| Message: |
Thanks Scott and Ken. I'm in support of both library parking and the reopening of SW 1st Ave. I would also like to see the Downtown Advisory Board vote reverse the city's decision to implement paid parking in August. I understand this will take more time. Many thanks to the board for getting involved.
Best, Andrew (Hear Again) Hello Everyone - Scott from The Top here,
We appreciate Ken’s comments on downtown access and the lack of patron parking for all downtown establishments. Downtown needs support from our City now more than ever. If there is anyone on this thread who feels the closing of SW 1st Ave has negatively affected the ability for people to visit and support downtown merchants and organizations, then please be vocal.
Ken’s photo of an empty SW 1st Ave shows the lack of merchant support we are experiencing daily. This corridor once gave vital support to all tenants of downtown. It was the main east/west parking solution for patrons who live across and outside of town. In the morning this area was once parking for the coffee houses, the Church, and downtown breakfast joints and brunch cafes. At noon these spaces provided access for lunch spots like Harry’s, The Paper Bag Deli, Pop A Top, and many other daytime food options. After lunch, it provided access to visit Gator Spirit convenient store, Hear Again Records, tattoo shops, local Pool Halls, or a great show at The Hipp. At dinner time folks could access parking for Dragonfly, Paramount, Marks Steakhouse, Boca Fiesta, or one of the many other special dinner options that give downtown its flavor. The point is, this parking area supported all Mom and Pop style businesses that make our downtown special, and attract people from all over to visit. To take this parking away post Covid, was not supportive. Keeping downtown creative should always be encouraged, so implementing the ability to temporarily close this SW 1st ave for programmed special events should always remain a healthy option. Maybe first Fridays? Special events can and must continue, but we all need the street back for patron parking during the many hours and days this space currently lays inoperable.
The downtown advisory board has got it right requesting to open this street to parking access, but they need all concerned merchants to contact the Mayor and City Commissioners to insure they are listening. Last October we collected 35 signatures of local downtown businesses that were in favor of returning this street to patron parking. There was no response from the City. So if you support this idea, it is time to be heard. Additionally, we agree the Library parking lot and the County District Attorney lot have great potential for weekend parking to expand. Better lighting downtown and more police presence on weekends is needed to insure a safe environment. We need to have a safe downtown with a supportive amount of patron parking, then we can have the good folks at "Go Downtown" promote and advertise this special area as the fantastic option it clearly is. This is how we all can grow the heart of Gainesville.
Please contact Mayor Ward or any of the City Commissioners to hear your concerns.
Thank you and Best! Scott
Two empty parking lots. Downtown parking is getting more and more expensive and harder to find. This causes marginal people to avoid the area when there is free parking at all non-downtown restaurants. However, we have almost 90 unused downtown spaces. They are SW 1st Avenue, which I understand the new advisory board voted to have reopened and the library. The library closed their lot years ago because of the cost to clean up the trash. Perhaps it could be opened on Friday and Saturday nights with the City agreeing to clean that lot on those two following mornings. A relatively small amount of money would be needed to do this especially if it was only used during normally high use weekends. It seems wasteful to have that many readily available spaces going unused. (See pictures). Thanks for the ongoing dialogue everyone. We'll fill out the survey and send it in soon. Andrew I'm guessing Passport experiences vary widely among those on this email chain based on whom we serve. Plenty of people who go to City Church have no problem with it, but anecdotally probably half of those who are 65+ have ongoing difficulties with it. We've also had a lot of problems with the validation system, but I recognize not everyone uses that function. We'll see what the surveys say, but given the email feedback I wonder if a hybrid/diplomatic approach as far as what we send to the city is something like: 1. We collectively advocate for 24/7 free parking with well-enforced time limits during peak hours (such as what Adam proposed in his letter). 2. If the city disagrees with our advocacy and moves forward with paid parking, we advocate for a system in which patrons only pay to park during peak hours (like Adam proposed in his letter) with well-enforced time limits. We also advocate for low parking rates and clearly marked means of payment that do not require use of the passport app (even if the app continues to be offered as one payment option). 3. We request additional dialogue with the city in the near future concerning some of the challenges with Passport and the difficulties some patrons face when it's the exclusive payment option. 4. We request dialogue with the city in the near future to share some of our ideas concerning the stewardship of the SW garage and hear about proposed plans for the garage. 5. We request dialogue with the city in the near future to give input concerning their plans for the streetery.
