Ag97 said:

---

So 25 years ago when I lived on Southgate we would charge people to park in our driveway for football games. We could squeeze 6 cars in the driveway and charge $20/car. CoCS cracked down on it and said it was illegal because they considered any of the cars not completely on the concrete to be parked in the yard (to get 6 cars double stacked, we would be off the concrete a foot or two and in the grass. I'm a little miffed that they now want to charge people to park on the streets when they don't allow residents to charge to park in their driveways. Money grubbers.

---

Yeah it's another blatant money grab by the city. Developer fees, utility surcharges, rental property registry, add it to the list.

Deej said:

---

They still have that same rule today. They discourage anyone charging for parking in driveways the same way. Rules for thee but not for me.

---

I live in Southgate and a few years ago there were three girl A&M students who lived acoss the street in a house that backs up to GB drive and they would stand out there with a sign "$30 parking" They had a long driveway that wrapped around the house and could park eight or nine vehicles there. The one gal told me that they made enough in the Fall to pay their utility bill.

The city somehow found out and sent them a warning that they were operating a business in the neighborhood and that is not allowed. They tried to do it with a sign that people could contribute whatever money they wanted tp if they wanted to and the city came back with a threat of prosecution. They stopped.

If I can't charge to park in my driveway, how can the school system charge to park in the school parking lots on George Bush? I know they are for clubs and good causes, but the girls cause was also good.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

The councilman won't touch this one.

maroon barchetta said:

---

"Do as I say, not as I do"

The councilman won't touch this one.

---

Yeah, his lack of input here is pretty conspicuous.

Under the guise of parking safely - man I hate that the government thinks they are experts on safety. This is a money grab with no concern for the citizens who actually live here. So if i want to watch it on tv and invite people over then my friends will be charged $25 per car by the city to park in front of my house. Ridiculous.

Ohhh I'll bet we can register cars in the future and then they can track cars - tow cars etc..


Have a new machine in the front yard of peoples homes is just gross.
Have y'all seen what the English are doing to their neighborhood cameras that charge fees. People are destroying them and now there are broken items littering the street and they are employing hundreds of people to fix them daily.

Don't y'all make enough money on hotels - oh but that HOT money and can't be spent on general fund items like this parking money can. The city was given a gift by Texas A&M and now they are complaining about it. The tax money raised by these events will be in the millions but they need an extra $50k to do nothing but charge for the same thing that has been going on for the ages.

KBTX had the original article on the thread. They said nothing about pilot program, expanding to football, etc. You had to read other sources for that. I stand by my original statement that this is nothing but a money grab by the city, taking advantage of out of towners that come for events.

This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Parking. Congestion. It. Is. Just. A. Way. For. The. City. To. Cash. In. On. An. Existing. Problem.

Hornbeck said:

---

KBTX had the original article on the thread. They said nothing about pilot program, expanding to football, etc. You had to read other sources for that. I stand by my original statement that this is nothing but a money grab by the city, taking advantage of out of towners that come for events.

This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Parking. Congestion. It. Is. Just. A. Way. For. The. City. To. Cash. In. On. An. Existing. Problem.

---

Except it's not an "existing problem." Traffic parking in legal spaces is not a problem and never has been a problem.

The "existing problem" is that the streets in that area get congested on game days with people parking along the streets. This is the "problem solving" they are doing by charging for the same amount of cars still parking on the streets.


It's not actually cutting down on the parking, it's just fleecing them for the privilege of parking.

Hornbeck said:

---

The "existing problem" is that the streets in that area get congested on game days with people parking along the streets. This is the "problem solving" they are doing by charging for the same amount of cars still parking on the streets.


It's not actually cutting down on the parking, it's just fleecing them for the privilege of parking.

---

Them Taj Mahals don't come cheap, Comrade.

Hornbeck said:

---

The "existing problem" is that the streets in that area get congested on game days with people parking along the streets. This is the "problem solving" they are doing by charging for the same amount of cars still parking on the streets.


It's not actually cutting down on the parking, it's just fleecing them for the privilege of parking.

---

I live in the Hysterical Area and the street parking is not a hugh issue on game days. The people walking in the middle of the street ignoring the passing cars is the only issue. I have seen people get missed by an inch by vehicle because they won't move over towards the side. Don't they realize that they lose the battle with a 4,000 pound truck?

