I find it hard to believe that the Times could truly be so clueless as to actually believe that the goal of issuing parking tickets is to discourage driving. More likely they're trying to create a buzz and sell papers, which is even more pathetic than just being stupid.
I think the Seattle Times' editorial board is more suited for the Omaha World-Herald.
I couldn't believe that this morning. You know, I park downtown sometimes, and I've never gotten a ticket -- because I PARK LEGALLY. And as Scholes points out, if parking was free you'd never be able to find a space EVER. Parking downtown should cost more than it does, not less.
I'll admit it. I went to the comments section of this article this morning so I could feel smarter than the troglodytes there who complain about getting parking tickets.
Even my stoner friends who never read papers or watch the news know that parking tickets are a way to increase revenue.
Bwaha! When I read the story, I chalked up the "goal" as some sort of fresh window dressing I'd missed the coverage on. I realize now that means I didn't put it past them.
I wish we could do Kickstarter to buy out the Blethen family and put the current editorial board out of it's delusional misery.
Free parking isn't free (generally speaking):…

So the Seattle Times is off their meds again - sad really
Kinda wish the city _would_ have a policy of discouraging driving. You know, via sensible growth controls (hi, Portland!), investments in human-scale neighborhoods, bike/transit/walking-oriented development...but a nefarious parking ticket scheme?!
I work for SDOT, so shoot me, OK? but I am writing this as a citizen who has lived in Seattle for 30+ years.
I regret that the Times article focused on the issue of forcing people to give up their cars. That is completely wrong.
Parking fees are a way to encourage turnover on city streets so that most drivers will be able to find a parking spot when they have business of 2 hours or less. There are a number of private parking lots or buildings that provide longer term parking.
@1 --of course these fees provide revenue. Please share details as to alternative methods of supporting the general
fund that supports libraries, fire, police, roads, etc. Send your ideas to the mayor, I know he would be supportive.
Apologies to @1, it was the Seattle Times commenters that likened it all to revenue.
You want to discourage car use? timely 24/7 public transportation, that's how.

Shoot me for being a dreamer.
Oh! Portland, Portland, Portland! Go to hell.
Issued at a rate of at least one a day, idiotic stories from the Seattle Times generate pennies for the Seattle Time Company. The goal is to discourage thinking, but people try to speak sense, get nowhere -- and get angry.
Thank you madcap. Thank you.

This article is just slightly saner than that "Bike sharing in Denver is part of a plot for UN control!!!!" dude in Colorado.
Enforcing downtown parking might not be aimed at limiting car usage. However, the Mayor and the city of Seattle hate cars, period.

People are being disingenuous as fuck if they don't think McMayor wants to discourage driving. He was in the sierra club , which calls for "no new roads" and a read through he city's website will enlighten one to the extreme focus on bicycles, instead of the obviously more used cars.

This mcmayor is fighting tooth and nail to obstruct the tunnel. Why?? Because, as his conversation with the governor points out, he is being coy about his plans to replace the viaduct with something that has less automobile lanes and more bike lanes. Can anyone say panderer to far left-cars are evil-you must bike to protect this planet from something- crazy ass hipsters?

And what about the 520 bridge. Again he wants to obstruct it until it can be made more green and have options for transportation OTHER THAN DRIVING. Fuck him.

This city and the mayor hates cars. Which is fine. Most people with money and cars are moving outside the city. Which once you do, you realize there are so many more places to go once you are outside of what is left of the Hill.

Just read the Seattle Times comment section and you will get a real gauge of how residents feel about the attack on cars (unlike the extreme liberal hipster views on the Slog) .

O...and the jealously of the Stranger for the Seattle Times is painful. Come guys...everyone knows anyone of your so called writers would love to work for a REAL paper. Tisk tisk. You guys are so fucking sad it is funny. Thanks.

Dom, I think you're taking the Times statement out of context. The "it's all part of the plan" refers to a number of tactics to make parking more difficult, not just issuing more tickets as you wrote. In fact, the beginning of that paragraph is talking about how they're putting pay-to-park on neighborhood streets. You're further inferring that the whole purpose of writing tickets is to make money. Scholes doesn't dismember that argument, because the primary purpose is NOT to make money, and I am sure if you thought about it you'd agree- just follow Scholes' logic.
Also, residents who live on streets where recent "pay to park" (and accompanying exemptions for RPZ sticker holders) have been more than welcoming of it; Just ask any resident in your 5-block radius there in the pike pine where, overnight, there was dozens of open spots previously occupied by people who used to park there all day to work or go to school. Sure, the article brushed over the "goals" of the parking enforcement program, but ultimately it is to serve us. They want what the collective "we" want. Fewer cars driving around is one of those things.
Maybe in the world of the Seattle Times, Ryan Blatherin' and Joni Blather, the ideal situation would be to turn the streets over to private businesses that would compete and provide the lowest possible cost for parking spots, because free-market capitalism always makes everything good and sparkly. Also, if we got rid of all public transit and bicycle lanes, we could return the streets to the rightful owners, cars, because cars pay all the taxes to make the streets. Pedestrians should pay a tax or fee to have their own underground passageways made, because they interfere with cars that pay for the streets, and it's very expensive to have all these lawsuits for these dumb pedestrians that keep walking out in front of cars. Bicycle riders should be confined to a cycle track somewhere outside the city that they have to pay for, or be shot. Also, the fact that the city controls on-street parking is socialist, and just like airlines, deregulation and control by different companies would make things easy to understand and completely profitable. And if the city keeps it's cheap socialist parking spots, we're all gonna get angry 'n shit and write dumb editorials about how we're all angry 'n shit. Right, Joni? Right, girl. You go get 'em.
Well, there's two issues at play here which really need to be separated:

1) Whether or not people think it should cost more to park Downtown or if there should be fewer spaces to park in is one thing. And "Sierra Club" types as some one above said tend to be in favor of such things.

2) Whether or not there should be parking tickets written is a completely different issue. You don't receive a parking ticket unless you break fairly clear and easy to understand rules. If folks don't like getting them, then perhaps they should try reading the parking signs on the block or paying attention to the time on their meters.
AWESOME MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KEEP GOING ON.......................

Cheap Cars

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.