Church Office: 352-587-2144
Dear all, Before getting into the replies, please try to remember how dead the downtown streets were for 3 weeks in 2022 when the City first implemented Passport Parking. The plan worked. There was parking galore because nobody was coming downtown. This chain started because the people here were opposed to replacing free time limit parking with Passport Parking. We're still very much opposed to that. The majority of emails in this thread show as much. A few weeks ago, Chipper sent in an email stating that he has had to sacrifice sermon time in order to help his congregation navigate the parking app. Customers tell me all the time that the app gives them issues. It's not just the app though, it's paid parking in general. Those of us who have competition in town with ample free parking know that paid parking will cripple us. It's not inviting, and it will not lead to more people coming downtown - only less. With regard to enforcement, it's specified in #1. "Preserve free street parking and encourage the removal of Passport Parking from City lots. We propose enforced time limits of 1-2 hours instead." While the garage is and will continue to be an issue, it is best to strike it from the agenda at this time. There have been many emails in this chain identifying issues with the SW 3rd St garage and many opportunities for AMJ to speak to those issues. Hopefully, we can brainstorm some cool ideas to help with that situation moving forward. The main concerns expressed in this chain have been paid street parking, the Passport Parking app, safety, the garage, and the reopening of SW 1st Ave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our communications with the city have basically led to a proposal for Passport Parking (with two free hours), which relies on use of the app and only encourages people to stay longer...... and some valet spaces (thereby taking even more public parking). Scott and I will move forward with getting signatures from other businesses. We've already got a bunch of folks onboard and we'll get more. It's not a tough sell. Hello All, Due to the complexity of ownership and or management of the SW parking garage, we feel it is best to exclude the garage as a topic for now. We have always heard of the City pushing Patron Parking in this direction, but it does seem clearer now that control/ownership and therefore future use as a City lot for patron parking - is indeterminable at this point. Better to concentrate our focus on the two main points. Here is an updated version of Andrew’s collective work. It’s time to really embrace the work that has been a joint success so far. I have already received myself, many verbal requests to sign up on this from Downtown concerned businesses outside this group. Are we good to hit the streets and emails?
I agree with keeping it focused on the study and things that can be done now.
I think we need to offer specific items they will likely take action on.
Andrew, on your list, I'm indifferent to item number 1. It's not a difficult system to use and it's widely used in other cities comparable in size to ours.
I think enforcement should be mentioned. Consistent enforcement Tuesday- Saturday 11 am to 7pm.
I do agree that items 3 and 4 should be addressed, but at a later time. We will certainly review the questionnaire however our position at this point will be to only address the street parking concerns, and what the City requested, as part of the parking study. The Streetery, SW 1st Avenue, (which we own a property on) and the SW parking garage (which we now own essentially ½ of the rights to) are not items we are prepared to request any changes to, at this point. Both of those matters are quite important to us and need more time to consider the various issues, along with other surrounding business in the case of SW 1st Street and the users in the case of the garage. That said, the group can and should proceed however it wishes if consensus happens on some or all of the items listed below.
Hey All, Adding Gabby at The Hippodrome to the email chain so she can catch up on all of this. Andrew This is terrible news. It just paves the way for them to establish Passport Parking all over the place and then eventually go back on the free two hours. I think we should take an immediate stance on the following: 1. Opposition to Passport Parking. 2. Time limit adjustments over paid parking. 3. Reopening parking on SW 1st Ave. 4. Ask for insight about management of the SW 3rd St. garage and offer our ideas as possible solutions. Scott and I will be circulating the attached questionnaire to businesses in the coming days. Please feel free to fill it out and send it back. Thanks Anthony. Very helpful. Sounds like we should send something soon then - and if time is of the essence then we should make sure we're not making perfect the enemy of good. If I can be of service in getting something out, I'm happy to help. Not quite sure what the rush is however from the city, and it would be charitable for them to check in with us given the challenges we face of communicating back and forth as a group and managing all of this in the margins of our vocational responsibilities.
