The Citizens Agenda: Candidates in June Council Race Address Parking Issues

In early December, WEHOville asked West Hollywood residents what issues they wanted candidates in the upcoming City Council election to address. We received hundreds of responses and boiled them down to 13 key issues. We have asked each of the 4 candidates in the June 2 special City Council election to offer their positions on these issues. On each Monday through May 4 we will publish one or two of the questions and the candidates’ responses. On March 23, candidates addressed parking issues.

1) Parking, or the lack thereof, is a major problem in West Hollywood.

a) Can the city do more to address the difficulty residents have finding parking? And if so, what?


 The city can do more to address the difficulty residents have finding parking in a host of ways. We can build more lots. At the north end of Plummer Park is a perfect place. That lot would benefit both the park and local residents who need to park overnight.

On many streets parking is not allowed at the T-intersections.   On Huntley it was allowed, then we had a water main break and public works eliminated three parking spaces and did not allow those parking spaces to be available even after the repairs were made.   Those were legal for 10 years. My neighbor and I drove the city and counted 33 T-intersections, about 18 of which had no parking red zones, and the balance had parking.

I advocate for an all-city parking pass that allows residents to “Eat, Shop and Play” in West Hollywood without having to pay every time they park.   Our revenue from resident parking passes was $204,000.    We can afford to give each resident a free resident parking pass.

In addition we need to go back to free parking on Sunday.  We should roll back the parking meters from midnight to 8 p.m. In addition we need to fix the meters.  The meters are ripping people off.

There are also opportunities for private-public partnerships and utilizing commercial parking lots for residents overnight. I’d like to explore this where possible.


The city must build more parking structures- and not those that cost $134,328.36 per parking space! I will vote for the city to purchase property and build structures that will accommodate both residents and visitors alike.  West Hollywood must not play second fiddle to Beverly Hills and other cities that provide easy access for people to live, work, shop, eat and play.  We must build our infrastructure now.

We must roll back our parking meters to 8 p.m.  This will allow people to enjoy an evening in the city without fear of ticketing.  It will also make our streets safer for both drivers and pedestrians since many accidents are caused by cars cruising for parking.  

We must provide incentives for drivers to go directly to our parking garages.  Providing one hour of free parking at all times will get cars off our streets.  As long as it is cheaper to park at a meter we will not increase the use of our garages.

The city must revise its building codes to require that new developments provide enough parking to accommodate all occupants.  We must curtail entitlements that reduce parking requirements in proposed developments.


 We continue to look at opportunities to increase parking in the City of West Hollywood. We have added a significant number of spaces at West Hollywood Park. We will eventually have some access to the parking at the Pacific Design Center. We are building an automated parking structure behind City Hall. While these structures do not primarily address the issue of parking in residential neighborhoods, they hopefully ease some of the burden on our streets. The automated parking structure, if successful, may be a model that can be used to address the existing parking shortage in many of our residential neighborhoods. We have to remember that many of our older structures have limited amounts of parking and this creates a tremendous demand on our residential streets.


Yes, the city can do better. West Hollywood has such difficulty with parking because so many of the commercial and residential developments that have been built were not required to have adequate parking or were given variances that absolved the developers of the responsibility to include a reasonable number of parking spaces. Currently, commercial buildings are required by the West Hollywood municipal code to provide 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space, and 1-bedroom apartments and studios larger than 500 square feet are required to have 1.5 spaces per unit (ref: West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.040, Table 3-6). This, of course, assumes that a) two people would not be living in a 1-bedroom apartment together, and b) only 1 of those people will own a car (or one will own a car and the other will only own half a car). Because of the lack of off-street parking, many apartment residents are forced into street parking where (unless their area is zoned for preferred parking) they are competing with cars looking for spots because of a lack of spaces on any one of our main east-west thoroughfares. We need to re-examine our antiquated parking requirements and revise our policy for parking in new developments (both residential and commercial), making sure that adequate parking is provided to suit the amount of residents and consumers utilizing those buildings.

