Bob Yancy said:

---

MeKnowNot said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

I thought it was established that HOT money can be used to fund these types of events as far as public safety. No need to raise taxes. If we need to fund more public safety positions, find that money elsewhere than a direct tax to those of us that are already overtaxed.

I think the money spent for a large Instagram prop would cover a large portion of rookie police officer's salary. I bet selling a large anchor store at a local mall would fund several.

I have to manage my household with a 10% increase in my property taxes, 25% increase in my insurance, which equates to a $100 bump to my mortgage, when I got a 2% raise.

The city should learn to tighten their belts similarly,

---

Find the money elsewhere. That's a great idea!

What if the City started charging for special event parking on City streets and parking lots? No new capital required and a large part of the money collected will be from non-residents.

---

That was the idea. To see if it worked. I didn't realize so many park in front of their house on the street rather than their driveway.

---

This is not an attack.
But this mindset is likely mainly due to your own experience. You likely live in a neighborhood that likely frowns on or even has HOA rules that forbids street parking and likely has homes with large driveways and multi-car garages.

In smaller or poorer neighborhoods, there may not be room to park all cars in driveway. And I'm not talking the very poorest neighborhoods... just poorer than the higher end neighborhoods.
We have a garage that holds 2 cars and a driveway that can fit 2 cars (3 if we stack them)... but we had 3 daughters living with us each with a car (that they bought themselves).
We definitely could have fit all 5 cars in driveway, but then we'd have to play car "tetris" when someone had to leave, so we parked several on the street.

That's in a middle class neighborhood. Now think about even poorer neighborhoods where they might not be a garage or a single lane driveway.

I'm sure the mindset by the council was "well the only people parking on the street are the students who pack 4 unrelated people into a single house, so this only affects them and they don't vote"

City council needs to step out of their over-privileged bubble and actually learn about their city population and how the regular people actually live.

This is the perception the council has put forth with dumb decisions like the make residents pay for parking in front of their own house ordinance.

Very well said. Especially the part about the bubble.

And the older neighborhoods or homes that are older homes, they don't have massive driveways and garages. Older homes typically had a one-car garage and narrow driveway. People in that era had one car.

If some of the properties in that south gate area are still "vintage" and not been torn down and had an Ag Shack put in place, they park on the street out of necessity.

We also played car Tetris at my house growing up. Where we lived, there was no room to park on the street.

91_Aggie said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

MeKnowNot said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

I thought it was established that HOT money can be used to fund these types of events as far as public safety. No need to raise taxes. If we need to fund more public safety positions, find that money elsewhere than a direct tax to those of us that are already overtaxed.

I think the money spent for a large Instagram prop would cover a large portion of rookie police officer's salary. I bet selling a large anchor store at a local mall would fund several.

I have to manage my household with a 10% increase in my property taxes, 25% increase in my insurance, which equates to a $100 bump to my mortgage, when I got a 2% raise.

The city should learn to tighten their belts similarly,

---

Find the money elsewhere. That's a great idea!

What if the City started charging for special event parking on City streets and parking lots? No new capital required and a large part of the money collected will be from non-residents.

---

That was the idea. To see if it worked. I didn't realize so many park in front of their house on the street rather than their driveway.

---

This is not an attack.
But this mindset is likely mainly due to your own experience. You likely live in a neighborhood that likely frowns on or even has HOA rules that forbids street parking and likely has homes with large driveways and multi-car garages.

In smaller or poorer neighborhoods, there may not be room to park all cars in driveway. And I'm not talking the very poorest neighborhoods... just poorer than the higher end neighborhoods.
We have a garage that holds 2 cars and a driveway that can fit 2 cars (3 if we stack them)... but we had 3 daughters living with us each with a car (that they bought themselves).
We definitely could have fit all 5 cars in driveway, but then we'd have to play car "tetris" when someone had to leave, so we parked several on the street.

That's in a middle class neighborhood. Now think about even poorer neighborhoods where they might not be a garage or a single lane driveway.

I'm sure the mindset by the council was "well the only people parking on the street are the students who pack 4 unrelated people into a single house, so this only affects them and they don't vote"

City council needs to step out of their over-privileged bubble and actually learn about their city population and how the regular people actually live.

This is the perception the council has put forth with dumb decisions like the make residents pay for parking in front of their own house ordinance.

---

It's not an ordinance but a two event pilot program.

As for privilege I don't much subscribe to the concept. In 1986 I lived in HUD housing and my high school sweetheart wife stood in line for WIC. That's government cheese and government cereal through the Women, Infant and Children program. I was the first male in my family to get a bachelors degree. My Dad had an associates degree and worked in the oil patch, with the crushed fingers to prove it. With his wisdom and discipline and faith he taught the value of hard work.

My wife and I have lived and still live the American dream, and we fought tooth and nail for it. So when you talk about privilege on council it makes me realize how presumptive folks can be.

College professors, school teachers, paint contractors- hard working citizens just like you- volunteering. There's no caste system at work.

I wish the folks who think this policy was so misguided knew why it was tried, what our thought process was and heard the debate. Moreover, I wish the same folks so intractably certain this was a bad test program had showed up at council or called or emailed and explained their thinking- as opposed to assuming the worst about folks.