Church Office: 352-587-2144
Recently I heard that the City is going to move forward with the latest version of their parking suggestions (two hours free and then paid, Adam sent to you all in the past). They made this decision, I am told, based upon our lack of follow-up as a group. If the group wishes to send a letter to them, it seems like it should be done soon, though Adam presented one previously that was not agreed to. I am sending this purely as an update.
Yes it is very helpful. Thank you Chipper! As a potential way to move forward, perhaps we can take the following steps to combine the good work that Adam, Scott, and others have done: 1. Conduct a survey along the lines of what Scott presented 2. Adam/Scott/et al. summarize the findings in a letter to the city along with proposed action steps 3. Downtown entities determine whether or not they want their name on the letter. Those who decline to put their name on it are of course welcome to send their own feedback to the city. - I think it would be a wise to pen a letter that contains some guidance as far as which items in the letter are the highest priority - I think it would be wise to pen a letter that pushes for free parking while also providing guidance concerning our views on how a payment structure should work if the city insists on moving forward with a pay-to-park plan. I would hate for our parking feedback to become moot if our free parking request doesn't land (which is probably more likely than not). - I confess that I'm not sure how to proceed with the SW 1st Street parking concerns. We (City Church) did benefit from that parking when it existed, and I also agree that the 1st Street corridor is now barren/low energy for most of the day. At the same time, I'm sensitive to the fact that a few businesses really do benefit from the present situation even as other businesses do not. I would love to find some kind of hybrid option or compromise that provides some parking options on 1st Street while providing some outdoor opportunities for the businesses that benefit. Perhaps people smarter than me can figure out what that might look like. - One "unknown" for me right now is the likely future purpose and function of the SW garage. I'm under the impression that AMJ owns a share of the spots in that garage and may use them for their building project on lot 10. If that's the case, that may introduce even more urgency as far as finding reliable and accessible parking options for downtown since that would significantly reduce parking availability in that garage in the long term. I'm guessing Anthony could shed some light on this. I think I've exhausted my feedback for now. I hope this is helpful, and at this point I'll happily fade into the background and listen to feedback/proposals from others.
Church Office: 352-587-2144
All of this seems to be driving to keeping parking open and free and a bit better managed. I fully support this and happy to put our name (V Pizza) on this.
Totally agree with Chipper on all things here. Should we push to have the app removed from city lots as well as fighting against it being used for street parking? I’d be willing to join Chipper on that motion and it’s communications to the city. Also, moving the overnight parkers in the SW 3rd garage to floors 3-5 is a great idea! Between that and painting over the unenforced jury parking signs, it would definitely help the situation. Responding to the last few emails: - I do think free parking is worth pushing for, along with retiring the app. If the city decides they do want to gather some revenue from downtown parking fees, then it is what it is. But I don't think it serves the interests of downtown businesses/organizations nor people coming downtown to use or benefit from their services. Again, I could be wrong, but my guess is that some combination of free parking plus strict time limit enforcement during peak hours plus no overnight parking (like 3am to 6am) is the way to go. To help with enforcement, parking attendant hours could be changed to double up the personnel resources available during peak hours while abandoning enforcement during non-peak hours. For example, I'd rather have two attendants working downtown during peak hours instead of one attendant working during peak hours and one attendant enforcing time limits when there's hardly anyone parking downtown. - I've been dialoguing back and forth with the city for 2 or 3 years about challenges with the app. I understand that it's convenient for some people (don't need quarters, etc.), but plenty of people (per the statements made in the document Scott sent) have a very difficult time using it and/or don't bother coming downtown because they feel as though they can't use it. That feedback was louder when the app first came out, but one of the main reasons it's dissipated is that some folks just avoid downtown now. Our church just hosted a meeting for many pastors in the downtown/east Gainesville area, and I ended up spending significant time in lot 13 helping several pastors navigate the app (which, on top of everything, wasn't functioning properly that morning - so we had to abandon it and use the browser option). - Adam - I certainly agree with you that we want the SW garage to be hospitable to students (and everyone else). The issue right now is that the garage has sold so many permits that it limits access to the garage on the most accessible floors for people coming downtown to eat, shop, etc. It also creates significant capacity problems when the city hosts big events (Art Festival, Fest, etc.). We're trying to find a way to make the first few floors more available for people (students, non-students, etc.) who want to spend a few hours downtown to eat, drink, shop, attend a concert, etc. This probably means selling less permits (I'd assume by capping the number sold and prioritizing people who live/work downtown) and banning overnight parking (say between the hours of 4am to 6am) on the bottom 2 floors. I think it makes sense for overnight parkers to take advantage of floors 3-5, and it prevents people with permits from storing their vehicles in prime parking spaces.
