In other news from the Village Board Meeting:

1. The Village will be holding a hearing on Shorewood parking policies on March 10th.  I am not certain what the agenda is here, but there is certainly plenty to discuss and potentially improve. 
2. The Village Manager is moving toward hiring a consultant to study options of online administration of the Village Parking system.  Such a system could potentially include online renewals, home printing of permits, and other improvements to the current manual, paper-heavy system. 
3. The Village is now studying ways to implement an online payment system for parking and other fees.  Village Manager Chris Swartz will be visiting Grayslake, WI to learn about the e-payment system implemented in that municipality.

Note: Sykes and Boots & Sabers have picked up the Rep Wasserman story.

 I received this letter from a good friend of mine who rents in Shorewood and parks in the Village Hall/Library parking lot.

---------------------------------------

Dear Steve,

I am a single female, late 20’s and am now going into my third year of living in Shorewood. I rent, so I pay for a parking space behind the city hall.

Beginning this summer, I have been made to feel uncomfortable by an individual that is also in the parking lot, but does not live in Shorewood.

Every weekday, I walk to my car before work and there is a man parked and sitting in his car by himself or sometimes with a small child. It started out innocently enough, a ‘good morning’ or a smile as I walked past to get to my own car (where he parks, I almost always have to walk past him to get to my vehicle). Several weeks later it turned to a honk from the car horn, and if I didn’t acknowledge, even more honking to get my attention. I finally asked him why he was always parked in the lot, in which he replied “I am waiting for my girl…I live on the other side of town, so I don’t want to drive back and forth.”

Mid September I went on a week long vacation, and upon returning, this individual asked me ‘where I was’ and then also told me that ‘he missed me.’ To make matters even more uncomfortable, several times now he has gotten out of his car upon seeing me and approached me, offering to carry something to my car. When I advise him I am fully capable, he follows me to within several feet of my vehicle and then usually walks back to his car. He has asked me to approach his car and has also asked if he can have my phone number. All of which I have refused to do.

I usually leave for work around 8:00, and even if it is 8:30 or 8:45 he is still parked there. One day last week, I left for work at 7:30 (to avoid him) and was relieved to see his car was not in the parking lot, but then noticed it was parked down the block. He promptly started the car and drove up along side me asking me how I was doing etc. And now as of last week, I have now tried to move my car to the front my building early in the morning, so that I can avoid having to interact with this man on a daily basis.

I have been meaning to mention him to the police for the last several days, but to my luck this morning at 8:10 there was an office standing near my car talking with another village employee on a smoke break. Prior to getting into my car I told them what has been happening and that it is making me very uncomfortable to go to my car (I have no other choice on where to park) and that it has become more than just a ‘good morning.’

The officer looked at me and shrugged. He told me the man was ‘doing nothing illegal’ and that he had ‘every right’ to be in the parking lot.

I challenged what he said and asked if I should just be ignoring my feelings and concerns.

Again, all I got from the officer was a shrug.

I am so upset by this officer’s reaction. I am not asking for the man to be arrested or to be ticketed, I just wanted the police to be aware that this is occurring on a daily basis and that it is making one of their residents very uncomfortable. I do understand that it is a public lot, but I do not feel that my concern was taken seriously, especially when you are always told to ‘listen to your gut feeling.’ Had this individual continued to just wave and smile, I would not have said anything, but the fact that he is now getting out of his car, I look at this differently and do not know if his actions will progress or what to expect next.

I am open to suggestions on how to handle this if anyone has any.

If I had the option of parking elsewhere, I would, but in the mean time I suppose I will just have to continue to move my car and feel unsafe in my own back yard.

Help!
Upset and Nervous Renter

---------------------------------

SHS Parking Lot

The Village of Shorewood has confirmed that work on the entrance to the Shorewood High School parking lot is sufficiently completed so that the lot may once again be used by staff, students and the general public.  However, please continue to be extra cautious when driving on Oakland Avenue.  Watch for pedestrians/our students.  When work is completed on the west side of the street, the traffic lanes will be flipped so work can be completed on the east side. 

We in Shorewood fancy ourselves a progressive village in terms of our concern for the environment. However, our parking policies discourage those who rent spaces in our public lots from riding their bicycles or carpooling to work.

A coworker of mine at Mark Travel rents in Shorewood and has a space in one of our parking lots. She recently purchased a bicycle, which she intended to ride to work. Unfortunately, during the day, she is not allowed to keep her car in the public lot she rents space in, or on any street near her home. The streets in the vicinity of her building all have 2 hour parking limits, and her overnight lot does not allow her to park in it during the day.

When she called Village Hall, she was told she could either move her car to another part of the Village to an unrestricted street every morning and back off the street in the evening, or move her car to the 3500 Oakland lot, where she would be required purchase yet another permit.

