As you likely already know, I find the off street parking program in Shorewood to be appalling. I will have a great deal to say about it in the next few months. For now, let me set out the list of the problems I see, so you know why this program causes me a headache every time I think about it.
By way of introduction, the village rents about 420 spaces in a dozen or so lots around the village. The village then re-rents these spaces to renters who either have no on-site parking at their building, or where the parking is insufficient for the number of residents with cars. So what are the problems with the program?
1. The program is inefficiently managed. The paper and pencil system is still firmly in place, with no sign of moving toward online payment or automatic renewal. Instead, those who wish to rent from the village are still snowed under by an avalanche of self-addressed, stamped envelopes, and paper checks.
2. The parking fees represent a regressive tax. We in Shorewood should be ashamed that, in our progressive community, we charge a fee exclusively to the lowest income residents of our village. In addition to paying for the parking program itself, the fees include an outrageous markup which goes into the general village coffers. Most programs, such as trash collection and street repair are paid for as a part of the property tax. Why should our lowest income residents be required to pay a special fee with a huge markup for a program only they need?
3. The parking rules renters must live by are oppressive. In some of the parking lots, the parker is not allowed to use their space until after 10 PM, and must be out by 7 AM. This requires organizing evenings and mornings around shuffling the car from place to place.
4. These rules have the effect of creating an "underclass" of renters. Having recently been a renter myself, I can tell you that most renters do not feel the red carpet is being rolled out for them here in Shorewood. When I rented, it was my perception that the Village viewed us renters as a nuisance to be minimized.
5. Treating renters like this drives out the residents we need to retain. Today’s 27 year-old single grad student is tomorrow’s 42 year-old father of two. The 21 year-old waitress will be the 36 year-old CPA and mother of three. If we shove these residents out the back door before they get their feet on the ground, we will have to spend money on fancy marketing programs to attract them back, just like we are right now.
6. There is no legitimate reason the program could not be changed. Overnight, on-street parking in high density areas (Oakland, Capitol, and Wilson) is long overdue. The village has been dragging their feet on this for years now, delaying with expensive, consultant-driven studies and endless discussion. It is time for action.