It's a money grab. I am surprised they don't try to find a way to charge visitors for the air they breath.

I don't live over there, but city staff made it sound like this was a big problem on the south side during football games. Interesting that a resident there doesn't think this is a problem, because I'd take your word over theirs every time.

Another resident here. No it isn't a problem. The only problem I have is timing coming and going due to traffic on Welborn, Bush and Holleman. People who park in neighborhood are usually considerate. I have even had some ask it they could park in front of the house.

Hornbeck said:

---

I don't live over there, but city staff made it sound like this was a big problem on the south side during football games. Interesting that a resident there doesn't think this is a problem, because I'd take your word over theirs every time.

---

There is no problem whatsoever unless you are looking for something to gripe about. Yes, if you have to drive the two to three hours before the football game and two hours afterwards, you may have to weave in and out around parked cars but the traffic itself is not anything worst than University Dr, Texas Ave and Wellborn road near campus about 10 hours every day. I live 500 feet from campus and can see Kyle Field from my front door and I have driven to the pharmacy and stores an hour or two before the games at times and had no major issues that bothered me to any degree.

We sit in the yard before we go to the game and have great discussions with many of the fans walking by.

It's just that our esteemed city fathers saw a way to fleece visitors one more time. They are government...they know what is best for us.

You heard it here first...if there is not too much objection to the charge, city council will begin to discuss charging for parking on the streets near campus for all the football games and other big events. It may take a few years, but it will come as they will see the $$$$$$$ in their dreams.

The eagle is behind a paywall; here is a WTAW article. It has a short audio clip and a link that maps out the specific locations they want to put pay stations around the city.

When you hear the words from our city council, they bring up the word 'revenue' a lot. They use that word because that is how they see us; as a revenue source; versus the people they serve.

Things like extra police, TxDOT, and public works for security and traffic control are baked into the ticket price. Big events requiring those kinds of service have to submit a request. In turn, those agencies give them an estimate and eventually an invoice. There is usually a permitting process too.

Many of the police officers working events are getting paid overtime and are also working on a regularly scheduled day off. Those already scheduled usually get in overtime by working a long day.

If city services are not adequate for gamedays or other large event the venue or promotion needs to adjust the price they charge for tickets. This would make it possible to pay for extra local law enforcement and possibly even recruit off duty police from outside the area to do traffic while CSPD and Bryan PD hold more officers back for traditional duties versus event duty.

If we need more fire and ambulance services there are multi-agency mutual aid agreements in place where we can pay another agency to stage ambulances or fire trucks here so we do not lose coverage.

If the city believed we needed more items for safety, they would invoice the venue or promotion to make sure those things are paid for or the event would not be allowed to happen.

All these costs are absorbed by attendees paid for by ticket sales. If the city is losing money they need to charge more for their services.

In my opinion, It is really all about revenue. If there was a specific need the money would be allocated to that need versus going into the general fund. Not funding or addressing the 'reason' for charging to park on city streets in the first place is very telling.

Having the same number of cars parked on the street for free or paid, does not change anything regarding safety. It just gives the city more money.

https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-considering-paid-parking-on-city-streets-and-parking-lots-for-kyle-field-events/

Thanks for posting the link to that WTAW article.

It mentions, "Subject to council approval, paid parking would include more than 1,600 spaces in the Southside neighborhood and almost 1,200 in city owned parking lots."

I think the city can do what they want with the city owned parking lots, but they should not be charging money for parking in the Southside neighborhood. A lot of that is probably residents who actually live on those streets and people that they've invited over.

If the city provided hangtags or window stickers for residents and only charged people who are parking there to walk to campus for an event, it would be one thing, but as is, it sounds like it's getting more expensive for people to live there. Aside from whatever inconvenience they have from their streets potentially being largely taken up by people parking there to attend an event, now they can't even park in front of their own homes for free if they can find a spot.

I think this is one of those times where you can really tell that we don't have anyone on city council who represents a particular neighborhood. The article said that most of city council didn't object. I bet if someone actually represented the Southside neighborhood, that person would be getting an earful from people who live there and they'd be voicing those concerns to council.

threecatcorner said:

---

Thanks for posting the link to that WTAW article.

It mentions, "Subject to council approval, paid parking would include more than 1,600 spaces in the Southside neighborhood and almost 1,200 in city owned parking lots."