My $.02

-yancy

I wish the folks who think this policy was so misguided knew why it was tried, what our thought process was and heard the debate. Moreover, I wish the same folks so intractably certain this was a bad test program had showed up at council or called or emailed and explained their thinking- as opposed to assuming the worst about folks.

My $.02

-yancy


Bob,
We have been asking why it was tried, we have been asking specific questions like how much was the cost of personnel to cover the game all to no avail or met with " I don't know how much HOT money or estimated sales tax" or just silence. We established that HOT money could be used to cover event cost but then the story kept going. There have been no clear costs laid out and now the story has changed in my mind from reading your comments and reading through some, from covering the cost of personnel for the game only "all hands on deck" to we need multiple officers all the time. We have given you a forum to inform the public about this issue in depth and I would think that a forum such as this would be a great place to explain this issue just as you shoot off fireworks when a "win" is touted.

Please tell us how much advance notice was given out so that people may have attended this meeting on 4/25 for this specific issue? And why wouldn't be covered on the website other than in the minutes as an idea and not we are going through with this thing so buckle up. And how would find out more about what y'all talk about - are the meeting taped? It's almost like the opinions on here do not matter since we didn't attend the meeting and you really do not want to defend it now that questions are being asked of the plan. The questions have started here on 4/29.

Come on Bob be on the level. …….

Edit to add.: if you wished anyone of us was there - Does any of this change your mind on the issue? People can't park on the street in front of their house, have yard work done, appliances delivered, repairs to air conditioners, friends or family over for the games, etc….

Bob Yancy said:

---

91_Aggie said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

MeKnowNot said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

I thought it was established that HOT money can be used to fund these types of events as far as public safety. No need to raise taxes. If we need to fund more public safety positions, find that money elsewhere than a direct tax to those of us that are already overtaxed.

I think the money spent for a large Instagram prop would cover a large portion of rookie police officer's salary. I bet selling a large anchor store at a local mall would fund several.

I have to manage my household with a 10% increase in my property taxes, 25% increase in my insurance, which equates to a $100 bump to my mortgage, when I got a 2% raise.

The city should learn to tighten their belts similarly,

---

Find the money elsewhere. That's a great idea!

What if the City started charging for special event parking on City streets and parking lots? No new capital required and a large part of the money collected will be from non-residents.

---

That was the idea. To see if it worked. I didn't realize so many park in front of their house on the street rather than their driveway.

---

This is not an attack.
But this mindset is likely mainly due to your own experience. You likely live in a neighborhood that likely frowns on or even has HOA rules that forbids street parking and likely has homes with large driveways and multi-car garages.

In smaller or poorer neighborhoods, there may not be room to park all cars in driveway. And I'm not talking the very poorest neighborhoods... just poorer than the higher end neighborhoods.
We have a garage that holds 2 cars and a driveway that can fit 2 cars (3 if we stack them)... but we had 3 daughters living with us each with a car (that they bought themselves).
We definitely could have fit all 5 cars in driveway, but then we'd have to play car "tetris" when someone had to leave, so we parked several on the street.

That's in a middle class neighborhood. Now think about even poorer neighborhoods where they might not be a garage or a single lane driveway.

I'm sure the mindset by the council was "well the only people parking on the street are the students who pack 4 unrelated people into a single house, so this only affects them and they don't vote"

City council needs to step out of their over-privileged bubble and actually learn about their city population and how the regular people actually live.

This is the perception the council has put forth with dumb decisions like the make residents pay for parking in front of their own house ordinance.

---

It's not an ordinance but a two event pilot program.

As for privilege I don't much subscribe to the concept. In 1986 I lived in HUD housing and my high school sweetheart wife stood in line for WIC. That's government cheese and government cereal through the Women, Infant and Children program. I was the first male in my family to get a bachelors degree. My Dad had an associates degree and worked in the oil patch, with the crushed fingers to prove it. With his wisdom and discipline and faith he taught the value of hard work.

My wife and I have lived and still live the American dream, and we fought tooth and nail for it. So when you talk about privilege on council it makes me realize how presumptive folks can be.

College professors, school teachers, paint contractors- hard working citizens just like you- volunteering. There's no caste system at work.

I wish the folks who think this policy was so misguided knew why it was tried, what our thought process was and heard the debate. Moreover, I wish the same folks so intractably certain this was a bad test program had showed up at council or called or emailed and explained their thinking- as opposed to assuming the worst about folks.

My $.02

-yancy

---

The presumption and perception came from your statement of "I didn't realize so many park in front of their house on the street rather than their driveway"

That sounded very "out of touch" and also sounded like no real research was done on how it would affect those who lived in those areas. What I took from that statement was "People who live in my neighborhood don't park on street so this shouldn't affect very many... oh and since that is my personal observation it must be true so let's not even research... we can't wait because we have these two big events and this money-grab will be.missed if we delay"

https://www.cstx.gov/departments___city_hall/pubcomm/channel_19

I can't link to the actual video but if you scroll back to the April 25 city council meeting, there is video and the discussion of it starts around the 1 hour and 20 minute mark.

