Agreed. Higher rent because of higher property taxes on investment properties. Higher utilities because of the kickbacks on city utilities. Etc. etc.officerfred said:
Here is a dirty little secret not often talked about at parties.
Visitors AND College Students already pay more than their fair share of local taxes. This has allowed the city to overspend in other areas. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Inserting fees on the city streets that we live on is not a solution to this problem.
CoCS exploring charging for street parking [Staff Warning 6/21/2024]
39,668 Views |
328 Replies |
Last: 6 days ago by A Net Full of Jello
I don't think Bob explained it fully.whoop1995 said:
It's a 7% tax on the room for HOT tax average room cost - oh hell - I tried to book the best western for relatives I couldn't fit and they wanted $384 for te Saturday night on George straight.
There are 4400 rooms in college station.
50k seems a little light Bob.
Avg room cost on that one night let's say $250 for point of argument - hell Stella and all those were 500+.
4400 x 250 x .07 = 77k this is one night.
This covers your entire cost just with HOT tax which you already said and agreed could be used for these types of events and y'all still have the sales tax revenue going to the general fund.
Game day weekend brings in an additional $50k more than a typical weekend. You need to take your math and then subtract the normal weekend without a game.
birdman said:I don't think Bob explained it fully.whoop1995 said:
It's a 7% tax on the room for HOT tax average room cost - oh hell - I tried to book the best western for relatives I couldn't fit and they wanted $384 for te Saturday night on George straight.
There are 4400 rooms in college station.
50k seems a little light Bob.
Avg room cost on that one night let's say $250 for point of argument - hell Stella and all those were 500+.
4400 x 250 x .07 = 77k this is one night.
This covers your entire cost just with HOT tax which you already said and agreed could be used for these types of events and y'all still have the sales tax revenue going to the general fund.
Game day weekend brings in an additional $50k more than a typical weekend. You need to take your math and then subtract the normal weekend without a game.
Not you, but it seems many want to equivocate an activity's revenue to its relative expense in public safety. In every org there are loss leaders and gain leaders. It's easy to say, "well you brought in more than you spent policing the entertainment event so it's paid for." But that's a non-sequitur. Putting out structure fires doesn't provide a financial gain, per se. Policing street crime doesn't either. It's pure public safety expense in those instances.
Game days are part of the reason our tax rate is so low compared to comparable cities. We're fortunate to have game days. They help defray taxes. We need them. We need as many concerts and soccer games as possible to fund public safety in ways other than property tax.
Respectfully
Bob Yancy said:91_Aggie said:Bob Yancy said:MeKnowNot said:Find the money elsewhere. That's a great idea!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,
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
You would think someone who grew up that way would understand more than most. You would also think any politician would have a bit thicker skin. Whatever your intentions were( was it traffic and pedestrian safety as initially stated or money-which is the reality? ) It was presented horribly to the public-and in a dishonest manner ( was that plan discussed at said board meeting?)
Now you are complaining people don't understand? I wonder why?
Also, you do not know the actual revenue these events bring in, but confidently stated it was not enough hence the reason for this "pilot program"-which avoids having this voted on by the public as well(you know it would get massively defeated.)
Yet YOu are the offended one. Interesting. I'll give you advice you probably won't use. Never be a part of something that has to use misinformation or shell games to start. Never state as fact (the current revenue does not meet the need) without knowing the actual facts. And if you enter into politics-expect people to often not like what you do, especially when the facts do not line up with what they were told. The only people that should be offended here are those that were given false information, and that is the public, not anyone from the city leadership-geez.
Now that we've made it back to football season, what is the status of the program? Will I have to pay to park on the street in front of my home for game days?
I couldn't have said it better myself, lol...I did want to note I respect Bob a great deal. I just feel we have not had one council member not fall prey to the curse of becoming more politician than businessman/leader. Things can change quick though-I hope they do.Hittag1492 said:Bob Yancy said:91_Aggie said:Bob Yancy said:MeKnowNot said:Find the money elsewhere. That's a great idea!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,
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
You would think someone who grew up that way would understand more than most. You would also think any politician would have a bit thicker skin. Whatever your intentions were( was it traffic and pedestrian safety as initially stated or money-which is the reality? ) It was presented horribly to the public-and in a dishonest manner ( was that plan discussed at said board meeting?)
Now you are complaining people don't understand? I wonder why?
Also, you do not know the actual revenue these events bring in, but confidently stated it was not enough hence the reason for this "pilot program"-which avoids having this voted on by the public as well(you know it would get massively defeated.)
Yet YOu are the offended one. Interesting. I'll give you advice you probably won't use. Never be a part of something that has to use misinformation or shell games to start. Never state as fact (the current revenue does not meet the need) without knowing the actual facts. And if you enter into politics-expect people to often not like what you do, especially when the facts do not line up with what they were told. The only people that should be offended here are those that were given false information, and that is the public, not anyone from the city leadership-geez.
Dropped for now but to be continued………?Bob Yancy said:
https://www.kbtx.com/2024/08/26/paid-street-parking-kyle-field-neighborhoods-wont-return-aggie-football-season-2024/
"People always ask us, 'why don't you run the city like a business?' Well, when you have an asset, you should try to get some return for that asset, and that's really what the experiment was all about; to see what we could do," added Mayor Nichols. "As I said, we've learned some things and think we can make some improvements."
This is a good win for the people so far.
The city could still do the parking at city hall which would make a little revenue and at the mall if that made revenue.
In general when the people say run it like a business I believe they mean the cost cutting side as well not just revenue as most people know that majority of revenue is derived from taxes and fees.
I collect ticket stubs! looking for a 1944 orange bowl and 1981 independence bowl ticket stub as well as Aggie vs tu stubs - 1926 and below, 1935-1937, 1939-1944, 1946-1948, 1950-1951, 1953, 1956-1957, 1959, 1960, 1963-1966, 1969-1970, 1972-1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 2004, 2008, 2010
If the COCS was run like a business, the purchase of the Macys building wouldn't have even been discussed. The city has zero business in purchasing private property to lease out or sell....zero.whoop1995 said:Dropped for now but to be continued………?Bob Yancy said:
https://www.kbtx.com/2024/08/26/paid-street-parking-kyle-field-neighborhoods-wont-return-aggie-football-season-2024/
"People always ask us, 'why don't you run the city like a business?' Well, when you have an asset, you should try to get some return for that asset, and that's really what the experiment was all about; to see what we could do," added Mayor Nichols. "As I said, we've learned some things and think we can make some improvements."
This is a good win for the people so far.
The city could still do the parking at city hall which would make a little revenue and at the mall if that made revenue.
In general when the people say run it like a business I believe they mean the cost cutting side as well not just revenue as most people know that majority of revenue is derived from taxes and fees.
Umm, the councilman told us it was about safety, no?
It's like a business.
That you run with other people's money so you don't actually assume any risk.
And a business that spares no expense when having buildings constructed (fire station, city hall).
That you run with other people's money so you don't actually assume any risk.
And a business that spares no expense when having buildings constructed (fire station, city hall).
I'm glad I was wrong, and that you guys will not be charging for parking in Southgate. Thanks for listening to the voters.
Hornbeck said:
I'm glad I was wrong, and that you guys will not be charging for parking in Southgate. Thanks for listening to the voters.
Yessir.
Respectfully,
-yancy
I was surprised to see this on the agenda for tonight's meeting (09/12) but was glad to see it voted down.