I highly favor more preferred parking zones to give residents a better chance at parking nearer to their residence. The high cost and limited availability of parking has become almost a de-facto tax on the people who live, work and play in our city. I would propose rolling metered parking hours back to 8pm and to take meter-holidays on national holidays. Additionally, we need to provide for the first two hours of parking in a public lot to be free. This will be a huge convenience to the customers of our local businesses, and it will encourage more people spend longer patronizing local businesses and restaurants.

I will also introduce data-driven technology in the form of sensors that will allow the city and motorists alike to see were parking spots are available in advance. These sensors eliminate the need to double park or circle around the block, both of which exacerbate traffic exponentially. This technology can also be applied to lots as well as parking structures.

b) In Los Angeles, there is a campaign underway to limit the amount of a parking ticket to $25, the reasoning being that tickets are supposed to dissuade people from breaking the law, not provide a source of revenue to the city. Would you support a similar limit in West Hollywood, which gets a significant portion of its revenue from parking tickets?


I would support the lowering of parking fines for local residents or giving local residents the opportunity to have one ticket per year waived. I’m not in agreement of slashing tickets so low that they are no longer a deterrent.

Our parking contract with Serco is a multi-million dollar parking contract that services West Hollywood and many Westside cities. The goal is compliance, and the fees are high to force compliance. The monies we get from the parking citations cover a) the cost of our contract with Circo to issue the tickets, b) the cost of citation processing with Xerox, which processes the tickets and c) court fees. With all these things in mind, if ticket prices were lowered the City of West Hollywood’s revenue stream would also be compromised.

Despite my wish that we could lower fees, it is simply not practical. My best thought is that we can mitigate future increases in these fees by negotiating better contracts with our contracted suppliers on a going forward basis. Remember, we have a minimum wage law that states all city contractors must be paid a “living wage.”  Thus the cost of the tickets is a by-product of expenses involved in issuing these tickets, which are reasons for these high ticket prices.


Our parking tickets should represent a modest fine to deter violations as opposed to an oppressive amount that takes advantage of both residents and visitors. The city should not be balancing its budget on the backs of residents and visitors.

I do not support using parking tickets as a revenue generator for the city.  Parking fines have become an additional tax that no West Hollywood resident is able to escape.  We must remove all unnecessary tow traps and other misleading regulations that increase the number of tickets issued.


I don’t support this. If the cost of a ticket is about the same amount as the cost of parking in a commercial lot, visitors will simply run the risk of getting a ticket. This is especially true around Sunset where nighttime parking rates can be $20. Part of the reason for ticket costs to be higher is to discourage visitors from parking in residential neighborhoods and disturbing our residents.


Yes. For too long, our city has relied on parking ticket revenues to bolster the General Fund. Fines have become so large that they are punitive, and, in fact, too large for some residents to pay, making it almost impossible to even collect the penalty in some cases. These high fines are akin to a secret tax, and once again, the city is putting the onus of revenues onto the backs of the middle class. It is important that, whatever amount the fines for parking infractions is changed to, they be based on real metrics of what that infraction actually costs the city or what amount would be an effective deterrent, rather than the seemingly arbitrary amounts that are set currently.

2) Should the city extend its free Pickup shuttle all the way to La Brea Avenue, and should it offer it on other than weekend nights?


The six-month pilot program has long passed.    It’s time to make the decision to expand the PickUp line or cancel the program.   If we feel this pilot program has worked, then we need to expand it.   If we are not sure if it’s working lets debate the pros and cons.   If we deem it to be a community benefit then it must be expanded to all the residents on the Eastside.    Personally I am for the PickUp line but often see an empty bus and wonder if there is a better way.   My pulse is that ridership peaks in the summer and is lower for the better part of the year.   Our costs for running the PickUp line are the same for 10 riders or 100.   Judging from the statistics of the ridership,  we might save money by issuing $10 vouchers to each rider and giving the private sector and the shared economy businesses the opportunity to fill the void.