Church Office: 352-587-2144
- Which question/questions seem too broad? We can totally rephrase them if needed. - Zero paid street parking, for sure. Preserving free street parking was and still is a primary objective - it's literally what started all of this. The app is already used in the garage and various parking lots - not much we can do there. - Wait, juror parking is no longer enforced in the SW garage?? Does everyone know this? Then why not paint the walls to read otherwise so people feel free to park there? I've been driving right past it like a sucker. Also, how much of the garage is owned by the city at this point? Public parking is offered by municipalities, yet much of the garage is privately owned, is it not? Public parking also generally involves a time limit less than days/weeks/months on end, doesn't it? It appears we could definitely use some more info on garage operations before tackling that issue. - With regard to the parking study . . . . the data doesn't support the conclusion, which benefits our cause. Personally, I think that should be our stance. - I think FREE street parking with 1-2 hour limits AND reopening SW 1st Ave should definitely make the final cut of what we communicate to the city. - Also, it would be really great if some other people chimed in. This is supposed to be a group effort to preserve free street parking, right? That’s a good idea to circulate a questionnaire. I think some of the questions are too broad, because I was reading the questions and thinking well yes, that makes sense and no that shouldn’t be changed. All of this within the same question.
Regarding enforcement- are you proposing zero paid parking anywhere in Gainesville and eliminate the Passport Parking app?
Again, completely agree on opening up SW 1st AVE. It worked during all the COVID restrictions, but things have changed.
Juror parking is no longer enforced and what you are suggesting is equivalent to putting no student parking signs around the garage. It’s public parking, available to the general public. You can’t exclude students, because it could potentially cause an inconvenience when trying to locate parking.
So what is the general consensus on this parking study and what to propose to the City? Hey Folks, I can help shed some light here. I'll go in the order of Adam's reply. And yes, Ben, the garage referenced is the SW 3rd St garage. - We do think that circulating a mission statement and questionnaire among downtown businesses North and South of University is a good idea since we're ALL sharing the same free street parking. Also, we can submit a similar draft without the questionnaire to the city. - We are pro-enforcement, but anti-payment of any kind with the exception of violations. The concerns expressed by Adam assume that the city will follow through with Passport Parking - something we are all OPPOSED to. We do not want paid parking of any kind. A FREE tiered time limit approach will alleviate congestion in needed areas. Nobody will be staying longer because we assume the City's parking ambassadors will enforce the time limits. - Yes, we must utilize all available parking including COVID-based street closures (SW 1st Ave), which are under utilized throughout the week. We must also have a voice in the future plans for the SW 1st Ave parking on the other side of Main near Harry's as the city is looking to make some major changes there. - The SW 3rd Garage: Parking ambassadors have confirmed that the recent heavier occupancy of the garage stems from students avoiding higher parking fees where they live and purchasing passes to the garage. I also park in the garage daily and lately, I'll often end up on the roof due to lack of available spaces. Honestly, I don't mind, but if I were a customer, I would find it inconvenient (especially upon entering that disgusting elevator). The garage already has so many spaces devoted to juror and apartment parking that the added sale of spaces to students who don't live downtown really does have an impact. Anyway, if the student factor were removed, the garage would be less inconvenient to downtown guests. Adam- Item #3- Does the garage get full? I park over there daily and never have issues finding parking. Opening the state attorney parking lot and library I fully support. Am I correct in thinking Scott is referring to the parking garage over by Looseys? On 9/28/2023 9:42 AM, Adam Bass wrote: Just to clarify, is what you proposing something you want to circulate among the businesses and then submit to the City or are you using this as a gauge to determine the best way to approach the City?