My personal highlight of the discussion is when the city representative makes sure to point out that it's illegal for residents in that neighborhood (or any part of CS) to charge for parking on their private property in the midst of discussing why the city charging for parking (including those who live in that neighborhood) is a great idea.

Mr. Yancy-

Serious question here as I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of CC meetings. It was made pretty clear during that discussion that that meeting was the first time the public could have heard about this plan. It also seems, to me, like there was no chance at the end of the discussion for citizens to speak up. When would the appropriate time have been for someone to raise an objection at that meeting if this was their first time hearing about it?

I started this thread the very next day after reading accounts from several news outlets, KBTX, WTAW, the Eagle, etc.

Now, I'll admit, my distrust of government as a whole led to my tongue in cheek observations, but reading between the lines, I thought this was a colossal bad idea.

This is why the perception exists that it's a bad idea:

1. The city charges for parking including residents while denying residents the right to charge for parking on their property.

2. City council members apparently do not live in the neighborhoods they wish to impose the new regulations. City council members and their guests can still park in front of their houses for free and thus avoid the consequences of this new regulation.

3. The city claims the forced payment for parking on public streets in residential areas is necessary for dubious reasons.

The above three statements have led to the discontent seen here. Right or wrong, the city has generated negative PR for what is essentially a money grab.

AggieBaseball06 said:

---

https://www.cstx.gov/departments___city_hall/pubcomm/channel_19

I can't link to the actual video but if you scroll back to the April 25 city council meeting, there is video and the discussion of it starts around the 1 hour and 20 minute mark.

My personal highlight of the discussion is when the city representative makes sure to point out that it's illegal for residents in that neighborhood (or any part of CS) to charge for parking on their private property in the midst of discussing why the city charging for parking (including those who live in that neighborhood) is a great idea.

Mr. Yancy-

Serious question here as I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of CC meetings. It was made pretty clear during that discussion that that meeting was the first time the public could have heard about this plan. It also seems, to me, like there was no chance at the end of the discussion for citizens to speak up. When would the appropriate time have been for someone to raise an objection at that meeting if this was their first time hearing about it?

---

At "Hear Visitors" at the beginning of the meeting. But, had you signed up, mayor probably would've asked you to wait until that agenda item came up so we could interact with you and answer questions and ask you questions- which we're not allowed to do during Hear Visitors (again, thanks state legislature.)

It's one of the most concerning things about being on council is folks coming before us during Hear Visitors expressing concerns and we can't respond. A warped law.

The best way to be heard and interact is to a) scan the agenda, b) if you see something important to you, sign up online to speak. You get 3 minutes but mayor waives that limit often. If you represent a group of people you get 10 minutes. You can bring a slide deck or any supportive materials.

Had a couple of folks shown up in opposition, I'm thinking 80% we would not have proceeded, but I could be wrong.

That notwithstanding I'm not blaming anyone for not showing up. I stand by the decision to test it for two events. I also now hear clearly those opposed.

Back to Aggie baseball!

I don't care if it is "pilot program". Pilot program means the govt has already decided this is a permanent program but have to slowly implement it to skirt some rules.

It is blatant money grab from City of College Station. That's it. Period. It has nothing to do with safety, traffic flow, or anything else. CoCS sees a chance to grab some money and they want it.

Now the residents of the neighborhoods aren't very smart. College Station overreaches and decides that you can't charge for $20 for parking? Just get creative. Charge $20 for bottle of water. Folks are allowed to park at your house while they drink it. They can also have the water "to go".

wait! will the city not allow residents to charge people to park in their driveways?

91_Aggie said:

---

wait! will the city not allow residents to charge people to park in their driveways?

---

Yes. That was established. The city vigorously goes after folks who do this, but figures it's okay for them to do so.

Hornbeck said:

---

91_Aggie said:

---

wait! will the city not allow residents to charge people to park in their driveways?

---

Yes. That was established. The city vigorously goes after folks who do this, but figures it's okay for them to do so.

---

Rules for thee
Not for me

Also, "Don't water your yard!!!!!!" while we drove by new city hall after it was completed and they were watering the new sod non-stop

maroon barchetta said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

91_Aggie said:

---

wait! will the city not allow residents to charge people to park in their driveways?

---

Yes. That was established. The city vigorously goes after folks who do this, but figures it's okay for them to do so.

---

Rules for thee
Not for me

Also, "Don't water your yard!!!!!!" while we drove by new city hall after it was completed and they were watering the new sod non-stop

---

yeah, well like someone else said, let's give those residents some ideas to "loophole" that absurdity.

"Drop-off Windshield cleaning service! leave your car for up to 24-hours and we'll wash your windshield so you don't have to stay and wait! " A squeegee. a bucket of water and about 3 minutes of your time per car is a low-cost and low-time commitment for this very needed and vital service for car owners.

Hornbeck said:

---

Unfortunately, while this idea is great, the leverage the city uses is that the homeowners aren't allowed to "run a business" there.

Now, if someone were to declare their home "the Church of the Lady of the Eternal Grape" and parking there for a donation, maybe….

---

Then the city certainly can't run a business on a public street.