Hidden Drive Behind Parking Measure

0

At a time when people are justifiably questioning the extent of services government can afford to provide, there are some in Beverly Hills saying, “More entitlements!” Are these people big-government Democrats who think that more government is the solution to everything? Good question …

While Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proclaims, “The era of free (government-subsidized) parking in L.A. is over,” some medical developers in Beverly Hills are actually working to expand it.

Seriously.

Through a slick, opportunistic and deceptive campaign, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get the residents of Beverly Hills to pass a ballot measure, Measure 2P, which would expand municipally subsidized free parking in the city.

Why?

The sponsors are medical building landlords. Their buildings are underparked and they use free city parking for their tenants’ patients, thereby helping to justify some of the highest triple-net medical rents around (in fact, one of their tenants recently complained in these pages about perceived gouging).

Perhaps they’ll try to tell you that their “generosity” in funding the measure has nothing to do with their triple-net rents. It’s all about the retailers, they’ll tell you.

That would be sheer nonsense. Bedford Drive is not Rodeo Drive. Bedford has some retail, but is mainly home to a large number of doctors’ offices, some of which were ridiculously entitled years ago with little or no parking requirement. The doctors already enjoy the benefits of an antiquated and inequitable business tax system that has them paying less than almost everybody else. What’s more, this measure would mandate two hours of free parking at the city’s Bedford lot (while the sponsors charge close to $8 an hour at their lots on the same street), but not at the Montage lot, which is in the heart of Beverly Hills’s commercial and shopping district (and where the sponsors own no buildings).

Staying competitive?

The sponsors suggest Beverly Hills needs free parking to remain competitive with Westfield Century City, the Grove, the Beverly Center, etc. Just how many of those complexes house medical offices? Just how much of that free parking is paid for by the municipalities? The answer, of course: none.

Clearly, Beverly Hills businesses, including the proponents, would be free to set up assessment districts or business improvement districts to provide free parking if what the city offers is not enough, but it seems there are those who truly believe that nothing is too expensive for the public’s money.

Government-subsidized parking for medical offices makes no sense. On the other hand, what does make sense would be for the city to make up for some of the mistakes of the past with an ordinance requiring medical office buildings to provide validated parking for their patients.

By combining the worst attributes of ballot-box budgeting and initiative abuse, Measure 2P (which was already declared unconstitutional by a trial court and is tied up in litigation) would bind the hands of future councils and effectively prioritize free parking – estimated to cost the city $1.3 million per year – over essential city functions such as police, fire, schools and senior services.

It could also encourage other special interest groups to try to buy elections with appealing – if hypocritical and fiscally irresponsible – grabs motivated by the same brazen “It’s all about me” attitude.

Ironically, while taking measures to try to shore up the hemorrhaging Parking Enterprise Fund, the Beverly Hills City Council has actually managed to expand free parking. However, the city, which according to the Business Journal already is extremely generous with free parking, needs to have the ability to balance the Parking Enterprise Fund without being handcuffed by unfunded mandates pushed by special interests.

Ultimately, if the measure passes, it will be bad for business. It will make it more difficult for the city to perform much needed deferred maintenance on city lots. It will likely make it impossible for the city to build lots in underserved areas and it will hamper development by stopping the creation of in-lieu parking programs that would serve small businesses in these underdeveloped areas. In fact, to stop the drain on the city’s general fund, which backfills the shortfall in the Parking Enterprise Fund, Measure 2P could ultimately force Beverly Hills in the direction of Los Angeles – to sell, lease out or shut down some lots. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Letting special interests prevail is bad for the business community at large. Perhaps this realization is just one of the reasons that the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce voted to actively oppose the initiative.

And for those of us who feel that there should be limitations placed on government, it seems that the measure’s sponsors are intent upon giving us more reasons why there also should be limitations placed on business. With apologies to Gore Vidal, Measure 2P has given both initiative abuse and chutzpah a bad name.

John Mirisch is a Beverly Hills City Council member.

No posts to display