OpenCDA

May 2, 2015

Coeur d’Alene to Propose Parking Ordinance Changes

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 7:24 am

changing the rulesThe City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, proposes to amend its city code regarding parking facilities.

Coeur d’Alene residents should take the time to understand how the proposed ordinance amendments will affect them.

Here’s a hint:  Get your checkbooks out.

Although this may sound very ho-hum, readers should understand that while these amendments seem to be directed primarily at the McEuen parking lot facility, they really affect most every City parking lot facility.

The McEuen parking lot facility has become what many of us predicted it would — an attractant for unlawful and inappropriate behaviors.

The proposed ordinance defines “parking facility” as more than just parking spaces.  It also “… includes ancillary fixtures, equipment and utilities for the use, operation and maintenance of such facilities.”  And a “parking tenant” as “… any individual, group, or entity that has a valid city issued special permit to occupy a portion of a City parking facility.”

If you put the McEuen “parking facility” together with “parking tenant,” you are left with what could readily be converted into a de facto private or nearly private parking facility for the mayor’s and council’s contiguous cronies.   As the paid professional screamer on the 3 a.m. cable TV infomercial always says, “But wait!  There’s more!”

In this case, the ancillary stuff provided for in the proposed ordinance will include costly security measures whose costs of design, procurement, installation, maintenance, and replacement should have been itemized and disclosed when former Mayor Bloem and her cronies were bloviating about how nice their bright and shiny new park would be.  Security costs are recurring costs.

As you read them, pay close attention the wording deleted and the wording added or substituted by the proposed amendments.

The amendments to the ordinance propose to dramatically expand how the “Coeur d’Alene Public Parking Lot Facility Capital Improvement Fund” (your money) can be spent.

In very broad terms, the existing ordinance provides for the funding being used to acquire land for public parking lots or buildings, construct public parking facilities, and improve public parking facilities by grading, paving, sealing, signing, striping, draining or otherwise capital improving of such city parking facilities.  Those were the old wordings.

The amendments’ new wording allows the City to acquire land not just for public parking lots or buildings.  The wording is changed to allow the acquisition of land, buildings, structures, equipment and appurtenances necessary for the parking of motor vehicles.  Remember, pay close attention the wording deleted and the wording added or substituted by the proposed amendments.

And finally, the amendments’ new wording allows the City to improve public parking facilities by adding the words “upgrading equipment and appurtenances” to the existing list of improvements.

In general, there are increased regulations describing how the public may and may not use City parking facilities.  Most are reasonable and sensible, but of course, there is a provision that allows the City to waive these regulations for its cronies.

Given the parking space stunt then-mayoral candidate Steve Widmyer tried to pull in 2013 when he was on the City Parking Commission, we wonder if these ordinance amendments will enable now-Mayor Steve Widmyer to lawfully convert any of the City’s on-street parking spaces for his business’s exclusive use?

Please take the time to read the proposed ordinance amendments and decide for yourselves if and how they will affect you now and down the road.  They affect parking areas throughout the City, not just downtown.

2 Comments

  1. Would the new wording to allow acquisition of “land, buildings, structures…” allow the city to better justify the use of eminent domain to purchase properties? Please say it isn’t so.
    The city reduced parking requirements downtown a few years ago which, in my opinion, not only justified the need for a parking garage but also required the taxpayers to subsidize the parking garage. Also, the adoption of the ordinance for granny flats did not include on site parking which added additional autos on the narrow streets downtown.

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 2, 2015 @ 8:16 am

  2. Susie,

    Very good questions.

    Maybe coincidentally (or not), the agenda for the Monday, May 4, joint meeting between the Kootenai County BOCC and the CdA CC shows a couple parking-related agenda items.

    Maybe more significantly, the CdA CC meeting agenda for Tuesday, May 5, shows our local politburo will go into executive session to consider “Resolution 15-022, Condemnation Proceedings Authorization”. At that same meeting it will consider the proposed parking ordinance amendments.

    Comment by Bill — May 2, 2015 @ 8:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved