dubi said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Deej said:

---

Yes Bob that is incorrect for many of us. I have lived in the area 30 years. There are people who park and walk but many are families of students who live there. For years I hosted old roommates and classmates as well as family. We would eat visit and walk to the games. My yard guy normally comes on Saturday even during football games, now we will have to make alternate plans those days. This is purely a revenue grab cleverly disguised by staff, that you all bought hook line and sinker.

---

Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise.

---

I think it should be 1 tag per bedroom.

---

Thank you.

I would also like to point out that this thread was started in late April. To say that no one has spoken out against this "pilot program" would be disingenuous as well. Feel free to read the thread from the beginning.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Brian Alg said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Why would there be less congestion. How does paying to park reduce congestion?

---

You and I had a back and forth on this like a month ago.

You brought up that some might park their cars on the other side of Holeman and carpool closer in just one car. So that is one mechanism.

Others might do a rideshare. Some might carpool from other spots. And we've seen comments that some people who aren't going to the game are going to shift their plans so they aren't parking in the street near the stadium on gameday.

There are all kinds clever of things that people will do to avoid paying $25. One of my favorite things about markets is that free people will come up with all kinds of clever stuff that a central planner could never think of.

---

This is not designed to do that by nature. It is designed to generate revenue. They will find the sweet spot that does not drive people away. Even Bob says little about the traffic/ pedestrian aspect of it. It is a revenue grab so do not expect it to have any impact on congestion.

---

My calculus was- if people are parking in front of my house already during events for free, maybe they won't if they are charged $25 bucks and if they do, at least my city gets something to offset public safety costs associated with these massive events. I also considered the tens of millions I'm sure my beloved Alma mater collects in parking revenues (with nary a word on Texags btw) and finally- the inarguable fact that cities across America charge for street parking as a routine matter.

No citizens stood up during hear visitors on April 25th and had anything to say, nor had I, until today, received any feedback about it from any folks.

Rest assured I hear you now! I'll consider all this feedback. I've reached out to the neighborhood association which I still haven't heard an official position from.

I look forward to their responses, too. Have a good evening everyone!

Bob Y

---

..."my city gets something to offset public safety costs associated with these massive events. I also considered the tens of millions I'm sure my beloved Alma mater collects in parking revenues (with nary a word on Texags btw)"

There's a little difference between A&M charging for parking every day to employees and students in order to maintain parking lots and the city initiating a charge for a homeowner being charged for parking in their residential area in front of their own home for "special events."

"and finally- the inarguable fact that cities across America charge for street parking as a routine matter."

I would love to see a list of cities across America who have initiated parking fees to homeowners who park in their residential neighborhood in front of their own home. It may be routine, but I sure have not heard of it.

Some of us have family and business obligations that prohibit us from attending evening meetings.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Deej said:

---

Yes Bob that is incorrect for many of us. I have lived in the area 30 years. There are people who park and walk but many are families of students who live there. For years I hosted old roommates and classmates as well as family. We would eat visit and walk to the games. My yard guy normally comes on Saturday even during football games, now we will have to make alternate plans those days. This is purely a revenue grab cleverly disguised by staff, that you all bought hook line and sinker.

---

Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise.

---

Of it is truly to relieve congestion, give tags to residents and do not allow parking there during events.

If it is for money-don't do it. Find another source for money that is not in a residential area.

Bob Yancy said:

---

100%

---

Consider a poll of this board and citizens in the "more money to city hall" parking zone. See if they agree it about safety and congestion or if they feel it is a money grab.

Here's how I know it's not about safety and reducing congestion: Eisenhower Street, from University down to that driveway that goes past the Asian church and escape room and tutoring places towards On The Border, is frequently crowded with vehicles on weekdays during fall and spring.

Students park there to avoid paying for a campus parking permit and are still close to campus and to shuttle bus stops.

Multiple times that street has been reported on SeeClickFix with the comment that it would be difficult for a fire truck to make it down that crowded street.

Zero has been done to address it. Ever. Because there isn't money to be made like y'all want to do with events at Kyle Field.