I think the city can do what they want with the city owned parking lots, but they should not be charging money for parking in the Southside neighborhood. A lot of that is probably residents who actually live on those streets and people that they've invited over.

If the city provided hangtags or window stickers for residents and only charged people who are parking there to walk to campus for an event, it would be one thing, but as is, it sounds like it's getting more expensive for people to live there. Aside from whatever inconvenience they have from their streets potentially being largely taken up by people parking there to attend an event, now they can't even park in front of their own homes for free if they can find a spot.

I think this is one of those times where you can really tell that we don't have anyone on city council who represents a particular neighborhood. The article said that most of city council didn't object. I bet if someone actually represented the Southside neighborhood, that person would be getting an earful from people who live there and they'd be voicing those concerns to council.

---

we have never one on city council that has the desired to be fiscally responsible to the residents .

whoop1995 said:

---

an extra $50k to do nothing

---

This is where you're wrong. They'll somehow spend six figures to make that five.

Brian Alg said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

It's not actually cutting down on the parking, it's just fleecing them for the privilege of parking.

---

This is where I feel compelled to bring in the dismal science.

Introducing prices will almost certainly affect people's decisions with respect to parking. It will probably lead to this scarce resource (parking spots near the stadium) getting used more efficiently.

It will encourage people to carpool/Uber more.

And at least one person on this board has indicated that this will discourage them from having their friends over and parking on the street in Southgate to watch the game. If there is a choice to park 10 cars on the street to watch a game on tv in Southgate vs. South CS, it is less costly (parking-wise) when people choose to have that watch party further out.

Even
Unrelated, but if the City threatens someone for selling parking spots on their own property when people desperately need parking spots, the City deserve to be kicked in the shin.

---

Charging $20 to park won't encourge most people to carpool or use an Uber. They will pay it and be pi$$ed off. There are about 25,000 or more additional cars coming to town for football weekends.

Even If Joe and his five friends decide to save their $20 each by carpooling in one car to close to A&M, they will all park on the street across Holleman or farther south in private store parking lots and five other persons will take the five available spaces. I would estimate that 98% of the cars that cruise through the streets of Southgate within a couple of hours of gametime are looking and not finding spots.....they will just find the four spots that Joe and gang didn't use. It's just a money grab by our esteemed city fathers who know what's best for us.

Brian Alg said:

---

In your hypothetical

woodiewood said:

---

Even If Joe and his five friends decide to save their $20 each by carpooling in one car to close to A&M, they will all park on the street across Holleman or farther south in private store parking lots and five other persons will take the five available spaces.

---

5 parking spots close to the stadium got freed up.

woodiewood said:

---

I would estimate that 98% of the cars that cruise through the streets of Southgate within a couple of hours of gametime are looking and not finding spots.....they will just find the four spots that Joe and gang didn't use.

---

And then 5 cars found spots faster and are not spending quite so much time cruising the neighborhood for a parking spot

---

5 parking spots close to the stadium got freed up.

Nope, the spots will be taken by other persons that otherwise would park farther south. Southgate parking will still be full. Once full, cars will still be cruising Southgate looking for parking. It won't change a thing except the city will be fleecing visitors, family members who come to visit and go to the game, and residents who live in there.

And people don't realize it that many persons have friends and family who come in on Friday and leave town on Sunday. Are they going to have to pay $60 for three days parking? Are my family members going to have to pay $60 to visit for the weekend and go to the game? If I park in front of my house am I going to have to pay?

It would be interesting to see what the number of Southgate residents and owner who have actually called the city complaining about people parking legally on the street or complaining about the congested traffic. I bet over the past 10 years, I could count the number on the fingers of my two hands.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

It's just a money grab.

It would be interesting for the city to email/send a questionaire to the residents who live in the affected area to see if there is and has been an issue. I suspect it would be 99% against the charge.

In the historic district, the signs that say historic district are dropped down on gameday to be no parking. I have watched the city go around and drop them with a tow truck right behind them. The minute they drop it, the tow truck tows the car. So you were parked legally and then not with the drop of a sign. Doesn't seem right.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

In the historic district, the signs that say historic district are dropped down on gameday to be no parking. I have watched the city go around and drop them with a tow truck right behind them. The minute they drop it, the tow truck tows the car. So you were parked legally and then not with the drop of a sign. Doesn't seem right.

---

They know it's not right. But $$$$$$