Phoenix trailhead parking fees city council vote

[Moovyoaz]

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I would like to remind you that the Phoenix City Council votes this week on enforcing the Parks Board's recently approved fee to park at preserves. This would be yet another new fee placed upon the taxpayer in Phoenix, while very little of the burden to balance the budget has been felt within the city's organization -- all so Phoenix can afford an average cost of labor of almost $100,000

The council needs to see and hear from you about your position on this new fee before it is too late. Round up all your neighbors and come to the council's Formal meeting this Wednesday at 3 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (200 W. Jefferson Street). There will be an opportunity to speak if you would like, and even if you cannot stay until the end, you can fill out a card stating your position. Please see my column below that outlines why I will vote against this fee.
Respectfully,
Sal DiCiccio
Councilman District 6 - Ahwatukee, Arcadia, Biltmore and North Central
602-262-7491 council.district.6@phoenix.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The latest citizen sacrifice: Hikers
The city of Phoenix is getting ready to bleed yet another passionate segment of its citizenry, hitting them up for a few more dollars because they truly care about a narrow aspect of city life and are willing to pay more for it.
Then the city will turn around and give that money to its employees. There is insufficient backbone to say no.

This time it’s the hikers
You’ve seen this movie before: Threaten to kill or severely cut some service with passionate (or desperate) supporters. Offer up a disaster scenario if more money isn’t produced. Then, after the initial wailing and public apoplexy, come up with a slightly lesser fleecing of this group to gain public compliance. Hey, it’s only a few bucks and it will keep our (fill in the blank) hiking trails, softball fields, library hours, etc. etc. etc.

The Oscar for this performance came during the budget hearings, where police, firemen, libraries and seniors centers were offered up as sacrifices to the fiscal gods if the public didn’t approve a $50 million food tax. Take a wild guess where all the public hearings were held? Libraries and senior centers, naturally.

The ugly truth is that the $100 million in new taxes and fees Phoenix has already imposed on its citizenry in the past seven months is not necessary to keep those services and protections. It’s to find enough money to pay for 14,000-plus union-represented employees who average $100,000 a year in compensation.

The parking fee – at trails you already pay for three ways – came about after the city drastically cut services and hours for parks, then gave the parks board the notion that if it didn’t raise money for the general fund, much more would be cut. That’s where the $5 a day parking fee came up (later reduced to $2 – hey, a comparative bargain). Then the city management promised that all the new dollars would go to parks.

First off, management can’t guarantee that. Even the Council can’t guarantee that.

On Sept. 15, the Phoenix City Council will be asked to approve enforcing this latest rummage through your pockets (3 p.m., Council Chambers, 200 W. Jefferson). No Council approval, no new fee. I say it’s time to separate the taxing-and-spending addict from its drug, which is your money.

If you want to learn more, contact us. Or show up at the Council meeting and tell Phoenix it has enough of your money already. And be sure to send this around to your email list.

Councilman Sal DiCiccio represents District 6, which includes Ahwatukee, Arcadia, Biltmore, East Camelback and North Central. He can be reached at council.district.6@phoenix.gov.

[big_load]

... the city has now hired a consultant who will study parking at the trailheads and report back to the Parks Department board for evaluation ...

The fees will pay for the study about whether there should be fees.

No surprise a NJ guy would pick up on this!

Expensive studies conducted by external cronies are the Jersey way.

[Thoreau]

The only reason the city gets away with pumpkin claims of needing more money for the parks is because they're wasting other money elsewhere and the populace is too dense to realize it, or is unwilling to accept reality.

well, good luck working with the city to revamp their budget. That's going to be a long hard road but I commend your efforts-- or you could just complain about it instead, I guess ;)

Last I checked I'm paying people to do that. The same people screwing it up in the first place.

[chumley]

I'll go with the money-grab suggestion. It's the way of the modern world.

It is so frustrating to me that what I pay for phone, internet, tv, etc. keeps going up and up. But if you take the time to call and ask, they will lower the rates, sometimes quite significantly. But most people don't make that call.

I think they assume that if a large percentage of people will pay a certain rate for a service, or in this case a fee for parking, etc. why not charge it?

If some people get fed up and don't park at the trailheads, that's no loss to the city. They are still collecting from the people who do park there. And they don't give a crap if you bitch about it because at the popular trailheads there will be enough people paying that they can completely ignore the people who are upset about it.

[Thoreau]

I think saying this will lead to city toll roads is more than a tad exaggerated and labeling something you disagree with as "svengalis" is nonsense and not an intelligent way to argue any point. I'm also not necessarily for overcharging people for the use of city land. Though if I'm going to assume that Thoreau is correct and not just spouting off assumptions that money that should be used for the parks is being diverted elsewhere, then I don't see a major problem with an inexpensive yearly pass option. If he can give me a detailed report of the city budget and use of funds, then I'll be a believer. So many people complain that their taxes go to so many things they don't use-- and then they're the same ones that complain when asked to pay for the things they do use. I wish people protected other things with as much fervor as they did their pocket books.