There you had a situation reported as a safety issue multiple times and the city did nothing.

This fee for parking is a cash grab. It is not about safety.

This is reminiscent of Judge Peters saying that the Straub and Wade railroad crossings were being closed and one opened at Greens Prairie due to "safety" when everyone knew it wasn't the reason. And the UP representative eventually relented and said "we need the space for a second rail, we were here first, we will do it regardless".

When you play the "safety" card when it doesn't apply, it diminishes the value of that card when you really need it in the future.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

100%

---

Consider a poll of this board and citizens in the "more money to city hall" parking zone. See if they agree it about safety and congestion or if they feel it is a money grab.

Here's how I know it's not about safety and reducing congestion: Eisenhower Street, from University down to that driveway that goes past the Asian church and escape room and tutoring places towards On The Border, is frequently crowded with vehicles on weekdays during fall and spring.

Students park there to avoid paying for a campus parking permit and are still close to campus and to shuttle bus stops.

Multiple times that street has been reported on SeeClickFix with the comment that it would be difficult for a fire truck to make it down that crowded street.

Zero has been done to address it. Ever. Because there isn't money to be made like y'all want to do with events at Kyle Field.

There you had a situation reported as a safety issue multiple times and the city did nothing.

This fee for parking is a cash grab. It is not about safety.

This is reminiscent of Judge Peters saying that the Straub and Wade railroad crossings were being closed and one opened at Greens Prairie due to "safety" when everyone knew it wasn't the reason. And the UP representative eventually relented and said "we need the space for a second rail, we were here first, we will do it regardless".

When you play the "safety" card when it doesn't apply, it diminishes the value of that card when you really need it in the future.

---

Respectfully sir, you can express your opinions to me and I'll hear em and often act on em, but don't tell me what I'm thinking.

We do not have enough police. Period. Full stop. Last budget I fought for more and lost. It's looking like I'm going to lose again. We need 17 police officers minimum and we'll be lucky to get 3 new positions.

You and I may cheer when College Station makes the National stage from soccer or country music or football, but our officers groan, strap on their gear and work their a**es off.

If charging for parking in areas where people are already parking for events affords us 6 police officers without raising property taxes, I'd be "unwise" not to consider it. I'd be flat stupid to refuse a two event pilot program.

You may want to ascribe malevolent motives for considering this, but that doesn't make it so.

You raised property taxes on the average house by 10.7% Between you guys and the county, pretty much everyone who's taxes aren't frozen are paying a lot more for their mortgage.

In case you haven't noticed, local restaurants are hurting and going under, which I believe can be correlated. Disposable income is way down.

Show me where I told you what you are thinking?

Guess what? There are a number of TAMU employees that have to work the soccer game and the concert as well. Many more than CSPD is committing to the event.

After already giving up several Saturdays in the fall.

And the baseball regional and super regional. After already working a full season.

Guess who else is understaffed? Many departments on campus. Probably more than you realize.

Are you going to completely dismiss the legitimate safety concern on Eisenhower that was reported on SeeClickFix multiple times, the nature of which is exactly what is supposedly being addressed on the south side by this new fee?

Please respond specifically to an actual safety concern of the nature recently discussed that has gone ignored.

Also, maybe council should get spending under control before trying to squeeze more money out of people.

It's what the citizens must do. Your constituents can't just go to their employers and say "I want to buy a nice sign for my yard and make a questionable property investment. I need a raise. Oh, and I didn't budget enough money to maintain the house I just had built. I need more for that too."

The city should consider living within its means instead of trying to pickpocket every visitor that comes to town.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Also, maybe council should get spending under control before trying to squeeze more money out of people.

It's what the citizens must do. Your constituents can't just go to their employers and say "I want to buy a nice sign for my yard and make a questionable property investment. I need a raise. Oh, and I didn't budget enough money to maintain the house I just had built. I need more for that too."

The city should consider living within its means instead of trying to pickpocket every visitor that comes to town.

---

+1

maroon barchetta said:

---

Show me where I told you what you are thinking?

