Don't forget that the city also takes most of the revenue from city parking meters and city-owned garages and uses it to pay debt service on streetcar bonds. That's the primary reason why there seems to be "no money" for basic road maintenance or improvements.

Jack, I must say you have been on a roll the past few days.

I am at the Hollywood library right now - across the street, one of those parking-less cr-apartments is being built, and the one next to the Hollywood Theatre is just two or three blocks away. At 10 this morning, when the library opened, there were very few parking spots within a block or two of the library. I wonder how long it will take to install meters in Hollywood.

John Charles is correct. In SoWhat, all the parking meter revenue goes to help pay for the streetcar into SoWhat, besides the SDC (service development charges)of the URA. Of course combined they are far short.

It would be interesting to propose that, as the garage-less apartment facilities are (according to our planning friends) intended for people without cars, their residents should not be eligible to buy street parking permits, and to require the developers to disclose this to the purchasers.

It needs to be the bicyclists that pay $60 a year as a user fee permit to pay for bicycle infrastructure that often removes on-street parking, taking up that same amount of space and more.

It would be interesting to propose that, as the garage-less apartment facilities are (according to our planning friends) intended for people without cars, their residents should not be eligible to buy street parking permits, and to require the developers to disclose this to the purchasers.

Great idea, but requires too much honesty and transparency in local government which could be bad for business by scaring away buyers who are badly needed to demonstrate the big plan a "success". Better to lure them in first and let them discover hidden costs and restrictions later on their own. Malcontent individuals aren't taken very seriously by the media and pose little threat.

In SoWhat, all the parking meter revenue goes to help pay for the streetcar into SoWhat, besides the SDC (service development charges)of the URA. Of course combined they are far short.

On top of that TriMet gets to pay close to $10 million a year to operate the City of Portland Streetcar...so that means folks from Forest Grove to Troutdale are forced to pay for the City's pet project.

Let me get this straight: Crapartments are built with zero parking, and their commercial tenants are allowed to erect dining spots on top of public parking spaces...but I have to pay to park in front of my own home?

Un.Frigging.Believable.

Talk about boiling a frog slowly...that's life in Portland. But let's "Keep Portland Weird"!

Goebbels would have loved Portland.

Years ago, when I moved into my neighborhood in near-SW if I came home mid-day I often couldn't park in front of my own house as the street was used as a park-and-ride for both OHSU, and downtown.

So, I see the practical value of the parking permit program for residents, particularly in a situation where an existing neighborhood is abused by people who want to have their bus and drive too. BUT, the system is overpriced, and enforcement is minimal. And if you dare try to call the enforcement number without the exact information on an offending vehicle (Liscence, Make, Model, date of birth, SSN, name of first born, current phase of the moon), you'll risk getting a curt dismissal.

Heaven forbid you ever have any real traffic issues you want resolved.

Lots of new home construction in Camas, Washougal, and Vancouver. Did I mention it is income tax free?

Mayor Hales will have a nice McMansion to sell after the inauguration. Assuming he decides to stay in Portland this time.

Mercy. How are we ever going to get to be just like Copenhagen with all you cranky nay-sayers dragging us down?

You know what's coming, don't you? Residents will be charged to pave the unpaved roads in front of their houses, and then charged again to park on them.

I suggest we take the idea that cr-apartment dwellers not be allowed to purchase a street parking permit.
I say they be prohibited from owning a motor vehicle, at all.
They would have 30 days from signing the lease to legally dispose of their motor vehicles.

Why punish legitimate visitors and shoppers? Why impose extra charges on residents? If the problem is commuters taking up parking spaces for 8+ hours a day, why not look into why they choose to do so rather than park at home and ride transit? The answer, of course, is that doing so would expose the ugly truth that the transit system is not doing it's job effectively: that transit is either too slow, too unreliable, or too costly for these people. But it's typical of the city to look for a wrong-end-of-the-stick solution.

It needs to be the bicyclists that pay $60 a year as a user fee permit to pay for bicycle infrastructure that often removes on-street parking, taking up that same amount of space and more.

I am seriously considering a citizen initiative next year that would prohibit the city from devoting any transportation dollars to bike infrastructure save that which is collected through a bike registration fee.

I grew up living right in San Francisco; where they have been pulling this nonsense for decades. With parking already difficult in most parts of SF; the planning people required developers to at least build a small number of parking spaces for the handicapped and other residents in most residential projects. Of course, most people that have lived in SF for any length of time would never rent or buy a property without at least one off street parking space. Only rubes and the clueless would rent or buy a home and hope for the best with on-street parking.
Why people in Portland allow this nonsense is beyond logic and common sense.

It needs to be the bicyclists that pay $60 a year as a user fee permit to pay for bicycle infrastructure that often removes on-street parking, taking up that same amount of space and more.
--
I am seriously considering a citizen initiative next year that would prohibit the city from devoting any transportation dollars to bike infrastructure save that which is collected through a bike registration fee.

A couple of days ago, around 5:30 p.m. on a Saturday, at the corner of 18th and Alberta, I went to to park my bike in one of those sets of racks they put in where a parking space used to be. There was no space for my bike, because all twenty spaces had been taken up. If you owned a business in the area, would you prefer having a space for a car carrying anywhere from 1 to 4 customers, or bikes carrying 20 customers?

In this instance, at least, nobody's taking anything from anybody else. People are parking their vehicles somewhere and businesses are making money. I get the complaints about the more-expensive infrastructure, but some of this stuff actually works.

And how do you bring your purchases home on a bike, and in a Northwest downpour 9 months a year?

“In this instance, at least, nobody's taking anything from anybody else. People are parking their vehicles somewhere and businesses are making money.”

The difference is that motorists driving and parking on the streets are paying for the streets through motor vehicle fuel taxes and license, registration and other car/truck assessed user fees. There are no user fees assessed on bicycle riders and therefore bicyclists are freeloading on the backs of drivers. Likewise, bicyclists are continually ranting for more and more specialized infrastructure and bicycle specific space on the road, but continue to expect somebody else to pay the fiscal costs to provide it. The time has come for bicyclists to pay for what they utilize and want just like the majority of other road users already do.