Coliseum Commission Update: No Parking Discount, Yet.
February 4, 2010 – 4:12 pmThe War Memorial Commission met on Thursday with no major issues on the table. The excellent coliseum staff continues to perform well under adverse economic and weather related conditions.
Gymnastics, the circus, both ACC Tournaments, the Gun Show, John Mayer, and Curious George are among the upcoming events. I have my orders from home that we will be attending Curious George. Go, park, and buy plenty of popcorn.
Matt Brown discussed the ongoing procedures resulting in an effort to come in under budget for the Aquatics Center.
Under new business I brought up the following idea. Had there ever been discussion of giving tax paying city residents any type of economic incentive to visit the coliseum such as a discount on parking fees? A sort of return on their annual $1.8M investment.
Matt stated there was discussion under CM Castarphen at one time but the collection of two different parking fees increased the possibility of corruption and no action was taken. Florence Gatten stated the council had discussed this four years ago but implementation was a problem.
I made the motion for: “this commission to ask the executive staff at the Greensboro Coliseum to discuss the possibility of giving parking discounts to city residents”.
Seconded by MacArthur Davis and also voting in the affirmative were Mary Dowdell and Zack Matheny. Someone challenges Zack’s eligibility to vote as council liason. City Legal Mike Williams leaves the room, returns, and declares that Zack Matheny can not vote.
The motion fails 3-5. Keep in mind this motion was only to discuss the possibility of parking discounts. A cordial conversation took place after the vote and one comment was made that they did not want to take the coliseum staffs time with this issue.
I was allowed to explain how gentle and generic the motion was and that roughly 225,000 residents of Guilford County got the same benefits of the Greensboro Coliseum with absolutley no investment. Giving the investors, you and I, some type of small incentive may generate more parking revenue and certainly could soften the next bond vote ($35M for the auditorium?) and some attitudes of the necessary hefty parking fees.
A minor issue but it would have been a major “thank you” for taxpayers.
Thanks for the update from Andrew Brown: “Hi Tony – following up on two items from today’s meeting… as part of the Coliseum’s 50th anniversary celebration in October, a complimentary parking pass (good for any Coliseum Complex event) was included with all water bills to City residents in November.”
It seems that takes care of the implementation problem.
Joe Guarino and Ed Cone and Dave Ribar.
13 Responses to “Coliseum Commission Update: No Parking Discount, Yet.”
I liked the Parking Pass that was included in the Water Bill, it was a Home Run by the Coliseum in my opinion.
It would be nice to throw another few out. It would be interesting to see how many were redeemed.
By Don Moore on Feb 4, 2010
“Keep in mind this motion was only to discuss the possibility of parking discounts.”
Uh huh. Let’s not even talk about it. Let’s charge $20 to park for a big-name concert instead. That’s the message I’m hearing.
By Sue on Feb 4, 2010
will swimmers get free parking?
By Abner on Feb 4, 2010
tony: good work. bryan park, municipal golf courses and recreational facilities across the US and Europe have used the model. it can work. city residents could receive a parking voucher with ticket purchases. Too bad you guys have to unvote on everything because of the high court decision on Zack. S&P futures are down tonight over the decision.
By chuck atkinson on Feb 5, 2010
Thanks for tryin Tony.
By mick on Feb 5, 2010
Tony, I do not think there should be ANY parking taxes! In fact, I quit going to events there years ago because of them and the ticketmaster problem!
Now this is a guy that used to go to at least 6 and up to 15 events a year.
Now ya’ll get…NOTHING!
By Jack Hart on Feb 6, 2010
Tony:
If the commission and the Coliseum staff had already explored this issue and rejected it, why push them to re-examine it? What would have changed in the four years since this was last considered?
Reopening a discussion that had been settled doesn’t seem especially productive unless there are new data or circumstances to consider.
By Dave Ribar on Feb 6, 2010
Dave, after eading your post I thought to myself…Why re-examine it…if the obama election were held today…wonder how it would turn out!LOL
By Jack Hart on Feb 6, 2010
Fair enough question Dave and one that’s easily answered.
1) Florence Gatten said the “council” discussed it four years ago. You might remember that being a very liberal council.
2) I wasn’t on the coliseum commission that discussed it back in the Carstarphen days.
3) Occasionally liberal and conservative groups voting on the same issue will result in a different outcome. One particular group’s decision may favor the taxpayer.
I’m interested in your opinion on the concession discounts in the water bill and whether or not a non investor should have the same benefits as an investor. That interest results from me valuing your opinion.
By Tony Wilkins on Feb 6, 2010
Quick thinking Jack. But Dave is my friend. The next time you stick the knife in, please do not twist. lol.
By Tony Wilkins on Feb 6, 2010
I was just having fun, no harm intended.
By Jack Hart on Feb 6, 2010
Jack,
No harm done. Thick skins are a job requirement here.
Cheers,
Dave
By Dave Ribar on Feb 6, 2010
Tony:
A conservative principle is to respect precedents (see, e.g., Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France). A change in policy wouldn’t be justified unless new information were presented or liberals had overturned an earlier two-tier policy.
It would be interesting to see how the water bill coupons were paid for. In general, I don’t like these sorts of gimmicks (in the list of gimmicks I would include things like “tax holidays”). The gimmicks remind me of candy. Again, they seem to be the kinds of things that a big-C conservative would oppose.
By Dave Ribar on Feb 6, 2010