West Hollywood should do everything it can to provide transportation options for its residents to conveniently travel throughout the city.

The CityLine bus does not serve the majority of our community nor does it mitigate boulevard traffic.  Anyone who lives in West Hollywood should be able to eat, shop, work and play in our community without needing a car.  Anyone staying in one of our many hotels should be afforded the same opportunity.  Therefore I will work to expand the Pickup Line to be a city-wide local circulator that will include Sunset and Santa Monica Boulevards.


We should extend the Pickup shuttle all the way to La Brea Avenue. Before we offer it on non-weekend nights, we should evaluate our other transportation needs. It might be a better use of our resources to provide a daytime shuttle to the Hollywood and Highland station for people who are commuting to and from work in the downtown area. This would help residents get to work and also reduce daily traffic to and from West Hollywood.


Yes, and I have long felt that this should have been done as soon as the Pickup was launched! In addition, I would fully support any efforts to expand the Pickup shuttle’s hours as well as an extended route to the Eastside. As a means of getting from one end of the city to the other, the Pickup shuttle helps to remove cars from the traffic flow and reduce our overall carbon footprint, both of which benefit our city, both in the short-term as well as the long-term. Additionally, as one of the leading areas for alcohol-related vehicular accidents and fatalities in the county, I favor any and all ways to allow residents to return home safely during nighttime hours.

  1. Teresa — Personally, I have a parking spot that I only rarely use, so when a friend drives to visit me, they park there. I would greatly prefer to pay $100 less/month in rent, though, and not have a parking space I don’t need or want. In that case, either the guests or I could pay for them to park. (Either by hour/day or with a pass that covers the actual value of the spot.) That would also free up my spot for someone who wants to pay for it.

    Yes, I think people should pay to store their polluting ~15-ft long, ~6-foot wide machines on public property. I think it shows a rather shocking sense of entitlement to expect taxpayers to foot the bill of parking one’s private vehicle on public property. What else do we give away that’s the equivalent to that? It’s especially shocking given that it’s something that is quite bad for our planet.

    If those who park on our city streets had to actually pay the true value of the space, there’d be much more parking available. I have neighbors who have two cars for one human being that park their second car on the street. I doubt that would happen if they had to pay for taking up public property with their second vehicle.

    In my experience, it is my elderly neighbors who are the least likely to have cars, so changing parking minimums/ laws would likely benefit them. It’s extremely difficult to find street parking anyway, so I doubt those with mobility issues can easily walk as far as it takes to get to a spot. Disabled placards (that are truly for those who need them and are enforced to avoid abuse) could exempt those who need cars for mobility reasons from fees.

  2. I’m just wondering how the people who don’t believe in free residential parking have friends over? I have one parking space for myself. Anyone who visits has to street park. Am I never to have friends over? And saying “pay a buck” is laughable – any parking fee will be $5-$10. If I have to pay $5-$10 to park to see a friend, I’m going to suggest we meet somewhere with free parking and then, of course, we would eat there. Everyone on this site only has friends who live within 2 miles? I also have relatives from out of town – where do they park in this no-free-parking utopia people talk about – what about older people who don’t just walk 2 miles at midnight after visiting a friend – not everyone walks, and a lot of people don’t walk at night. I don’t understand why we are supposed to destroy this great American lifestyle and be stuck at home because there is no parking? I went to Paris and used their subway but I didn’t see a lot of older people on it – or people in poor health who need to be able to visit friends to help them get through their problems. And even the young and perfect get sprained ankles. And don’t tell me “just Uber” – I don’t even know how people get into cars with total strangers and just hope they are safe!

    1. Permit Parking was created as a answer to businesses and their customers parking on residential streets thereby making it impossible for those who live an these streets to find a spot. When one street gets it others must also because of the never ending problem. I know my street applied for and was granted Permit Parking because of the House of Blues. While many clubs are located in older building that were not required to provide parking when built the House of Blues is the exception. It was build as a supper club but that business plan did not work. They changed it into a night club but did not have sufficient on site parking. Part of the CUP required them to enlarge their parking lot. Some 25 years later the additional parking has never been built. Now the excuse is the House of Blues is slated to be shut down and demolished. Can I hear a Hallelujah?