Instead of going through this hassle, she has decided to continue to drive to work. She lives 8.3 miles from the office, so doing some quick math, we get the following numbers. Driving 16.6 miles per day instead of biking for 36 weeks a year (she wouldn’t ride a bike in the WI winter!) in a car that gets 25 miles per gallon means that she will burn 120 gallons of gasoline this year.

This fuel will be unnecessarily wasted unless Shorewood can find a way for this willing biker to leave her car near her home during the day. How many more renters would take advantage of a program which allowed them to bike or carpool to work, if there were some easy solution for where to leave their car?

This is problem we can solve. While I recognize that the parking shortage prevents Shorewood from allowing unrestricted parking in certain lots, there must be a better way than the bizarre and burdensome solution outlined above. This matters for two reasons. First off, in this day and age of climate change and soaring gas prices, we should work to remove obstacles for people who want to carpool or ride their bikes. Secondly, this is one more example of the cost and inconvenience we are forcing renters to assume, which homeowners do not have to deal with.

In a post I wrote last week, I accused the Village of Shorewood of adding an "outrageous markup" to the actual cost of a parking permit. It is only fair that I should defend this claim.

The parking system costs the Village $162,710 to operate, according the 2006 village budget. It takes in $198,581 in revenue. Part of the $35,871 difference is transferred to the General Fund for use in other programs, and the rest is taken as "Operating Profit." In other words, the Village marks up the cost of each permit by 22% and keeps the difference. The actual cost of running the parking program is approximately $33 per permit, not $40. The other $7 is pure profit.

On a related note, on March 13, 2004, the following statute took effect:
________________________________
66.0628 Fees imposed by a political subdivision.
(1) In this section, “political subdivision” means a city, village, town, or county.
(2) Any fee that is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed.
________________________________

How can we claim that the parking fee bears "a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed," when the fee includes a 21% markup? A $33 fee would bear such a relationship. A $40 fee bears no such relationship.

Yesterday's post was about the problems I see with the Village of Shorewood's off-street parking program. By way of illustration, I offer this story sent to me by a friend of mine and former Shorewood renter.

From Julie:

"I decided that I would rather pay $3.00/night for on-street parking than paying for the priveledge to park far away and put myself in danger at night. This meant that I had to drive to the police station in Shorewood every weekday night, give my address, license plate #, and pay my $3.00. I asked the people in the police dept. and at city hall: "Why doesn't the city of Shorewood allow on-street parking and have people pay monthly and/or use parking stickers instead of making residents physically go to the police station every night?" The answer was that city government had voted on this parking rule and listened to the home owners, who evidently didn't want cars on their streets, period.

Now that I am away from my parking experience in Shorewood and my emotions have cooled, I'm still at a loss for how a community government would punish its citizens who have no other option but to park on the street, if they care about their safety. I believe that renters are treated as second-class citizens in Shorewood, and the likely affect is higher turnover of renters, contributing to less stability in the neighborhoods. "

As you likely already know, I find the off street parking program in Shorewood to be appalling. I will have a great deal to say about it in the next few months. For now, let me set out the list of the problems I see, so you know why this program causes me a headache every time I think about it.

By way of introduction, the village rents about 420 spaces in a dozen or so lots around the village. The village then re-rents these spaces to renters who either have no on-site parking at their building, or where the parking is insufficient for the number of residents with cars. So what are the problems with the program?

1. The program is inefficiently managed. The paper and pencil system is still firmly in place, with no sign of moving toward online payment or automatic renewal. Instead, those who wish to rent from the village are still snowed under by an avalanche of self-addressed, stamped envelopes, and paper checks.

2. The parking fees represent a regressive tax. We in Shorewood should be ashamed that, in our progressive community, we charge a fee exclusively to the lowest income residents of our village. In addition to paying for the parking program itself, the fees include an outrageous markup which goes into the general village coffers. Most programs, such as trash collection and street repair are paid for as a part of the property tax. Why should our lowest income residents be required to pay a special fee with a huge markup for a program only they need?

3. The parking rules renters must live by are oppressive. In some of the parking lots, the parker is not allowed to use their space until after 10 PM, and must be out by 7 AM. This requires organizing evenings and mornings around shuffling the car from place to place.

4. These rules have the effect of creating an "underclass" of renters. Having recently been a renter myself, I can tell you that most renters do not feel the red carpet is being rolled out for them here in Shorewood. When I rented, it was my perception that the Village viewed us renters as a nuisance to be minimized.

5. Treating renters like this drives out the residents we need to retain. Today’s 27 year-old single grad student is tomorrow’s 42 year-old father of two. The 21 year-old waitress will be the 36 year-old CPA and mother of three. If we shove these residents out the back door before they get their feet on the ground, we will have to spend money on fancy marketing programs to attract them back, just like we are right now.

6. There is no legitimate reason the program could not be changed. Overnight, on-street parking in high density areas (Oakland, Capitol, and Wilson) is long overdue. The village has been dragging their feet on this for years now, delaying with expensive, consultant-driven studies and endless discussion. It is time for action.