Guess what? There are a number of TAMU employees that have to work the soccer game and the concert as well. Many more than CSPD is committing to the event.

After already giving up several Saturdays in the fall.

And the baseball regional and super regional. After already working a full season.

Guess who else is understaffed? Many departments on campus. Probably more than you realize.

Are you going to completely dismiss the legitimate safety concern on Eisenhower that was reported on SeeClickFix multiple times, the nature of which is exactly what is supposedly being addressed on the south side by this new fee?

Please respond specifically to an actual safety concern of the nature recently discussed that has gone ignored.

---

I'll ask tomorrow about Eisenhower, do some digging and try to ascertain what's going on.

Respectfully,

-yancy

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

100%

---

Consider a poll of this board and citizens in the "more money to city hall" parking zone. See if they agree it about safety and congestion or if they feel it is a money grab.

Here's how I know it's not about safety and reducing congestion: Eisenhower Street, from University down to that driveway that goes past the Asian church and escape room and tutoring places towards On The Border, is frequently crowded with vehicles on weekdays during fall and spring.

Students park there to avoid paying for a campus parking permit and are still close to campus and to shuttle bus stops.

Multiple times that street has been reported on SeeClickFix with the comment that it would be difficult for a fire truck to make it down that crowded street.

Zero has been done to address it. Ever. Because there isn't money to be made like y'all want to do with events at Kyle Field.

There you had a situation reported as a safety issue multiple times and the city did nothing.

This fee for parking is a cash grab. It is not about safety.

This is reminiscent of Judge Peters saying that the Straub and Wade railroad crossings were being closed and one opened at Greens Prairie due to "safety" when everyone knew it wasn't the reason. And the UP representative eventually relented and said "we need the space for a second rail, we were here first, we will do it regardless".

When you play the "safety" card when it doesn't apply, it diminishes the value of that card when you really need it in the future.

---

Respectfully sir, you can express your opinions to me and I'll hear em and often act on em, but don't tell me what I'm thinking.

We do not have enough police. Period. Full stop. Last budget I fought for more and lost. It's looking like I'm going to lose again. We need 17 police officers minimum and we'll be lucky to get 3 new positions.

You and I may cheer when College Station makes the National stage from soccer or country music or football, but our officers groan, strap on their gear and work their a**es off.

If charging for parking in areas where people are already parking for events affords us 6 police officers without raising property taxes, I'd be "unwise" not to consider it. I'd be flat stupid to refuse a two event pilot program.

You may want to ascribe malevolent motives for considering this, but that doesn't make it so.

---

I do believe you on that Bob. However, The police staffing thing is a much larger issue than this. There have been numerous decisions made that could be looked at in a critical manner if you are saying we are that understaffed on our police force, city hall being one of them along with Macy's. That is not all as you likely know. The parking thing, while being tied to it is clearly not a main solution so it is a bit disingenuous to throw that in anyone's face in reference to this particular issue much like it would be for me to directly blame you for the ball field fiasco, Macy's, etc which you really had no part of.

The point is this topic needs to be refocused a bit. The personal attack on you was not productive and acting like this is a solution to adding police is not either. That cannot have been the intent of this parking experiment as that is a far larger issue. No city serious about being 17 police officers short (and has been for a while) makes decisions like those I mentioned above then acts like this parking thing is anything but a minor stop gap and a poorly thought out one- which we can likely agree on the thought out part at this part at least.

I would say this parking thing is simply unfair as is and move on and start over with a better approach. Funding the police force numbers takes prioritizing it-above ballfields, above city hall size and "presence", above the "possibility" of retail investment - Macy's (while losing tax revenue) and above numerous other projects I am sure you could name easier than me.

Anyway, I believe it best to focus on this project within the scope it deserves. All projects need that, especially with other people's money, lol.

Anyway, I have to work late then sleep. I hope, and would strongly suggest, that this project disappear even if it makes money. Money can be made in many ways at this level. This one is wrong and not needed. Simple as that. Combined that means it is government overreach. Stop it, regroup, and trust yourself to come up with something better that fits a real need and serves the citizens who elected you in the proper manner they deserve and we know you are capable of. That's why we trusted you to put you there. It is an honor and privilege to SERVE (not rule) the community. Please do not forget that. I have faith you will do the right thing.

