Alderman Seeks to Vacate Street Grid for Bottle District

Ald. April Ford-Griffin (D-5th Ward) will introduce Board Bill 247 tomorrow which would further erode our street grid. Here is the bill’s summary:

An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to vacate public surface rights for vehicle, equestrian and pedestrian travel in 1) Biddle: 7th to Broadway, 2) Carr: 7th to Broadway, 3) Sixth: O’Fallon to Cole, 4) O’Fallon: 7th to 6th, 5) 20 feet wide north/south alley in City Block 557 as bounded by O’Fallon, 6th, Biddle and 7th in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, as hereinafter described, in accordance with Charter authority, and in conformity with Section l4 of Article XXI of the Charter and imposing certain conditions on such vacation.

This is unacceptable. Many developers say they can’t develop a parcel at a time, that they need to assemble larger parcels. Fine, but must they take away our streets in the process? These developers own five and a half city blocks, why must they remove the street grid as well? If you cannot produce a good urban project on nearly six blocks of contiguous land you need to go back to the drawing board. [See Google Map]

In reviewing the various drawings for an editorial I did in the West End Word I saw they will have a 6th Street — actually called 6th on the drawings. In looking through the legal language of the bill it looks as though the city will still retain the ground — we’d just be vacating the “surface” rights. This gives the developer the ability to remove the public street and control what does back. They cannot, however, build upon this land unless another bill were to go further and actually give them the land.

The problem here is we are taking a public street and making it a private street. So while the new 6th Street may have some visual appearance of a public street it will not be. It will be under the control of the management of the Bottle District, just as Westfield controls the food court at a suburban mall.

We need to keep our public streets public. Let them develop all the real estate around the public streets. Work on some public financing to make necessary capital improvements to the streets and sidewalks . But do not turn over control of our public streets to private corporations!

I ask that you all contact April Ford-Griffin and ask her to look at keeping these streets public. I’d also let Streets, Traffic and Refuse Committee Chair Freeman Bosley Sr. if you are not keen on our public streets being turned over to private entities.

Valet Video: New & Improved — Now Confrontation-Free!

My post from Tuesday evening with video of the owner of Copia received much attention and a fair amount of both praise and criticism. Curious if anything had changed I returned to Washington Avenue Thursday night with camera in hand. This time I did a couple of things differently — I did not talk to anyone, staying completely away from the valets and the restaurants themselves (Copia in the 11xx block and Lucas Park Grille in the 12xx block). The video is far less exciting than the confrontation on Tuesday evening but it is telling about the extent of the situation.

Every non-coned public parking space between 10th and 14th was taken last night when I was there after 9pm. The only empty spaces in this four block stretch were spaces coned off by a single valet company, Midwest Valet, while employed by Copia and Lucas Park.

The video and sound quality are a bit poor as my still camera’s video feature doesn’t do too well when moving at night. But, you’ll be able to get the idea. The first video is in the 11xx block of Washington Ave. I start at Tucker and walk toward 11th. I’m on the north side of the street looking over at the block containing Copia (it is the beautiful 2-story building with the 3 arched windows). Once the valet sees me he begins to make a few calls and eventually moves the cones from the street. Remember, the police were there just two nights ago and told them to move the cones.

The 11xx block of Washington Ave has a total of 10 marked parking spaces. Four are in front of Baseline which is to the east of Copia. The SUV parked in the far east end of the block is actually in a yellow no-parking zone. Moving to the west of the four spaces in front of Baseline we have a fire hydrant and then a single parking space directly in front of Copia. We then have another no-parking area for a buildings’ fire standpipe. Five additional spaces are on the western half of the block. The valets should be able to operate by taking the single space in front of the restaurant combined with the two non-parking spaces. I will return to measure this width to see what that would give them but it is greater than 60ft. This would leave 9 public spaces for patrons of Copia or other establishments (or friends of residents). Copia is in the 7th Ward.

In the next video I am in the 12xx block of Washington Ave where Lucas Park Grille is just as abusive by taking two sides of the street. We start off with a valet that just made a u-turn in the street to park a car across from the restaurant in a public space they had coned off. It should be noted, the Director of Streets Jim Suelmann has issued LPG a permit to have all these spaces but indicates they are only for the drop off and pickup of cars — that all cars should be moved to sites elsewhere. Clearly, that is not what is happening here. A couple of clubs are open and active in this block and several places are open late in the next block to the west. However, the only vacant spots are those coned off by the valet company for the use by LPG and the sushi place next door.