      No business should be allowed to obtain Parking Permits in a residential area. Additionally parking on residential streets should be configured so as to create the maximum amount of spaces. On Olive Dr. between Fountain and Santa Monica should have angle parking as opposed to parallel parking that it has now. Not only would needed parking be increased but by narrowing the north / south traffic flow perhaps it would not appear to be a freeway to some drivers. In boys town primarily there seems to be a lot of continuous red zones that could be converted into needed parking spaces. Visitor Parking Permits should be easier to obtain 24/7, not just times convenient to city hall and workers. Lastly, why so many Valets Parking zones? Not only are they a rip off, just parking cars on residential streets in some cases but the hazard of cars improperly parked(stopped) with doors being swung open into traffic.

  3. Requiring more parking minimums and the further subsidization of allocating public space to private vehicle storage is not progressive or forward-thinking.

    It is truly bizarre to me that so many people complain about parking and driving, yet so many people want to create incentives that will merely guarantee that more people compete for space on the road (both for driving and parking).

    Parking minimums incentivize more people owning more cars. That is not the direction the younger generation is going in, nor is it the direction our region is going in with added subway lines and bike lanes. If we want affordable housing, and livable and walkable cities, we need to make policy accordingly.

    Encouraging every resident to drive everywhere within our 1.9 mile city will further pollute our air, adding more cars (which occasionally hit and kill people) and will further frustrate drivers by adding to traffic. Giving away public space for private vehicle storage will also deprive our city of revenue that is used for essential services.

    Those policies have an eye toward the thinking of 20 years ago instead of the thinking for 5, 10, and 20 years in the future.

    We need to incentivize walking, biking, and taking public transit if we want a healthier community and planet. Each person driving their own personal vehicle for every trip within our tiny city is not healthy for individuals, for the air we breathe, or for the planet we live in. If people choose to drive — despite it being less healthy for them or the planet — surely they can pay a buck for using our public space to store their vehicle.

    Younger people are increasingly realizing that we need to move toward public and active transportation, rather than clinging to a world where each person almost always moves around in their own little air-conditioned, polluting bubble. It’s very sad to see so many candidates are not. I thought we were more progressive than this.

  4. According to Don Shoup’s ideal parking theory, every parking spot everywhere should be rented at all times. Is this what Heilman and his supporters advocate? Anybody who believes Shoup’s theory would work in West Hollywood or anywhere needs to have his head examined. The reason Shoup is not taken seriously outside of the Ayn Rand cult is because his theories are so bizarrely extreme, no one even takes an opposing view: who believes parking everywhere at all times should be free? *crickets*

    Who says all parking everywhere in WeHo be free? The BALANCE between free parking and overestricked revenue-generating parking is out of whack. And Heilman’s votes on Council are directly responsible for this imbalance, which is why WeHo needs to turn the page and put Shink on Council to get some movement on D’Amico’s plans to undo the damage.

    – Free parking increases traffic causing people to drive around…until, frustrated they stop coming to your neighborhood (and spending money in your neighborhood) altogether. Oops.
    – In practice, free parking in less dense areas prevents driving around as its very easy to park, which is why parking is tied to general overdevelopment (see Beverly Hills’s’ free parking everywhere vs. WeHo and which has more traffic? Oops.)
    – In practice, not a few WeHo businesses — especially those that rely on ‘tourists’ from other parts of the city — have seen revenues decrease with extended meter hours because WeHo parking frustrates them. Oops.

    Don Shoup, God bless him, is a crackpot and a well-known stooge of corporatist developers. Like many ivory tower right-wing academics, his ideas look good on paper but routinely fail in real life, because as academics who are also professionals know, there huge gaps between theory and practice because not only are human variables too numerous to count and often impossible to predict, they are constantly changing. This is why raw, unfettered Marxism and like laissez faire capitalism both look great on paper. And end up disastrously if not modified in practice.

