More on the Downtown Parking Garage for League City

So the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport forum turned into quite the crap-show over the last couple of days thanks to the antics of Jay Holley and Mel Kelly who are, to quote Mel, "Bad at being bad" and completely failed in their attempted character assassination of council candidate Debbie Drury.  I was going to think of a response to all of that, but realized, a much better response would be a return to focus on current issues regarding League City.  Furthermore, credit is due to Chris John Mallios for actually enforcing his rules against his fellow Green Team supporters, so no response is needed any more.  So let's get back to the latest debate - the infamous Parking Garage.

A lot of theories regarding downtown revitalization have been thrown out by the Green Team propagandists in the League City Politics is a Full Contact Sport forum.  These amateur urban planners have centered their complaints regarding League City's downtown revitalization plan around the parking garage which the city would like to build across from League Park.  I've already made numerous posts that mentioned some of the benefits (all residents able to take advantage of events at League Park such as the 4th of July celebration, costs will be shifted to the Feds through grant money, etc), but let's address some specific ideas and concerns which have been raised (and with some actual research and references, instead of relying on the opinion of some random person on Facebook), namely:

1) There's no need for a parking garage, a parking lot would be sufficient for the amount of traffic the area sees
2) A parking garage wouldn't address the biggest problem, that the area would still not be pedestrian friendly
3) There isn't enough business there to justify the expense
4) The money could be better spent on other projects

So let's talk about the "need" for a parking garage, as we have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.  The fact is, when you add parking, you attract more businesses.  After all, especially in a downtown area (which, despite some claims, the historic area of 518 DOES qualify as a downtown area) where you already have buildings packed closely together, and you only have street parking available, it is hard for a business to open that needs parking (they'd need to buy a large enough lot for their business plus parking.  Now, we could just put in a lot, and this would certainly accommodate more activities and more businesses than present; however, it's setting yourself up to plateau in growth.  Once the parking lots are constantly full, people will stop crowding in, and additional businesses can't be accommodated.  At this point, it's probably too late to start a garage - the businesses already there will be negatively affected as the lot is torn down to put up a garage.  However, if you build the garage first (and ring it smartly with storefronts, providing a quick move-in opportunity for new or relocated businesses) then other businesses will fill in and drive up the retail sales tax, liquor tax, and other outside revenue that will help fund other improvements in this city.  In other words, this is an INVESTMENT in something which will bring in additional revenue, which will help fund all the other projects which the Green Team has stated this money should be spent on (road improvements, water infrastructure, etc).  Here's just one example of a similar town that saw a massive amount of retail growth, all spurned on because of the garage (in other words, through proactive planning instead of reactive construction):  http://buildabetterburb.org/financing-parking-garages-qa-with-parking-consultant-gerard-giosa/ .  Here's another city facing similar issues, and a quote that applies to League City as well, "An exciting downtown is part of what attracts CEOs and entrepreneurs ": http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2005/01/31/Mayor-pushes-downtown-projects-to-attract-new-people-businesses.html

Of course, the Green Team isn't really opposed to a parking garage.  What they're opposed to is anything that Mark Rohr has ever suggested, because they wish to promote Pat Hallisey to dictator and restore League City to the ineffective, turbulent, cronyism of a Strong-Mayor form of government, and they are opposed to retail and business growth ruining their nostalgic idea of some mythological "rural" League City (thanks George Turski).  Meanwhile, the rest of us just want a way to get our property taxes lowered, and investing in something that will attract businesses is EXACTLY the way to accomplish that.  Ironically, the Green Team has spoken about smart or managed growth, and this is EXACTLY what the Council and City Manager have been proposing, that Hallisey's minions are opposed to.  The downtown revitalization plan implements most of the suggested practises laid out in this guide for communities:  https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/rebuilding-downtown.pdf .  But again, "smart" growth is just a Green Team euphemism for resisting development at all costs (since it's your tax dollars, not theirs, after all, Hallisey has property below the city average in value, and Greg Gripon doesn't bother paying his taxes anyway until he's called out by his opposition as he runs for office).

A parking garage actually creates a more walkable and beautiful downtown area by preventing the on-street parking mess that is the current downtown.  It would enable wider sidewalks and other conveniences that would make for a safer more pedestrian-friendly downtown, which is exactly the trend that the younger generation is seeking as they choose where to live and start businesses.  But again, the Green Team isn't after that, they just want to keep their old city for their old families.

Now onto the costs of a parking garage vs. a parking lot.  A parking lot likely won't be big enough to accommodate the transit center which is required to get Federal grant money.  As such, the burden for funding would be entirely on the city.  Based on this site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6EB981D2-6A67-449F-9808-5B4F950F7B01/0/Parking_Management_where_it_can_take_you.pdf  The cost per space to build a 2 or 3 story parking garage is roughly 4 times the cost to build a surface parking spot.  Since the plan involves the city funding 20% of the cost, and money from grants covering 80% of the cost, then we're essentially getting the garage for the same cost as the parking lot.  Now, obviously, the ongoing maintenance costs will be higher, but the businesses which will be attracted will bring in more revenue to offset this cost (and then some).  So a surface lot isn't useful as a solution at all.

So the question is - do you believe the spin from the Green Team which is seeking to fight growth (which is a losing fight - the area is GOING to grow, like it or not), or do you want our city to invest in it's future to be able to provide improved infrastructure while shifting tax burden to retail that will enable the city to provide better services while lowering property taxes?  THAT is the question - not "Do you want a $10mil parking garage?" as the Green Team likes to ask.  PS - that cost is for the ENTIRE downtown revitalization, not just the parking garage, and only serves to demonstrate the hyperbole the Green Team is prone to employ as it seeks to trick voters into supporting their anti-business agenda.