Goodnight.

Bob, I want to thank you for coming on and listening. You and Linda seem to be the only two who do listen. I will say as much as people hate the comparison. Look north. The city of Bryan is taking these two Saturdays, to offer free parking and a free shuttle. These shuttles do bring revenue into downtown Bryan during game days. Think about it. One city charges visitors, one city welcomes and offers free services when you visit. Now where would you spend your disposable dollars. As I sign off respectfully.

maroon barchetta said:

---

There was no personal attack.

---

I reread it-I agree. My apologies.

Bob Yancy said:

---

We do not have enough police. Period. Full stop. Last budget I fought for more and lost. It's looking like I'm going to lose again. We need 17 police officers minimum and we'll be lucky to get 3 new positions.

You and I may cheer when College Station makes the National stage from soccer or country music or football, but our officers groan, strap on their gear and work their a**es off.

If charging for parking in areas where people are already parking for events affords us 6 police officers without raising property taxes, I'd be "unwise" not to consider it. I'd be flat stupid to refuse a two event pilot program.

You may want to ascribe malevolent motives for considering this, but that doesn't make it so.

---

Mr. Yancy,

Its not just about having to pay for parking. Its about the mixed messaging that has resulted in a lack of trust in the city leadership by the residents.

For example, last year you were on the news and TexAgs saying you initiated the Aggieland Convention Center idea. Now you say there is no money to support operations and maintenance for city buildings and we don't have a enough police officers and they aren't motivated to work events anyway.

You say our CSPD officers groan because they have to work events large events (while making some really nice overtime pay). You do say they work their rear ends off, but you say they first groan. I interpret that is that they are doing their jobs but not happy about it.

Would the police chief say that his officers groan when they work special events?

Where are all the millions that local politicians say events bring into the economy?

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Deej said:

---

Yes Bob that is incorrect for many of us. I have lived in the area 30 years. There are people who park and walk but many are families of students who live there. For years I hosted old roommates and classmates as well as family. We would eat visit and walk to the games. My yard guy normally comes on Saturday even during football games, now we will have to make alternate plans those days. This is purely a revenue grab cleverly disguised by staff, that you all bought hook line and sinker.

---

Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise.

---

Of it is truly to relieve congestion, give tags to residents and do not allow parking there during events.

If it is for money-don't do it. Find another source for money that is not in a residential area.

---

"Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise."


This is my main objection...99% of my objection. Homeowners or their family or weekend guests should not be charged to park in front of their own homes.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Show me where I told you what you are thinking?

Guess what? There are a number of TAMU employees that have to work the soccer game and the concert as well. Many more than CSPD is committing to the event.

After already giving up several Saturdays in the fall.

And the baseball regional and super regional. After already working a full season.

Guess who else is understaffed? Many departments on campus. Probably more than you realize.

Are you going to completely dismiss the legitimate safety concern on Eisenhower that was reported on SeeClickFix multiple times, the nature of which is exactly what is supposedly being addressed on the south side by this new fee?

Please respond specifically to an actual safety concern of the nature recently discussed that has gone ignored.

---

Interested side note on overworked A&M employees, I am friends with two A&M Security employees and another who retired a year ago and all three have told me that the work as many sporting everts as possible.

They have told me that not only they get overtime pay but it increases their annual income and with the retirement based on their income for their best 5 years, it's going to increase their retirement.

woodiewood said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Deej said:

---

Yes Bob that is incorrect for many of us. I have lived in the area 30 years. There are people who park and walk but many are families of students who live there. For years I hosted old roommates and classmates as well as family. We would eat visit and walk to the games. My yard guy normally comes on Saturday even during football games, now we will have to make alternate plans those days. This is purely a revenue grab cleverly disguised by staff, that you all bought hook line and sinker.

---

Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise.

---

Of it is truly to relieve congestion, give tags to residents and do not allow parking there during events.