    Parking is not taught in urban planning courses, so fortunately for Shoup there’s not yet a big enough academic check on his faulty science. But it is growing, and it is (ta da!) from actual urban planners who work in the field, not just in their own heads in some office at UCLA. The problems of urban planning vary from place to place. To wit, parking ideas which work in the middle of nowhere Texas will not work in Seattle. That’s an extreme example, but how about this: some parking ideas which work for USC will work for UCLA. Others won’t. The key is balance — not unlike how our “free” market economy works better with a social safety net and checked by social democracy. Veer to the extremes and your beautiful theory will fail in practice: both communism and cutthroat capitalism are human disasters, for everyone except the wealthy, and especially for the poor.

    No, parking should not be free in WeHo everywhere all the time for everyone. But, yes, veering too far right in terms of regressively taxing the relatively less wealthy also does not work. No, Heilman is not what WeHo needs at this time to resolve this imbalance.

  5. I recommend everyone read Don Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking”

    “Rolling back the meters” is a populist sounding idea with unintended negative consequences.
    – increased traffic as people drive around looking for places to park
    – worse position and gasoline waste from more cars driving around
    – negative effect on business as fewer customers can access that parking because a few drivers just park their cars and leave them there.

    West Hollywood is a walkable city with transit options that can be improved for people who are too cheap to pay a nominal amount of money to park.

    Parking may be a resource but free parking on demand should not be seen as a right nor entitlement.

    For residential areas, we should look at places to add more diagonal parking for residents.

  6. @Guillermo:

    Block is running from his heart; He loves the City, even if some of his ideas or just ideas.

    Shink can’t think straight (no pun intended). Maybe she hires inept Ghosts. I am not impressed by people that rely on Celebs. and others to make them look good–I prefer people with a solid record.

    Ettman and Heilman are solid and in particular Heilman is experienced–I think since he helped create a shuttle for Seniors, he would certainly look at how use the best technologies to create transportation opportunities that are feasible and reasonable to help everyone.

    Some of these ideas simply need study and time to figure out given where we are with our Budget and practical realities.

    My overarching thought is: no one council person can change WEHO. So how Is your knowledge and experience going to work to form intelligent policies for WEHO in relation to the now elected 4?

    In essence: who can bring us forward and be reliable to not destabilize our City?

  7. Thoughts:

    Block : He’s made a run stating he is against development, but then states he wants to put a parking structure on plummer park? He wants to give out free parking passes and slash the hours of the meters? So, he wants to spend money, while decreasing revenue for the city. Does he have any clue how economics work?

    Ettman : I respect his ideas, i don’t understand how parking structures will help residential parking. Usually parking structures help commercial areas not residential. I also wonder how he intends on funding his ideas.

    Shink: There’s a comment that she must have a ghost writer. I find this hard to believe, because her sentence structure, punctuation and diction is awful. I like that she wants to try to apply parking technologies, it shows she thinks outside of the box.

    Heilman: I like the daytime shuttle to Hollywood and Highland as an idea. It’s not that much of an additional distance, though it is a little redundant considering the many busses you can take which already do the same thing and don’t cost as much to the WeHo taxpayer.

    Personal thoughts : The city is 2 miles, I find I can walk just about everywhere and if I am carrying something heavy (groceries) I can uber or take the bus back. I think residential parking should be for residents and not for people looking to dodge parking fee’s. Thus, I think most residential area parking should be by (paid) pass only. I like the idea of using smart technologies for parking – searching for parking burns one million barrels of the world’s oil every day. I also think that the city would benefit from more bike lanes, and a bike share program.

  8. @Cassandra: Sorry to confuse the ongoing issue with its overlapping issues and players…on/off council…running for council. I should have used both tense. The most direct point of contact is with the city, staff, deputies and or council members themselves. We have been blessed with a high standard of folks in that regard and personally have rarely been disappointed. However, many folks with issues, questions or solutions to problems intentionally or unintentionally create complications for themselves in not choosing a direct path and getting info from the horse’s mouth. Not only does it cause complications but also unwarranted bad will.