The point of all this is we do have things going on downtown and along Washington Ave but a few businesses are being overly aggressive in their use of the public street and public parking. We need balance. Lucas Park Grille is in the 5th Ward.

Currently nobody is taking any responsibility for the problem. The valets say they are doing their job. The restaurant owners say they (via the valet company) have a permit for this much space, the Treasurer’s office (which is responsible for parking revenues) has no policy, the aldermen won’t act on a complaint unless from a constituent, the Director of Streets says he doesn’t have the ability to enforce the permits he issues and in reality the police have much more important things to worry about. But the reality is we paid dearly for these streetscapes and much is riding on their long-term success. The demand for the spaces is there but they are reserved for a select few.

Confrontation with Copia Over Valet Parking – with Video!

No point beating around the bush, tonight I had a verbal altercation with the owner/manager of Copia Urban Winery & Market located at 1122 Washington Ave. Luckily, my video camera was rolling.

Before we get to the video, let me set the scene. First, I’ve been writing about Copia and others since the beginning of this year — how they consume way too much public parking for their valet service. I wrote the following of Copia in February (see post):

Copia Urban Winery at 1122 Washington Avenue is consuming entirely too much of the 1100 block with their valet parking. How much is too much?

Try 288 feet! (I carry a measuring wheel in my car for such purposes.)

Copia, located about the mid-point of the block, is 75 feet wide (per tax records). So they are taking away 213 feet of parking from adjacent buildings. A little greedy don’t you think?

Now I’m not going to tell any high-end restaurant they can’t have valet parking. That is a necessary function to please their clientele. However a number of their own customers could park on the same street if they didn’t block it off with their orange cones.

I looked through St. Louis’ ordinances online and didn’t turn up any laws regulating valet parking. The City of Clayton, however, has a reasonably defined law (no direct link, search for ‘valet’). They require a license and the city determines the amount of space the valet is allowed to occupy.

St. Louis needs to address the valet parking situation or we risk stagnating the very area we are trying to enliven. You don’t need nearly 300 feet of road to provide adequate valet parking service for a restaurant the size of Copia.

After that post I began making requests of the valets to see their permits, which they did in fact have (see post). For a while Copia placed their valet cones in the street during the evening rush when parking was not permitted on the street (see post). I began making requests to the city, using Missouri’s Sunshine Law, to obtain copies of these permits. From this I learned the city went ahead and issued Copia a permit for basically the entire side of Washington Avenue from 11th to Tucker (12th). The city, it seems, didn’t care they were consuming nearly 300ft of the public street and just somehow that might be a tad too much. Also, never mind that Copia’s physical location is only 75ft wide — sufficient to operate a valet service according to many other cities.

But one of the key things about the permit was some of the phrasing:

All vehicles must be moved to a different location immediately. No cones, traffic control devices nor temporary structures shall be placed in the public right of way at any time. Permit must be on site at all times… …This permit is issued at the discretion of the Director of Streets and may be revoked at any time at his discretion.

I’ve done a number of other posts on valet parking and you can do a search and find those. Most recently I did a post detailing how other cities are addressing this issue. And finally tonight, before heading downtown to help a friend I was at a fundraiser for Ald. Lyda Krewson (as an observer, not a contributor). I had a good conversation with her and Ald. Lewis Reed about the problems with valet parking. Reed’s ward includes Lucas Park Grille in the next block. Copia, on the other hand, is in the 5th ward of April Ford-Griffin. [CORRECTION 10/4/06 10:20am: Reed’s Ward includes the 1300 block of Washington Avenue where the Lucas Park Grille folks take up part of that block on both sides for valet parking. April Ford-Griffin is the alderman in the 5th Ward which has the 1200 block of Washington where Lucas Park Grille is located and consumes both sides of the street routinely. The 1100 block of Washington is in the 7th Ward where Phyllis Young is alderman. 3 blocks, 3 aldermen.] The event was held at Joe Edward’s very fun Pin-Up Bowl in the loop and I took a moment to bend his ear about how he’d need to start working on the valet issue early (btw, he said issues are getting ironed out on the Flamingo Bowl and construction will proceed soon).