In regard to item #1, if there is no enforcement any proposal free or paid becomes a moot point. My concern with tiered is if you get the first our free and you can buy additional time now I am buying time in the most convenient parking for very little money. This could lead to people staying long past the current 2 hour limit.
Item #2- Fully Support open SW 1st Ave up.
Item #3- Does the garage get full? I park over there daily and never have issues finding parking. Opening the state attorney parking lot and library I fully support. Thank you, Scott! I strongly endorse this approach to Protecting Patron Parking and the points listed as they more fully encompass the needs expressed by independent business owners at the SP+ forum at Bo Diddley Plaza months back and here in our email chain. Hello All - Here is another focused draft to be considered. This approach is direct with a clear mission. This hopefully embodies the many communications from members of this group as well as a few businesses outside this forum. The concept here has been explained to businesses nearby and support has been voiced. This is for the benefit of the group and can be edited to tailor ideas. We can mix in Adam’s response or other’s concerns as well. Please return comments, and again - appreciate everyones work here.
Adam - thank you once again for putting pen to paper and helping us discern an appropriate response. Very grateful for your time initiative. Scott et al. - thank you for your work as well and I look forward to reviewing your document(s).
Church Office: 352-587-2144
Just wanted to second Scott's request. As thankful as I am that we're all working together, many in this thread have echoed concerns that are shared among business owners outside of the thread and not many of those concerns have made their way to our proposed correspondence to the city. I would feel more comfortable with Hear Again's name being on the draft that we'll be submitting to the group this week. Thanks! Hello Adam and All From our recent conversations with business owners inside and outside this thread, we would like to have a little more time before sending group response out to the City. Everyone has been encouraging, bringing solid ideas to the table, as well as sharing mostly the same concerns on these parking issues. We are finishing up a draft that can be evaluated/combined along with Adams good work to hopefully address a focused mission for the Downtown group. Will send over to everyone tomorrow.
All, attached is a revised letter. I think for the time being let’s keep the focus small. Yes, the parking garage could use some changes and yes removing all parking from SW 1st AVE removes a lot of parking. For now, can we agree to keep it simple and then take up the other issues? Thoughts? On Sep 18, 2023 at 9:49 PM -0400, scott shillington < topchat@cox.net>, wrote: Hello All Thank you Chipper and yes agree with you 100% about payment/time complexities, and the current difficulties of the garage. It appears we all agree on the same Parking concerns affecting whether our clientele and patrons feel welcome as they head Downtown to enjoy this special district. Those in this email thread and more, collectively dedicate their work Downtown to create a synergy the people of Gainesville have grown to love and support. To have the City introduce these new parking payments and complexity of payments... is not helpful. An inefficient garage is not helpful. The removal of the 1st Ave 50 patron parking spaces (possible future of 100 spaces) is not supportive. It shows a misguided mission here, and we need to request better treatment for our customers, and for our businesses. Parking decisions affect all of us.
Thanks for this email, Chipper! Agreed across the board. Personally, I feel that these matters are pressing and should be part of our communication to the city. I am not comfortable putting them off for another time as it's been suggested. I also think that use of the app needs to be discouraged, not encouraged. To my understanding, they are proposing the first two hours to be free and then charging would begin after the 2nd hour. This actually encourages people to stay longer than two hours, which completely negates the notion of "trying to free up parking." The time limits are a much more reasonable approach. Also, the approval of valet spots doesn't help some of us too much so I can't share in that excitement. I feel like succumbing to the app and valet spots pretty much sums up our progress with the city thus far and personally, I'm not satisfied. Adam - thanks for sending this update along. A few brief reflections. Might have more time to write more later: 1. Are those newly proposed enforcement hours (10am-8pm on the "alternative configuration") M-F or do they include the weekends? Adam do you know? 2. I agree with the concerns that the new proposal is unnecessarily complicated and could be a headache both for people coming downtown to park and for the attendants. I also agree that free parking that still mandates use of the app will be a deterrent for some people. 3. To me, free parking with time limits (time limits specifically during busy times when spaces are more likely to be depleted) is the way to go. This will reduce confusion and help make downtown more inviting and accessible. I'm entirely open to being wrong here, but I don't see how paid parking benefits the downtown community at this time. Paid parking certainly benefits the city as far as revenue (which I understand needs to come from somewhere), I just think the city's goals right now should involve doing everything possible to contribute to the flourishing/vibrancy of the downtown area. Maybe gathering some downtown parking revenue might be a realistic goal down the road, but right now the city should be focusing on investment, not extraction. 4. The SW parking garage situation is a separate issue, but one I see as becoming increasingly urgent. Permits have been oversold, many of them to students who are essentially storing their cars there and don't necessarily even live downtown. If the city wants the SW garage to serve the downtown community, changes need to be made. For example, the city usually advertises the garage as a primary parking option for the art festival. Well, these days the first 3-4 four floors are always full. So now the garage won't be able to accomodate much of the downtown art festival traffic. It also makes this a less inviting option for people who want to eat downtown, etc. They have to hunt for spots and usually park on the 4th or 5th floor.