Edit: Doh! Chumley beat me to it by a mile!

https://www.phoenix.gov/budget

Detailed reports of where the city likes to spend the money. (I like the estimates section to the right for some birds-eye-views of it all.)

I've worked for the government before, and much of the waste isn't simply the high level line item, but comes from much lower levels. Don't even get me started on the department director at Osborn School district that HAD to get a $2000 leather chair for her office because failure to spend that money at that time would've resulted in a decrease in her budget next year. Or how we blew through THOUSANDS of dollars in very expensive IBM network hardware because they thought it was cheaper to keep on replacing dead switches in non-aid-conditioned comm rooms vs. run a duct into it.

I would bet that Osborn was hardly the exception. In fact I'm certain of it based on accounts of wonderous efficiency from a friend who used to work for AZ DES.

For what it's worth, I see a lot of the same idiocy in the private sector. Of course, the big difference there is that the private sector isn't taking it's funding at gunpoint.

[Thoreau]

Does anyone know how much state grant funding the parks get as opposed to city money? One might then argue that if they are majority city funded, then Phoenix residents get free parking and others pay a small fee (definitely not hourly).

City parks funding also comes, in part, from the feds. Something I learned while combating the parks department on their illegal banning of firearms in city parks some years ago.

[BobP]

If some people get fed up and don't park at the trailheads, that's no loss to the city. They are still collecting from the people who do park there. And they don't give a crap if you pumpkin about it because at the popular trailheads there will be enough people paying that they can completely ignore the people who are upset about it.

In 2010, the parks board approved a $2 daily parking fee. But because of the outcry of hikers et.all, the city council didn't approve it and thus the parks couldn't enforce it. So sometimes it pays to . I understand your point here (what I quoted) and its valid but sometimes with a little this :tt: :SB: :wlift: we can make a difference. DId I attend the meeting....no I was hiking.

[BobP]

While this is the wrongest of wrongs... it'll likely thin the crowds out for my two favs Squaw and S Mtn. There's plenty of public parking within easy hiking range of both. An entire strip mall of parking at 32nd/Lincoln for Piestewa and countless options for S Mtn.

I say we go to the meeting and all stand up at 5:01pm and yell out meeting adjourned due to budget cuts.

As they kick families out of the parks during the cool desert evenings and possibly start charging... remember janet napolitano spent over a MILLION dollars changing the name of Squaw...

I went back in my timemachine and found this from 2010....This is awesome thanks JoeyB.

[CannondaleKid]

Tonto Pass is required at a trailhead, but if you park on the side of the road and start hiking, there's no fee.

Not quite...

From Tonto NF website:
The Tonto Pass is a daily (24-hour) recreation pass for visitors to more than 50 recreation sites (not ALL sites) where a daily-use fee is required on the Tonto National Forest.

Thankfully for me, none of the trailheads I've hiked from in the last 4-5 years required a Tonto Pass because I hike from designated trailheads without amenities and avoid the recreation sites and along with all the crowds.

Also according to Tonto NF website: Only if a sign specifically states Recreation Passes Required or Recreation Passes Honored must you display the Tonto Pass.

And of the $5 Tonto Passes I purchased over 5 years ago? Due to my non-use they expired. Such is life... :-({|=

[BEEBEE]

Grants are not free someone is still funding them.

Yeah... I know that. You are not getting my point. State grants would mean taxpayers state wide are paying for the park as opposed to Phoenicians. I'm questioning which citizens are paying the most for it already.

The money still comes out of the pockets of citizens who know how to spend the money they work for far better then anyone else.

oh really? I know that sounds great but do you really think the average citizen is qualified to run a city?

Oh really? Yes I think every elected official is an average citizen in fact I hope they are as human and flawed as the rest of us. We have no room for Kings or divine all knowing deities in our constitutional republic. The best leaders are ones who know they are flawed and capable of error. So yes I think an average citizen is more then qualified to run for office in any city. state or federal election and through debate and research of an average citizen voter we elect leaders that we hope make good decisions that effect all of us . The founders did a good job of setting up a system of government that allows for just that, and put in place controls that allow us to hold them accountable when they stray.

[BEEBEE]

... the city has now hired a consultant who will study parking at the trailheads and report back to the Parks Department board for evaluation ...

The fees will pay for the study about whether there should be fees.

No surprise a NJ guy would pick up on this!

Expensive studies conducted by external cronies are the Jersey way.

Being a former Jersey guy myself we all remember the Parkway Tolls were just temporary till the road was paid for. I was still helping to pay that road off in 2002 when left the state for good.

[BobP]

I spoke with someone in the parks and rec department today. He said protection of assets is the main reason. The parks being the asset. Camelback is the main problem. That being said.. He didn't think the go cart monitoring meters would be able to monitor the parks effectively. When you say it's not about the money..... It's about the money.