Ok, so I drive by Lucas Park Grille and Copia and they both have tons of spaces coned off despite being a slow Tuesday evening. The street literally looks lifeless. After helping my friend I come back to Copia and park my car in front of a building adjacent to Copia in an area where they have a number of cones — you’ll see my gray car in the video. I proceed to remove the cones from the street which catches the attention of the valet guy. We talk and I decide to call the police to enforce the no cones section of the permit.

While I am waiting on the police to arrive the valet guy alerts the restaurant owner (Manager?) who comes out to “chat.” We have a pretty heated exchange, both using some strong language. My camera stops after 3 minute but I got the bulk of it. Finally the officer arrived who was quite nice. I offered my card and explained why I called — as well as apologize for taking his valuable time but that is what the Director of Streets, Jim Suelmann, directed me to do. I also indicated that 4th District Police Captain Filla was aware of the problems of valets and had discussed them recently with residents. The owner then talked with the officer for a bit and soon the owner instructed the valet to remove the remaining cones from the street.

At one point I said, “you don’t know who I am?” It sounds a bit like an ego trip but it was clear he was thinking I was just some guy with a video camera and not the author of popular blog. I was thinking to myself, if this guy knew who I was he probably wouldn’t be saying the things he was saying. I’m used to the politicians being careful what they say or at least telling me something is off the record and waiting until I put the camera away. His candor totally took me by surprise.

Ok, hit play:

Get your protest signs ready…

UPDATE: 10/3/06 @ 11:55pm:

I have emailed a link for this post to the following: Jim Suelmann, Director of Streets; Ald. April Ford-Griffin, Ald. Lewis Reed, Ald. Phyllis Young, Ald. Mike McMillan; Ald. Lyda Krewson; and Downtown Partnership Director Jim Cloar. I did not contact Copia but the owner has my card. If you’d like to contact Copia click here.

UPDATE: 10/4/06 @ 12:45am:

Video guru Antonio French of PubDef.net did an excellent remix of the video. Watch his hip version here.

Valet Parking; An Issue Addressed by Other Cities but Ignored by St. Louis

Valet parking continues to be a problem in the City of St. Louis. Along Washington Avenue, Locust, Lindell (near Compton), Mississippi and on Euclid valet companies are abusing permits issues by the street department. These firms, predominantly Midwest Valet, are pushing the envelop to the point where they are killing the street life in areas where they operate. For example, on Washington Avenue across from Lucas Park Grille they routinely take 4-6 parking spaces which are held until a nice car comes along. This happens despite the permit indicating they use of the spaces is strictly for bringing cars in and out — that cars must be moved to private parking spaces immediately.

The problem we have is the street department is really ill-equiped to address this issue. The city has no valet parking ordinance so streets director Jim Suelmann is basically winging it by issuing these permits. While I appreciate him trying to make due it is really no way to run a city and certainly not a way to deal with an issue that could potentially harm emerging districts. His response to me with respect to violations has been to call the police. I think the police have more important things to spend their time on than trying to keep valet companies from violating weak permits. The Board of Aldermen needs to pass a comprehensive ordinance regarding valet parking.

I did some quick research and found this issue front and center in many cities struggling with overly aggressive valet companies attempting to take over their streets and public parking spaces:

Miami:

From the City of Miami Parking Authority web page:

The City of Miami, in conjunction with the Miami Parking Authority, established a new Valet Ordinance in October, 2004. This ordinance covers the operation of all permanent valet stands within the City of Miami established for restaurants and shopping centers, as well as those created for special events and other one time uses. Operators are now required to submit a formal application that is reviewed by various City Departments, and is administered and reviewed by the Miami Parking Authority.

The actual ordinance (pdf) includes a number of things worthy of consideration for St. Louis. First, they must submit a site plan showing where they will have the drop-off area as well as their desk and key holder. In addition they must show proof of having sufficient off-street parking for all vehicles — on-street parking is prohibited.