Church Office: 352-587-2144
All, I have also added Mike Palmer who has been meeting with other people downtown to start GDOT2.0. Figured it’s a waste of resources to have different groups with the same agenda, Mike has met with Diego (originally started GDOT) and would love to help. Mike, Please meet the group. Thanks, Hiro Hey folks. Adding Laila Fakhoury of How Bazar to the email chain. Please remember to use "reply all" when replying. While I'm relieved to see that the city is preserving the free parking (sort of), I do agree with Scott that the signage and implementation is going to be a confusing deterrent for customers and a disaster for enforcement. Last I checked, the parking spaces don't include stopwatches for the first two free hours so I'm curious how that's going to work. I imagine customers will still have put their info into the app, which is NOT a solution in the slightest. Meanwhile, the data still doesn't support the need for paid street parking and the garage has filled up considerably with returning students who buy spaces in the garage to avoid paying for more expensive spaces near their apartments (as confirmed by parking ambassadors). Good comments. Once we hear, if we do, from others, we can all decide what our “final” set of requests might be. They did provide for valet and pick up drop off locations as well.
Hello Everyone, Thank you Adam for the update. Very good we are addressing as a group now to the City. Thanks to all for making it happen. My first thought on this proposal ...it seems complicated and costly for these reasons: Fabrication and installation new signs (cost) The signs having to explain too much info to be effective, instead > confusing. Extra City cost of City to enforce these new increments of detailed pricing. Abandoning was is more or less working now, with just improving a couple small steps. Did the City further communicate on the 5 main issues we brought up? Hello Everyone,
The city has made some changes and would like some feedback see below and attached:
Attached is an overview of the current system, the proposal by SP+ and a revised alternative that includes the points outlined by the group including additional consideration for free parking, extended hours of enforcement, ride share pick-up/drop-off, and accommodation of valet parking. This uses the SP+ proposal as base and adds a few modifications as outlined below to accommodate the input received.
The revised alternative extends the free 2-hour parking throughout the area implementing payment requirements after the first 2-hour free period. Under this scenario the max parking limit in the core would be 4 hours (orange segments) at max $1.00 (first 2 hours free; $0.50/hr for the next 2 hours). The limit per block per day would be eliminated and replaced with a zone approach to limit parkers from shifting their vehicles from block to block; this would promote availability of spaces in the core.
Those wishing to park for a longer period could use either:
the purple segments (first 2 hours free; $0.25/hr after that with no time limit); same zone approach would apply; or
the more convenient lots 5 and 13 at $0.50/hr with no time limit; or
lots 3 and 5 at no charge/no time limit; or
the southwest downtown parking garage (hourly or via permits). On Sep 7, 2023 at 10:26 AM -0400, Chipper Flaniken <chipper@citychurchgnv.com>, wrote: Danny - thanks for looking into GDOT2. Grateful for your time. Adam and Anthony - thank you for engaging with the city yesterday and sending the summary of what you discussed. Very helpful. A quick update for everyone, in no particular order. - Adam Bass and I met with the City yesterday to discuss the best process of getting our collective thoughts in front of them. They agreed that we should provide a letter similar to what you all have seen.
- We did not share a written copy of the proposed suggestions: We discussed a letter would be drafted to include much of the following::
- NO paid parking - keep it at two hours free.