[chumley]

When you say it's not about the money..... It's about the money.

It's like photo radar. It's about safety. Except when all the studies show it isn't. :roll: /

[Tough_Boots]

@BEEBEE

I disagree 100%. Oversimplifying issues into things that sound nice and patriotic is living in a fantasy world. The average citizen is not qualified to make decisions about very complex issues. Do you really think the average citizen off the street is able to make educated decisions about waste water treatment, park services, forestry, roads and transportation planning, etc? These are things people spend their whole lives dedicated to studying and working with and I imagine they should be pretty insulted when some dilettante decides he know better than them.

The founders did a good job of setting up a system of government that allows for just that, and put in place controls that allow us to hold them accountable when they stray.

The founding fathers have nothing to do with setting up the constitutions and charters of state and local governments so I'm really not sure what your point is here.

[Thoreau]

Do you really think the average citizen off the street is able to make educated decisions about

waste water treatment,

Based on the fact that AZ tap water is undrinkable, I don't see how the 'average citizen' could do any worse.

park services,

Haven't seen the 'holier than thou' special people doing much that ranks them higher than your lowly peasant. Er, 'average citizen.' They sure are good at coming up with hair brain schemes to generate revenue.... and THAT'S what they were hired to do...

forestry,

Lmao, really? I'll just let all the major wildfires in recent years speak for themselves here.

These are things people spend their whole lives dedicated to studying and working with and I imagine they should be pretty insulted when some dilettante decides he know better than them.

Spending your life 'dedicated' to something doesn't make you an expert, or even decent at something. Career politicians are probably the best proof of this. The good ones are the exception, not the norm. Having a badge or a government job title means precisely zilch when it comes to determining how qualified, skillful, or intelligent a person is. Much like a driver license means not a *bleep* thing when it comes to determining how good a driver someone is.

[Tough_Boots]

Having a badge or a government job title means precisely zilch when it comes to determining how qualified, skillful, or intelligent a person is.

I'm talking more about education and experience-- but I guess you're probably against that, too.

[Tough_Boots]

I also can't wait for these mythical creatures-- these "average citizens" that have been hiding with the unicorns just waiting to restore our government to perfection

[Thoreau]

Having a badge or a government job title means precisely zilch when it comes to determining how qualified, skillful, or intelligent a person is.

I'm talking more about education and experience-- but I guess you're probably against that, too. Considering the fact that your arguments tend to rely solely on rhetoric and ideology, I'm pretty certain of it.

My arguments are based more on reality and direct experience than anything else, but you're welcome to come to whatever conclusions your ideals lead you to. (Hint: they're leading you quite far astray.)

Getting back to the point of the discussion though, I still maintain that you are welcome to pay for trail fees since you believe the city can do no wrong, and surely 'must' charge the fees for the greater good, or to save an endangered pigeon or sasquatch/donkey hybrid, or whatever reason they have presented. Heck, why wait for them to force the fee upon you, just pay it now =)

I, however, choose not to be fleeced, and do not willfully allow one person's ideals to steal money from my pocket.

[Thoreau]

I also can't wait for these mythical creatures-- these "average citizens" that have been hiding with the unicorns just waiting to restore our government to perfection

History is your friend here. This has happened, in this country, more than a few times. One notable example was somewhere in the late 1700's. In some ways it happened again in the form of the Civil War. Later in the 1960's and 70's in the form of the civil rights movement. Heck, it's happening on a small scale in Ferguson, MO right now.

These are just the highlight events too, and in one country.

And while the grammar is flawed, the meaning should still apply... 'in order to form a more perfect union'. So before you go on about how none of those events created 'perfection', recognize the same reality that our founding fathers did in that perfection is a goal that can never be achieved, but should still be aimed for.

[Tough_Boots]

My arguments are based more on reality and direct experience than anything else

you believe the city can do no wrong

I think your "reality" and interpretation of your "experience" might be dangerously flawed if you think I "believe the city can do no wrong" just because I don't have a problem with an inexpensive yearly pass for a service that is probably used by more non-city residents than city residents and that I think people we place into government should be educated and experienced in the fields they are dealing with.

History is your friend here. This has happened, in this country, more than a few times. One notable example was somewhere in the late 1700's.

Are you talking about the American Revolution? Do you think the United States government existed before the revolution? How did that restore something that didn't exist before?

So before you go on about how none of those events created 'perfection', recognize the same reality that our founding fathers did in that perfection is a goal that can never be achieved, but should still be aimed for.

They could have tried a little harder-- they were still owning slaves a couple hundred years after Europe began abolition. I wonder what their concept of freedom and rights actually were because even in the late 1700's they were way behind the times-- must of had something to do with their pocketbooks.

[chumley]

So. Parking meters.