They address the issue of “ramping” — the drop-off and pick-up of vehicles:

The public on-street/curbside parking spaces, metered or non-metered, shall only be used for ramping of vehicles. Ramping of vehicles shall consist of allowing the customer to enter or exit a vehicle and to turn it over to or retrieve it from a valet parking operator employee. Ramping shall only be permitted and operated in the public on-street/curbside spaces provided by the department for ramping. There shall be no storage of vehicles in the area used for ramping. A vehicle will be considered stored if it remains in the ramping area for more than ten (10) minutes. Ramping spaces shall not be blocked by any type of sign, structure or other type of object. These spaces shall not be cordoned off by any type of signage, rope or barrier of any kind;

The give the valet company the use of 60 feet (roughly 3 spaces) to perform this operation. This leaves the remaining spaces free for the general public.

Scottsdale, AZ:

The City of Scottsdale recently held an open house to train local valet companies on their new valet ordinance. Their website on valet parking includes a link to the actual ordinance (20 pages) and the application materials (10 pages). Here is how Scottsdale defines the valet parking zone:

The valet parking zone shall be no less than sixty (60) feet in length. The valet parking zone shall be no less than ten (10) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. A valet parking
zone located on Scottsdale Road shall be no less than twelve (12) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. The valet parking zone shall not be located:

(a) Closer than thirty (30) feet to the intersection of any two (2) or more streets;

(b) On any of the roads identified as unavailable on the map specified in section 16-573; or

(c) Within one hundred (100) feet of another valet parking zone which is on the same
side of the street.

Cambridge, MA:

The City of CAmbridge doesn’t waste a lot of words, their short and sweet valet parking page gives you the basics. Here is a bit of their provisions:

E. If there is a parking meter (s) at the valet space (s) the applicant will be responsible for covering the parking meter (s) during the hours of valet operation. The bag used to cover the meter (s) shall be approved by the Director.

F. The cost for valet space shall be $20.00 per year per foot of curb required to operate the service safely between 6 P.M. and midnight on the days required.

G. No charge shall be assessed for the use of this valet service on the public way.

So, a 60 foot space would cost $1,200 per year. Taking 10 spaces, as some of these companies in St. Louis are doing, would cost $4,000 per year. What is interesting is they specifically indicate no fee “shall be assessed” if the valet is operating in the public right of way. This makes sense if you are going to take away public parking spaces you should not be profiting but instead be providing a service.

Palm Desert, CA:

All of these provisions, including the City of Palm Desert, talk about violations and consequences:

Routine inspections and field observations will be conducted by Public Works and/or Code enforcement staff to insure compliance with the regulations set forth to apply to valet parking
permit tees. Violations found will be recorded for reevaluation and possible revocation of the permit.

Others mentioned above go into detail about fines for non-compliance. I like the idea of checking to ensure that permits are being followed. Imagine the building department issuing a building permit but then not performing inspections to ensure it was followed. If the street department is going to issue valet permits they need to be able to inspect for compliance.

Austin, TX:

The City of Austin has a pretty detailed ordinance covering most of the basics, it can be read on pages 123-133 of this PDF document.

Other Cities:

From an article on valet parking from White Plains NY:

In Boston, time limits on how long a vehicle can be parked waiting to be parked are set. Beantown requires records to be maintained for each car parked; permits are issued for one year, and renewable. As of November, 2003, Boston charged $40 per linear foot of curb space used for the permit, and $150 per sign for a five year period.

For example if one parking space was 20 feet long and “Cheers” used 10 spaces for their “holding queue” the fee would be $8,000 a year. Plus the restaurant and business would have to pay the establishment where they were parking the cars if they did not have their own lot or were using a city lot.

Reading Boston’s valet parking permit regulations indicates White Plains has to look at creating valet parking areas where the cars are eventually parked; perhaps consider shared valet parking zones, and insurance issues. Boston does not allow parking at street meters.

When Palo Alto enacted a Valet Parking ordinance in 1999, the fees were similar to Boston’s: $450 permit application, $74 annual permit renewal; $220 short-term permit; $35 per space per week for on-street parking spaces (for the valet parking zone); $150 per valet parking sign fee and a $30 penalty for unauthorized parking in on-street valet parking spaces.