If it is for money-don't do it. Find another source for money that is not in a residential area.

---

"Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise."


This is my main objection...99% of my objection. Homeowners or their family or weekend guests should not be charged to park in front of their own homes.

---

Definitely people shouldn't have to pay to park where they live, but change that to residents rather than exclusively homeowners. There are a lot of renters too, and if that's where they live and normally park, they ought to be able to do so on those weekends too.

Sounds like Texas A&M needs to start paying the city for events that require law enforcement expenses at the least.

dubi said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Deej said:

---

Yes Bob that is incorrect for many of us. I have lived in the area 30 years. There are people who park and walk but many are families of students who live there. For years I hosted old roommates and classmates as well as family. We would eat visit and walk to the games. My yard guy normally comes on Saturday even during football games, now we will have to make alternate plans those days. This is purely a revenue grab cleverly disguised by staff, that you all bought hook line and sinker.

---

Setting accusations aside for a moment, would you be in support of this policy if every homeowner in the affected area received two mirror tags exempting them from a parking fee? Please advise.

---

I think it should be 1 tag per bedroom.

---

Per bedroom?

So a house that has three bedrooms but only two cars would then get three tags?

That would give them their driveway plus three spots on the road?

I think that residents should get tags, but they should get one for each vehicle and a guest tag.

It's not as if their driveways are going to all of the sudden be unusable.

Koko Chingo said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

We do not have enough police. Period. Full stop. Last budget I fought for more and lost. It's looking like I'm going to lose again. We need 17 police officers minimum and we'll be lucky to get 3 new positions.

You and I may cheer when College Station makes the National stage from soccer or country music or football, but our officers groan, strap on their gear and work their a**es off.

If charging for parking in areas where people are already parking for events affords us 6 police officers without raising property taxes, I'd be "unwise" not to consider it. I'd be flat stupid to refuse a two event pilot program.

You may want to ascribe malevolent motives for considering this, but that doesn't make it so.

---

Mr. Yancy,

Its not just about having to pay for parking. Its about the mixed messaging that has resulted in a lack of trust in the city leadership by the residents.

For example, last year you were on the news and TexAgs saying you initiated the Aggieland Convention Center idea. Now you say there is no money to support operations and maintenance for city buildings and we don't have a enough police officers and they aren't motivated to work events anyway.

You say our CSPD officers groan because they have to work events large events (while making some really nice overtime pay). You do say they work their rear ends off, but you say they first groan. I interpret that is that they are doing their jobs but not happy about it.

Would the police chief say that his officers groan when they work special events?

Where are all the millions that local politicians say events bring into the economy?

---

You have never groaned at the prospect of working on your day off, spending time away from your family? Haven't we all? I never said our police officers weren't motivated to continue protecting you and your family while risking their lives- daily. They just need some help.

The millions brought in from local events goes directly to restaurants, hotels, gas stations, bars, etc, right? A lot goes to TAMU from ticket sales and… parking fees. Your city hall benefits too from sales taxes and hotel tax.

I've posted on this thread previously and will repeat it: the state of Texas, in my opinion, unreasonably constrains how your city can spend its tax revenue. This is an oversimplification but there is one bucket of money for building things and one bucket for running things. Your city hall can't mix the two. Our budget for building things is flush, our budget for running things is tight.

I advocate for a convention center because the inescapable conclusion is we need one. I also advocate for a private sector partnership in both building it and running it due to O&M constraints cited above.

Have a good day.

[We appreciate you posting on this board and want you to continue to do so but we do not think that the poster was being sarcastic with that reply. Thank you. -Staff]

Great discussion. It's been a while since the Aggieland Board had one like this. Two thoughts based on recent comments.

While it is true residents don't "own" parking on the street in front of their homes via deed, it is true we all "own" the streets through (ever increasing) taxes. To suggest a property owner should not be miffed about the loss of curbside space in front of their home is disingenuous at best.

Second, if CoSta is indeed short of officers, who will be writing all those parking tickets for cars flouncing the new parking tax/fee? Could a LEO's time be better spent elsewhere since so few are available?