  9. @Lynn – just FYI, John Heilman is no longer a council member and his deputy is no longer a deputy. Perhaps, meeting with some of the current council members would be more effective.

  10. Do we really need more parking structures or is that just a good Political Idea? Most of the business on Santa Monica Bl. is in Boys Town and there is a huge monstrosity in West Hollywood Park. Up on Sunset there is only one lot as I recall across from the Tower record site. A big problem where I live is “The House of Blues.” It was built with inadequate parking and became even worse when it was converted into a Night Club. As it stands now it’s supposed to be closed down in the future. Either they should be required to provide “FREE PARKING” off site or increase their on site parking somehow. Perhaps lowering their capacity to reflect their on site parking. Otherwise close it down. The big problem is many of the clubs and other businesses are located in buildings that were built before city hood and in many cases before auto’s became commonplace.

    Perhaps 10:00PM would be a better time to cut off paid parking meters. And lowering fines should be a priority. But lets install more parking signs so as visitors don’t have their night ruined because there are only three or four signs in a entire block. And get rid of that parking enforcement contractor. My own experience is they enjoy using the cities parking regulations to issue bogus tickets to harass those who they do not like.

    The City Line and the Week-end Lines should be combined and ran directly by the city. It makes little sense to say the Week-end Line can not be extended due to lack of equipment while buses from the City Line sit idle in some yard at night. And going to the Hollywood / Highland Station will present more problems than it will solve. A great idea but in my opinion full of operational problems. Hollywood Bl. from Highland to La Brea is often closed for special events almost weekly. The MTA has instituted permanent detours in the area.

  11. @Hank, we hope you are not going to repeat all the same questions from the last round. We will likely get the same answers from Block and Heilman as they will remain consistent. Shink appears to have a “ghost writer” because none of the things she mentions has she ever discussed as a Planning Commissioner (not at least at the meetings I watch). I miss a few, but so does she. Mr. Ettman has interesting ideas.

    How about we get down to brass tax: 4 questions:

    1. Will you vote to fire the City Manager?
    2. Will you pledge to support projects that include affordable housing?
    3. Tell us 3 things you have done in the last year that evidence your undying support for West Hollywood?
    4. If you could change one law to benefit the people of West Hollywood what would that be?

    These are the things that define people and which voters can determine who they support.

  12. Good to hear that all the candidates agree the Pick Up Line should be extended to La Brea. But it’s also as important that they consider a 6pm or earlier start time so that residents can use it for more than just the late night bar/club scene.

    Unlike the convoluted City Line, the Pick Up’s simple up and down the blvd route is what makes it more accessible to the casual user. So if a Sunset line gets introduced, it should be independent of the SMB line.

    There is some talk from the newly elected council and one candidate here of extending it to the station at Hollywood and Highland. But I’m not sure if West Hollywood needs to foot the bill for that convenience.

  13. DK, Whoa, it was simply a counter to your remarks, many of which I have read. Has levity completely escaped the picture?

    Bottom line, you seem to have many issues but I have to ask if you have you ever met with any of the council members to solve any of these concerns? If your grievance is with John Heilman, he should be the one you meet with, in person or his deputy. If he is your biggest challenge, perhaps he will entertain your reasoned argument or suggestions because his is the mind that needs to be changed along with two others. That actually works and produces far better results than hurling invectives from the speaker podium before council or from the threads on Wehoville.

    Not every endorsement counts. Some are lethal particularly if they come from folks that have no real integrity, sense of civil engagement or fit into the axe grinder category that continues to spin compounded untruths that they come to believe, said often enough. All the axe grinders like to flock to on line discussions which while it may give them a momentary sense of empowerment, it goes nowhere and doesn’t help any of us.

