11/1/2009 7:48:00 PM Editorial: Jerome should proceed with caution on
parking fee plan
For more than 100 years, parking has been a problem in Jerome.
When the mines were in operation, as many as 15,000 people called Jerome home. It was a simple case of too many people, and their cars, packed into too small a space.
Still today, with only about 500 residents, parking is still a problem in Jerome. That’s especially true on weekends when the undeniable draw that is so uniquely Jerome attracts folks from all over the United States.
For more than 100 years, the Jerome Town Council has sought a solution to the parking crunch that is a way of life in the mountainside community. In recent years, the expanded parking near the Sliding Jail and at the 300-level has helped tremendously, but it’s still too often a case of too many cars and not enough parking spaces.
Now, suddenly, what always previously has been viewed as a problem for the Jerome Town Council is being seen as a solution … to the town’s money woes.
The Town of Jerome, like everyone else these days, is scrambling for ways to enhance their revenue base. Cottonwood and Clarkdale have addressed the money crunch by increasing the sales tax levy. In Jerome, the latest proposal on the table is to charge folks to park.
Parking Pay Station Zones would have kiosks so that visitors will have to buy $2 parking receipts to park between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Town resident Mike Parry and Jerome Fire Chief Rusty Blair say the Pay Station Zones will generate $278,743 profit per year for Jerome.
The proposed parking ordinance also requires town residents obtain up to two free residential parking permits from the police department. Residents who expect guests for up to 30 days will have to obtain guest parking permits from the police department.
While Jerome is to be applauded for being innovative in finding ways to generate revenue, the town council needs to proceed with caution. Charging people to park, and even worse, having ticket-happy police cite those who do not pay, is a questionable practice for a town so dependent on the tourist dollar. Is it the image Jerome should reflect?
Of bigger concern, though, is requiring residents and their guests to have parking permits as a condition of residency. This is just a tad bit too Big Brother-ish.
Councilman Lew Currier has called this one right in requiring input from a qualified engineer. Currier wants more information both on the exact number of parking spaces available in Jerome, as well as the impact the Parking Pay Stations near the Sliding Jail would have on drainage.
The Jerome Council and residents are to be commended for seeking solutions short of increased taxation to increase the money flow to Town Hall. But let’s make sure the thinking caps are firmly affixed before taking the next step on this proposed parking fee ordinance.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Stephan
I agree. Pay parking is a bit too mercenary for me, and I would hope for Jerome. If they need money that bad, they ought to look at raising the sales tax. But for Jerome, it should not just be about money. It's the principle involved. Requiring locals to get a permit to park in front of their own house is just too draconian. Even Sedona, which is far busier and more touristy, doesn't charge to park. Jerome's chamber ought to step up and lobby against ... their members will lose business.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Thomas McCabe
Apparently Federal, State and City Agencies and now Jerome cannot live within their budgets........why not everyone else must! If, as stated, tourism in Jerome rivals The Grand Caynon and Jerome can't survive on that stream of revenue, then something definitely needs fixing!
Posted: Monday, November 02, 2009
Article comment by:
cousin vinnie
i HOPE THEY COUNTED ME AS A NO SHOW IN THEIR NEW MATH.
