A Letter About the Proposed Parking Amendments

View upcoming meetings here. Please join us at Garden City City Hall.

February 24, 2023 

To: Mayor Evans and Garden City Council Members 
From: Deb Riedel, 6570 W. Plantation Lane 

Re: Proposed Garden City Parking Code Amendments 

Dear Mayor Evans and Garden City Council Members; 

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to provide testimony regarding the proposed parking code amendments. I was at the February 13 City Council meeting and testified at that time. I also plan to  attend the meeting on February 27. 

In reviewing my notes from the February 13 meeting and thinking about the testimony from multiple citizens, it is clear to me that potential parking issues surrounding the Plantation neighborhoods that have a more suburban living environment, are very different than those in the core of “old town” Garden City, on the south side of the river, where the environment is more urban and commercial. I’m certain that the proposed parking code amendments are not flexible enough to accommodate such different needs. 

I also found it interesting that the developers who gave testimony thought that providing for parking should be up to the developer—private property rights. There should be no minimum parking standards. Any savings due to a lack of having to provide parking would be passed along to renters and  home buyers. However, if it doesn’t work, government will have to step in and regulate it. In my opinion, developers will not pass along savings to renters and home buyers. I am also opposed to experimenting with whether or not a “no parking code” plan will work and then expecting tax payers  and government to try to fix something when we figure out that it is broken. That is not a good way to  run a City, in my view. 

Mass transit is far from an effective way to commute in the Treasure Valley. KTVB, Channel 7, has been  featuring, “Transportation Tuesday” on their early morning newscast. It is available to view online. The  bottom line was that Justin Corr took the bus from his home to work and it took him right at an hour.  This included a five minute walk from his home to the bus stop and a five minute walk from the bus stop  on the other end to KTVB. The bus stop was directly across Fairview from KTVB, but Justin had to walk  up the street to a cross walk and then back down the street to KTVB. He could have saved a little time  by darting across Fairview Avenue. The commute time in his car is 20 minutes. We cannot depend on  mass transit or force people to ride mass transit. This may change at some point, but parking code that  only works if people will take mass transit is going to fail. 

Related to the parking code amendments and property development in general, I think citizens in the Treasure Valley and throughout Idaho are becoming weary of big, out-of-state developers coming to  Idaho to change our way of life. They see an opportunity to make big profits in a growing area. While I  don’t begrudge their need to profit from their work, I don’t appreciate the notion that they know what  is best for Idaho, its citizens and tax payers. Maybe it is time for us to push back a little.

Following are my notes from the February 13 meeting:

Don May, a developer from San Diego testified that he thought there should be no parking space  minimums—eliminate them all and let private property owners decide how many parking spaces are  necessary for a given development. He said that people will “self-regulate.” However, if parking  problems arise, government will need to step in and regulate and will have to issue parking permits and  manage all on-street parking. Mr. May also thought that parking districts, shared public spaces, and  tandem parking should be utilized to solve parking problems. He also said that providing parking is expensive for developers, so developers should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to  provide for parking. It is a free market. Developers need to make a certain profit, like 15%, in order to  take the risk of development. They will pass along the savings from not having to provide parking to  renters and home purchasers. He reference Dr. Donald Shoup who has authored several books on the  costs of parking. 

Jason Jones also testified, and I believe he said he was a developer. His comments were similar to Mr. May’s. He said government shouldn’t tell private land owners what to do with their land. Parking  should be on public streets on a first-come, first-served basis. It is a free market. 

Providing a different view of parking issues was Bob Cluff who lives in a neighborhood in the Marigold, Coffey area. He testified that 2 to 3 family units are living in small homes in his neighborhood because  they can’t afford to live separately. He said that most of the homes have two car garages, but the garages are full of stuff, so the residents park on both sides of every street in the neighborhood. His street, along with many others have become overflow parking for renters. He believes that Garden City needs to require more parking, not less. 

Bob Cluff’s son, Jacob Cluff, testified that one space per unit is not adequate. People still need vehicles.  He is certain there is a solution, but the proposed parking code amendments isn’t the right solution. 

At the end of the meeting, each Council Member shared some thoughts about what they had heard and what impact the parking code amendments might have on the future of Garden City. In general there  were concerns about the long-term (15-20 years) effects of parking regulation, whether on public or private roads. Councilman Jacobs thought that parking should be reviewed as it relates to the Garden  City Comprehensive Plan. 

Council member Jorgensen mentioned the long-term impact of any decisions the Council makes. She said that many high density projects in Garden City have been approved but not yet completed,  including the former Fair Grounds property. I took that to mean that we won’t know for quite a while what impact parking decisions will have on these projects (forgive me if I misunderstood.) She  mentioned that Garden City is landlocked and that approximately 26% of Garden City’s existing housing  is currently for low income households. She also mentioned that homeowners in the Plantation  neighborhood have a right to be concerned and that Council should protect existing neighborhoods, their safety and property values. She said that she didn’t think that effective mass transit will happen  soon, if at all, and it is hard to contemplate reducing parking requirements. 

Councilman Heller agreed with almost everything that the other Council members had said. He is sensitive to traffic issues and thinks there should be flexibility in the code.

Thank you for your work. I appreciate that you have a lot to consider, and I appreciate your  consideration of my thoughts.

—Deb Riedel