBY, alternative transportation (AKA anything-but-cars), infill densifiers have worked tirelessly to significantly worsen this problem the past fifteen years. Under-parked added density. Bike and other road projects erasing street parking. New laws excessively red zoning out more parking on bogus safety claims.
Why should any of us place an ounce of trust in their involvement in fixing what they have intentionally and in most cases irreparably broken?
Permit programs aren’t designed for this problem, as others noted. Creating one that could work would be difficult, onerous to those affected, and run up against the motivations of the current (see above) contingent in power. Meaning that the people who should get relief from this mess will in all likelihood be further punished.
And still, it would just be a flimsy bandaid on fundamental policy failures that will continue unabated.
I honestly wish I did not hold this dismal view.
My feeling is that beach communities have had this parking burden since the sun started to shine but the California Coastal Commission would never allow this along the coastline because apparently tourists have the right to dip their toes in the ocean the same as residents.
Resident permits come up often on the OB socials and the opinions ebb and flow from year to year, and season to season. The only way to see if it would work for OB, is to try it for a few years but that requires a change in the municode, installing signage and administration support for permits (which the city will not want to pay for), then six months of warnings and education before tickets can be issued. The plan would also have to include a lot of time for community discussion and negotiation to decide on the rules, locations, and fees.
As an aside to my above thoughts, sometimes I wonder, if all the OB houses with garages were using their garages for their cars, or garages hadn’t been converted into a dwelling spaces and airbnbs, or if households didn’t own more cars than they can park in/on their own property, would we still have an issue with not enough street parking? I’m not sure what the answer is to those questions but nowadays it seems that garages are being used for something other than cars–and maybe not surprising, but those same people tend to complain that they have no street parking ????.
I guess, I’d be in the camp of wanting to try a pilot program for a few years if the city had the money to do it and the CCC allowed it.
Welp, I’m with you guys…(nodding in approval)
I live adjacent to SDSU where a B permit is required and necessary, if you want to park in front or near your home. Each address is allowed to purchase up to three permits and one guest permit. When investors and developers started building multiple ADU’s on a property they made sure to get separate addresses so they could have access to more parking permits. This has resulted in one lot being able to access upwards to 12 to 16 permits.
This issue was brought to the attention of our YIMBY District 9 Council representative Sean Elo-Rivera, he told the community we were selfish for not wanting to share our neighborhood with renters, and who would be likely walking or taking public transportation.
The end result is residents parking in their front yard and blocking the sidewalk, which parking enforcement for whatever reason doesn’t issue citations for. YIMBYs start caring about parking when it gets in the way of their build build build narrative.
I appreciate the OBRAG publishing alternate/opposing views on this subject. I believe Kate Callen’s article is misleading, especially around the cost of the University Avenue Bikeway project. This project will add not only protected bike lanes, but traffic calming measures and bus boarding platforms along University Avenue, making this busy corridor safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. I suggest reading this article https://www.deliveryassociates.com/news-insights/build-cities-for-people-not-parking or The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
GF, if you are referring to ‘traffic calming’ when the University Avenue Bike project is complete, you are correct, people will be in stop-and-go, traffic but doubt whether that will provide calm.
I think the comments of those who are opposed to permit parking are well-thought and based on experience and ‘unintended consequences’.
Permit parking has been a big impediment to properties located in and around the hospital zone of Hillcrest. How does one have guests come over or show a property if you can’t park on the street M-S 7a-7p? Do you expect potential tenants or buyers should fly onto the heliports at the hospitals?
I hope the city will not rush to change the permit parking policy:
“[Permits are] intended for residential areas that are severely impacted by all-day commuter parking generated by a nearby facility or institution. Areas that are impacted by heavy demand for on-street parking by residents are not candidates for residential permit parking.”
Let’s hold off and focus on developers designing their developments with So Cal in mind, not New York City. We need to require on-site parking which will cut down on the high vacancy rates.
Todd Glorious and Steve NitWhit are tone deft to how ordinary people live. When Todd is out of office, what will he do when he’s not carted around in his SUV that is parked in the red zone at the bottom of the stairs to the city administration building.
We can start the change by voting out the incumbents in November. We need a council majority made up of community advocates not the charlatans we have now.
Just to stir the pot a little bit, I will point out that a recent article I read indicated that of the 27 major American cities that have adopted Vision Zero as a policy and have implemented improvements consistent with Vision Zero, only one has demonstrated a reduction in traffic fatalities. One.