- change enforcement hours to better address when there is actually an issue. Seems like afternoons to after dinner.
- do not enforce on Sundays - currently there is not an issue.
- add some temp ride share spots to address nighttime concerns (various locations if needed)
- work on a valet solution (only briefly touched on.)
- request city commission to formally ask the library for parking lot use - downtown employee parking
- do not include the City garage issues now (come back to that after)
- same with streatery - come back to that issue
I am certain there might be other issues to include but I think this addresses the larger ones. Adam will tweak his letter and resend; we can comment and then we'll figure out the best way forward to accomplish these items.
Trying to get all the suggestions on paper. Will circle back early next week.
Haven’t seen any emails since Chipper’s on the 17th. What’s the word? I'm really grateful for all of this work. Adam - special thanks to you for putting pen to paper and helping us advance the ball down the field. The ideas I'm seeing look promising and seem to have a decent amount of support, which is encouraging. We (City Church) mainly want to support a solution that serves the interests of the owners/tenants listed on the email. Our parking needs are fairly limited to Sunday mornings (services at 9am and 11am) and occasionally Saturday mornings, although we do encourage folks to eat downtown after services and events. During the week our church pays for our staff to park in the garage. That being said, a parking plan that could accommodate our Sunday morning needs would be really helpful. For example, I'm not sure what we would do if Lot 13 was time limited to one hour (or even two hours) on Sunday mornings. People would have to move their car before the end of a service. There's also hardly anyone else in downtown on Sunday mornings, so it seems like a parking limit during that time would be unnecessary. I'm sensitive to folks coming downtown for lunch on Sundays, although people attending our services are gone by 12:30 at the latest or themselves sticking around to eat. The parking garage is an option for us on Sunday mornings, but plenty of folks who come to our services are low income, which makes the garage fee prohibitive for them. Plus some are concerned about garage security (as we've all discussed). Hey everyone, After reading through the emails, here's my take: 1. YES to GDOT2. It's absolutely necessary for us to have a unified voice in the face of all the changes to downtown the city is pursuing. 2. Time limit start and expiration: I vote 9am to 8 or 9pm. 3. Decrease the 2 hour time limit to 1 hour in the "core" during the day. 4. Add some 30 minute spaces (like 4 or more) and do away with the 15 minute spaces altogether. 5. The city's garage should be utilized by all city/county employees immediately. Also, a program for downtown employees should be worked out so they can park in the garage without having to pay to work. Definitely OPEN the 5th floor. 6. SE 1st (West of Main) is a major factor and should be addressed now rather than later. During the day, it's a complete waste of space and could obviously be utilized to alleviate much of these issues. It needs to be opened (at least during the day). And with regard to SE 1st (East of Main), the shift to parallel parking is due to the tree thing (for those unaware, the city wanted to remove a tree in front of Harry's to make the sidewalk ADA accessible and a bunch of locals freaked out). It's true that shifting to parallel parking will result in fewer spaces on 1st Ave. Personally, I say lose the tree, keep the access, and make it ADA accessible. 7. With regard to the SP+ recommendation to the city for paid parking, the recommendation is simply about SP+ telling the city what they paid to hear. The data does not support the recommendation. The city effectively wasted a bunch of money on a recommendation based on data that did not support it. Adjusting the time limit will increase flow and access, which was the reason this came up in the first place. Also, the public is overwhelmingly against paid parking, Using falsified results to implement paid parking is an attack on small business and should be addressed as such. If the city needs an answer, let's come to an agreement on the above and present it to them. I would prefer a way to present in person so we're not blown off. A few comments regarding your letter. To begin, thank you. I think mapping this out, on top of the map I passed out at the meeting, would help everyone, including the staff and City Commission, visualize what our "counter proposal" is. Finally, the letter discusses the Headquarters, but does not say to whom you are referring. As they do not control that parking, we should have a secondary request such as GRU or other City/County lots for valet/employees. Finally, we can mention that the City owned garage is an important component to this parking puzzle and will be an additional item to be discussed din the future.
Attached is a rough draft that puts the primary concerns on paper.