  14. Lynn, maybe you should thank yourself for the silliness: your “serious” suggestion to solve this issue is that people should have one less drink? What on earth is the connection between one extra drink by a handful of bar-hoppers and WeHo’s parking issues? What nonsense. On top of the ridiculous suggestion that those who wish to visit WeHo from miles away should walk, none of it makes sense.

    You know what *doesn’t* happen in London and Europe? The type of parking ticket shakedowns that Heilman supports.Besides, we need leaders focused on West Hollywood and its neighbors, not what’s going on 5,000 miles away. Policies right for Europe have nothing to do with what’s right for LA County, as serious people understand.

    Heilman and his supporters contribute no real, serious ideas that make any sense for the future, just lame, glib, snide, dismissive retorts that aren’t funny except inside their heads. They embarrass themselves and their candidate.

    Every endorsement from any leader in our community counts, even those they will be pooh-poohed by Heilman supporters who think only endorsements from rich developers matter. Which is why evidence of the snarling, snide elitism that got him kicked off council in the first place.

    It took bad votes by multiple council members to mess up parking in WeHo. Which is why all of those council members are gone except one. No need to put one of those removed votes back on council. Heilman had a brilliant past, but was voted out for good reason, he no longer demonstrates the kind of forward-looking 21st Century leadership WeHo needs.

  15. Manny:

    You are a bit cavalier in your advice of “just don’t get a ticket.” In some places, the regulations are so complicated, that there is a good chance they will be misunderstood. I think, if we are worried about reduced compliance due to reduced fines, we could at least simplify our signs and regulations so that we can be sure that if someone parked in a spot that they weren’t supposed to, they definitely knew what they were doing.

    $75 to $100 may be a good penalty for breaking the law, but not for being confused by the law.

  16. DK:Thanks for the silliness, especially the “weight” of some endorsements.

    As for parking rates, unavailability, tickets etc., when going to dinner or a club, have one less drink (the price of an Uber or Lyft ride) and you will arrive home safely at any hour without the stress about parking, tickets and DUI’s. Or try walking. It happens in London, all over Europe and NYC. Folks actually enjoy it.

    No need to make this one council members bailiwick. After all doesn’t it take three votes?

  17. Cole Ettman has it right here. We need more structure parking at an affordable rate and free for a certain time period for people running errands. The parking meters turned back to 8pm. Businesses lose money when someone has to leave or shuffle their car because of 2 hour limits. I can’t go to dinner in Weho and park on the street! It’s absurd. I’d be interested to see what revenue has been like for businesses since the meter parking was changed. I’m guessing they’ve seen a loss. If I have to pay more for a meter or structure rather than an extra drink at a local business. The city benefits. Not businesses.

  18. Residential Parking Permits have become a joke due to the ever increasing tear down of single family homes only to be replaced by multi-unit condos. Residents on the East Side (where I live) even with a Permit can NOT find a place to park. Plus WeHo has some $100 million (you read that right) in the “till.” Roll back the parking meter hours to what they used to be – usually until 6 pm with free meter parking on Sundays. Those supposedly “hoarding” the parking spaces may well be patronizing businesses in WeHo. It’s all about greed to ensure those social services programs (etc.) continue to flourish, thereby making the residents complacent.

  19. Manny, these ideas have *not* worked. I understand the logic behind extending the parking meter times, but they were too far-reaching (D’Amico voted against them, by the way).

    One of the problems was with bar and restaurant employees taking metered spaces all evening. They didn’t have to extend meters to midnight to fix that problem. Further, they didn’t have to include Sundays, as that has hurt local daytime businesses (especially retail). I also support having two hours of free parking in city lots. The city should do whatever it can to bolster business, especially during the day. As it stands now, retail businesses are struggling, leaving SMB to mostly include businesses that rely on nighttime patrons (bars and restaurants). Before we know it, the daytime “village” will be empty. I can also tell you that I personally know lots of friends who live in adjacent West LA or Hollywood and have told me they choose other neighborhoods for dining/entertainment, because they are tired of dealing with these reduced meter times, or exorbitant prices at parking lots (and yes, that includes the library structure).