Another horrible idea. As always it will punish the lower income people more than the “good” neighbors. I do get it in the Hillcrest medical area but in general pay to park is just another way of harassing people who live here.
In North Park and Normal Heights, the vast majority of people I see trying to park are residents and neighbors. I don’t see many people from somewhere else trying to game local parking. Show me neutral research if you want me to rethink that.
Parking permits won’t change the number of people trying to park, nor will it add parking. People who come home after 8:30 pm will continue to walk blocks and struggle to recall where they leave their cars.
The bigger problem is one bad policy after another that incrementally eliminated parking while jamming more cars into the neighborhoods. Starting with the bikeways – which could have been done without punishing residents, then the poorly thought out crosswalk additions, then the thoughtlessly excessive implementation of the daylighting law – enforced for the money while lacking research that shows it consistently enhances safety – and now the addition of parking meters on El Cajon and Adams avenues, we’ve lost hundreds of parking spaces while gaining hundreds of new residents’ cars.
It’s a nasty game of musical chairs where the chairs keep disappearing while more players continue to show up. Adding another layer of bureaucracy and fees won’t fix that.
I agree with you completely Marty. The city’s bright idea to put a bike corridor from the bottom of Washington Street to University. So now Washington is down to one lane. How will ambulances get through to the nearby hospitals?
Funny, I have yet to see Steve Whitburn riding a bike.
I would love to hear him out at an OB planning board meeting.
But as others have said, this only helps communities that have outsiders parking in them. And that won’t fly at all with the coastal commission, they think our streets and even our houses are for beach visitors, not for residents.
A permit program could work if it is very restrictive on how many you get per house. And I guess you could charge a larger fee after that base amount. These places being built with zero parking probably shouldn’t be allowed to own a car. Under no circumstances should we be allowing new home construction without at least 1 offstreet parking spot in impacted areas.
Please take a look at the small picture. Have you ever had a guest visit? God forbid ever hosted a meeting or even a party at your home? Our older streetcar suburbs and historic urban areas were built as true “transit oriented” developent, with fairly limited parking resourses, but still a balance of accomodation. My own parking sensitive area hosts residents, along with our local small businesses and their patrons and employees, as well as schools- all part of our community. Of course it is desirable to accomodate multiple modes of transportation, but that needs to be done with the same sort of balance for our areas which naturally occurs in newer neighborhoods with large driveways, multi-car garages and wide, parking supporting, curb frontages, along with few larger multi family projects. Residents in older communities should not be “thrown under the bus” with one size fits all panaceas. The parking districts proposals would, for many, make them prisoners in their own homes. I have a long driveway, which can host three cars-many are not so fortunate And two people, or even the people possible in two cars,does not make much of a meeting or party. One car, the third of course, is my own, and would be there at home when I would be, as a host.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that RideSD is proposing something completely different from the current, failed residential permit parking program. This idea is more like ‘Truth-in-Parking’. The City wouldn’t issue more permits than spaces which is the opposite of what they do in the failed College Area program.
Right now, people moving into areas like Bankers Hill and Normal Heights bring their cars with them under the rubric of ‘hope springs eternal’. Parking is tight, but they hope they’ll find a spot ‘somewhere’. [apologies for the excessive air quotes] This idea quashes that and the chances that new construction will continue to induce street parking demand by not providing onsite parking. Street parking simply won’t be available for those who don’t have access to permits, which will be more limited. Any future “Secoya” projects like in Bankers Hill that don’t come with parking will either rent to persons who don’t have cars, or they will be unrentable – which is what Secoya found out.
One solution: Do as the Japanese do. In Japan, when one registers a car with the DMV, the car owner must show that they have a place to park it. Thereby, the burden for parking provision is shifted to the user of said parking instead of a system that subsides auto-dependency in our building & planning codes. This reduces the cost of development and allows options for those who chose not to have cars. There are more standalone parking garages because the market still provides parking for those who seek it. Yes, I know it’s a totally different system … transit, culture, lack of any street parking in Japan, etc., but there are other solutions out there.
So let me get this straight, mass infill continues getting built with no parking requirements, but have the car owner on the hook for a parking requirement? (insert crowd laughter) Instead of a system that subsides auto-dependency in our building & planning codes? Um, hello, this is like making everyone use electric cars instead of gas and provide little to no means for charging and electrical production. There’s a big problem with the city power brokers discerning cause and effect, magically thinking all the bugs in the system sort themselves out with zero pain. Japan had Kamikaze pilots too you know.