Andrew also had the suggestion of : With regard to the tiered time limit we were knocking around at today’s meeting, let me know if you need me to reiterate anything as it did seem that everyone was onboard with the proposal.
Basically what I’m thinking is the North/South/Main streets (1st and 2nd Streets) could be 30 minute parking to allow for quicker needs and access throughout the day, while the perpendicular East/West avenues/places (1st ave, 2nd ave, and 2nd place) could be an hour. Once you get past Main St and 2nd Street, those spaces could be 2 hours. Happy to map it all all out.
This would pave the way for the turnover the city is hoping to accomplish and it would eliminate the need for them to peruse paid parking, which we all agree is bad.
Also, with regard to to the conversation about employees, we all agree that the city/county employees need to lead by example and stop using the on-street parking. Business employees must also start using the garage and that needs to be something that doesn’t come out of their pockets as the “pay to work” thing is a pretty bad scenario. We also agree that the police should have more a presence downtown (on foot) and can help make a safer downtown for both day and night visitors.
Thoughts? On Aug 8, 2023 at 9:34 AM -0400, Danny Hughes <drhughes3@gmail.com>, wrote: Hey everyone - I have had some things come up for me that is going to make it difficult for me to get there. That said, I think the situation at Loosey's is rather specific to Loosey's and this section of downtown and every quadrant of downtown presents its own problems, solutions, etc. I also feel pretty strongly that the parking garages as well as the city and county employees are currently problematic. It would be nice to know what you all come up with if someone has time for a recap later today. A large map would definitely be helpful. Thanks Adam! Do we need a larger map do better work from? I don’t mind getting one printed if it will be helpful. On Aug 8, 2023 at 9:12 AM -0400, Andrew Schaer <hearagain32601@gmail.com>, wrote: The meeting is still on for today at 11:30. I also have a meet the teacher event to attend, but will be present from 11:30 to 12:30. Confirming that we're meeting today at 11:30. A meet-the-teacher event for my kids is now scheduled for approximately the same time, but I'll still trying to swing by for a bit. Thank you for adding me Hiro! I’ll be there. Quang
On Monday, July 17, 2023, Chipper Flaniken <chipper@citychurchgnv.com> wrote: I'll be there on August 8 at 11:30am. Very grateful for all of the work done to organize this. Yes, August 8 and 11:30 works for me On Jul 14, 2023 at 3:17 PM -0400, Andrew Schaer <hearagain32601@gmail.com>, wrote: Works for me. Spoke with Rob at Paramount Grill this afternoon and they would like to be added to the group. Welcome aboard, Paramount! To catch you up to speed, we are a group of downtown businesses that are coming together to represent our interests in the midst of infrastructure and parking changes in the downtown area. We are planning to meet at the Hyatt on Aug 8 at 11:30 am. How is August 8 @11:30 am for everyone?
All,
I added Shawn Cliche to the conversation. He will be opening a business called Capone’s in the former If It Is space. On Jul 12, 2023 at 9:06 AM -0400, Hirofumi Leung <hiro@dragonflyrestaurants.com>, wrote: Will he available, let me know when.
I will be out of town that week, but would like to participate. If it works for everyone else that week, I will make sure I have someone there. On Jul 10, 2023 at 4:25 PM -0400, Anthony Lyons <ALyons@amjinc.com>, wrote: Including Gator Spirits Owner.
I appreciate everyone joining together last week to discuss the parking study currently being undertaken by the City of Gainesville. While we may all have thoughts regarding the contents of the study, and concerns, there is at least one big positive, we have all decided to join together to talk. In short, my suggestion is to have a working session the week after next (open to any day/time). To use our time wisely, perhaps we can have a large format map(s) of the downtown printed and sit together and mark up anything we suggest or leave as is. If we can agree on a list of recommendations, it will be helpful when approaching the City Staff/Elected Officials. Anyhow, please reply all and let everyone know if you are willing, and able to have a working session soon.
Good Day, I suggest we all get together without the consultants to talk through what we would like to recommend, as a group. I can host at the Hyatt anytime next week, after Tuesday. How is 1 pm July 6?
--
--
--
-- Hear Again Records 201 SE 2nd Ave. Suite 105 Gainesville, FL 32601 352-373-1800
|