    Regarding parking tickets, John Heilman has a point. But how about a middle ground between $25, and where we are currently at? It should be punitive, and discouraging, but our parking ticket rates are way too high. And if he thinks the issue only applies to areas like Sunset Blvd (where pay lots would be close to the $25), then how about making the rates regional? Higher rates for parking tickets in ares with more commercial activity, or that are closer to Sunset or Santa Monica Blvd.?

  20. Shink’s concrete, substantive answers here demonstrate why she earned D’Amico and Lucas John’s endorsement this weekend. Block’s answers are similarly focused, although his inability to think creative about alternative revenue sources is troubling.

    Heilman’s answers are a joke. His empty, politicianspeak responses amount to: “We need to think about parking. Look at my million dollar garage. PDC might have parking in the future or might not. And I don’t care about the price of tickets.” WeHo deserves real leadership and bold ideas, not lame platitudes. These responses should disqualify him for any serious voter.

    The easiest thing WeHo can do to relieve its parking problems is to NOT vote for John Heilman and vote for the other candidates who actually have creative, progressive, populist, middle class-focused parking and revenue ideas.

    Corporatist, regressive “tax the poor” policies are old-fashioned, don’t work, and are the reason voter anger has forced off all but one of the parking ticket shakedown council members of. These policies don’t work except for wealthy landowners, developers, and their city hall bank accounts. For the poor and middle class, not so much.

    Cities should not be regressively taxing the relatively less well off to raise revenue. Period. Heilman and his supporters are basically admitting WeHo’s byzantine, laughingstock parking rules are not about public interest, but simply about money. That’s blatantly corrupt. And indicate of conservative, uncreative thinking.

    If they want more revenue, do it the honest way: raise the city sales tax by .10%. Or, God forbid, cut the exorbitant salaries of city hall employees, learn to be frugal, and stop wasting money on boondoggles like million-dollar parking garages.

    Or think creatively as Shink does here. Think progressively like Beverly Hills: make it free and easy to park, then you will get more visitors spending more money in your city, which (ta-da!) raises revenue and lifts the economy. This is Finance 101. But Heilman and his supporters can’t figure it out.

    The idea that citywide parking pasess are illegal is not even remotely accurate — they have existed for years in Hermosa Beach and elsewhere without problem. Extended meter hours do not allow residents to park, they take away parking spots residents used to use — I know as I’m a resident who relies on street parking. Where I used to be able to park at meters on my street after 8pm, I cannot — unless I pay Heilman’s meter tax. I had access to these spots previously, and now since the extended hours there is NO PARKING AVAILABLE.

    Since the extended meter hours, business revenue is obviously down — establishments are closing or for sale left and right up and down Santa Monica Blvd: The Horn, Block Party, Eleven (replaced by another flagging bar), TPJ, Rage, more than one sushi restaurant and on and on. My friends working here report they are not making as much in tips, getting fewer customers. People are not in getting a $60 ticket in WeHo when they can go elsewhere and park for free.

  21. If you lower parking fines, where will the city make up for that lost revenue?

    Non-compliance must cost more than compliance. The easiest thing you can do is to NOT get a parking ticket……Just don’t get a ticket.

    The current expended meter hours (everywhere) actually allow for residents and visitors to find a parking spot. Since expended meter hours was enacted business revenue is up. The purpose of “metered” parking is for temporary occupancy of a space so that others can also have access. If you roll back meter hours to 8pm, a car will arrive at 7pm, feed the meter for one hour and then hoard that spot all night. NO ACCESS and NO PARKING AVAILABLE for anybody else.

    These populist “get me elected” ideas are old fashion, no longer work and are counter productive to a well managed and parking friendly environment. That’s why the city has implemented the rules and fines we have now……because they work.

    The idea of an “all city” parking pass for residents is probably illegal. We do not live in a closed society. (Residential Parking Permits are appropriate for the residential area where one lives)

    It’s too bad that some of these candidates choose to offer bad old ideas disguised as good new ideas just to get elected.

Comments are closed.