When Santa Monica was drawing up their ordinance in 2001, they recommended $1,750 per valet location, and a space use fee of .50 per hour of valet operation annualized upfront. Santa Monica projected a $50,000 revenue from the 17 operations expected, and that was 5 years ago. They also opted for a uniform rate, so motorists could not congest traffic by “shopping” for the least expensive valet rate.

In Houston, valet parking regs were enacted in 2003. Businesses there must apply for a valet zone permit for $100 a year. Valet companies in that city which operate the valet parking for businesses that offer it must pay $1,000 the first year and $750 each additional year. Houston also requires the valet companies operating the nightly drop-offs and returns to maintain liability coverage of a minimum of $300,000, and perform a criminal background check on their “Kookies.” (Remember Edd Byrnes as the Parkboy on 77 Sunset Strip?)

In the mile-high city of Denver, they have a most specific ordinance which can be read at www.denvergov.org/parking_Management/template311681.asp. The ordinance allows the valet offering establishment two meter spaces (40 feet) for their valet zone included in the excise and license application fees. And Additional meter spaces for more than a 40 foot zone are purchasable for the annual meter time request for one year upfront about $2,500 back in 2001 when the ordinance was enacted. This is in addition to the fees the establishment will have to pay for the private parking area where the cars will eventually be parked.

The issues are many: hours of operation; method of operation; how much of the street is given over; insurance; who parks the cars; where they are parked; the routes the cars take to and from the valet zone; signage; licensing fees; and potential revenue and enforcement penalties for violations.

The City of Denver has a very nice 2-page summary of their ordinance. This helps the public and the operators know what to do and expect without having to read through a lengthy ordinance written in legalese.

Clearly this is an issue that cities all over the country have faced and addressed. I’ve been writing about valet parking abuses in St. Louis since February yet I’ve not seen any new or proposed ordinance coming out of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. I volunteered my time to assist the city streets department in drafting some guidelines for valet parking but I was given the brush off.

Along Washington Avenue the valet parking woes are spread across three wards in a three block area! The 1100 block of Washington where Copia takes nearly 300ft for car parking is located in the 7th Ward (Phyllis Young). The 1200 block where Lucas Park Grille and a club take up a considerable percentage of the block is located in the 5th Ward (April Ford-Griffin) and finally the 1300 block where Lucas Park Grille spills over as well as the bar/club in the 1400 block is located in the 6th Ward (Lewis Reed). Other abuses in the 6th Ward include valets at 1111 Mississippi. On Olive on either side of Compton you get valets doing things such as placing orange cones in the bike lanes. One side of Compton on the south side of Olive is Reed’s 6th Ward while the west side of Compton along Lindell is in the 19th Ward (Mike McMillan). Heading west to the West End things are more clear — Euclid and Maryland is squarely in the 28th Ward (Lyda Krewson).

Our aldermen, in my view, don’t think much beyond their ward boundaries so the idea of them working together on a city-wide solution just might be a bit too much to expect. Other cities, somehow, manage to get beyond ward boundaries and develop solutions for their entire city.

I’ll Meet You At the Kiel Center, err I mean Savvis Center, oh make that Scottrade Center…

Remember the good ole days when a facility was named for the folks that donated the most money or perhaps worked hard to see it built? That was before the phrase, “Naming Rights.” From STL Today:

Town and Country-based Savvis Inc. signed a 20-year naming rights deal in 2000 for $72 million.

But in June 2005, Savvis, plagued by financial troubles, paid $5.5 million to end the naming-rights contract.

So now Scottrade, located in the suburbs of the St. Louis region, is stepping up to have their name on the building. Could the name be any more boring? Scottrade. Don’t get me wrong, they are a fine company (my investment club uses them), but it just doesn’t invoke any excitement. Scottrade. Repeating it does not help.

I can tell you where I’d like to see the Scottrade name — on a local branch actually located in the City of St. Louis. Right now downtown Clayton is the closest branch. It they can be on one of our prominent structures they can at least have a real life presence in our city.

What are some other names that would have been interesting to see instead of Scottrade?

The “You Don’t know Jack Schmidt Center?” No, too long. Also car related we could have the ‘George Weber Johnny Londoff Center’ only here the tag line would be, “We don’t own our building and lot.” My favorite might be the ‘Weekends Only Center’ or ‘Dirt Cheap Center.’