Promote La Jolla promotes paid parkingAlyssa Ramos
April 18, 2008
Despite a
recent survey showing a majority of businesses inside La Jolla’s village oppose
paid parking, Promote La Jolla (PLJ) – the nonprofit group representing those
merchants – voted to endorse the La Jolla parking board’s paid parking plan
during last Wednesday’s meeting, and forward it to the San Diego City Council.
Darcy Ashley, of nopaidparking.org and
an alternate on the La Jolla Community Parking District Advisory Board,
announced survey results during the April 9 PLJ meeting. She said 679 merchants
in the village were against paid parking, and less than one quarter of the
businesses were in favor of paid parking.
In 2005, the city council created six
parking boards, including La Jolla’s, to seek programs for paid parking such as
installing meters, but with backlash from citizens and merchants who cried foul
– in the form of conflicts of interest – La Jolla’s parking board was the first
forced to suspend operations.
Parking board chair Martin Mosier
announced the board was forced to stop the deliberation process after City
Council President and District 1 Councilman Scott Peters told the Village News
he wanted to flush the parking process; the board’s conclusion came after
questions regarding conflicts of interest among parking board members.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre stepped
in weeks ago, starting a process that would require members of the six parking
boards to file financial disclosure statements.
“I’m here today to tell you that as a
practical matter it has become impossible to meet,” Mosier said.
He further explained that the parking
board is solely advisory and he believes the city attorney misled him and
threatened him with misdemeanor charges.
“Aguirre is threatening me and my board
members with misdemeanor prosecution and we have no way to disagree with
Aguirre; we’re at a stalemate situation,” Mosier said.
PLJ President Deborah Marengo thanked
Mosier for his dedication. Neither made any reference to Peters’ statement
regarding the board just days earlier. But in a later interview, Marengo said
Peters was stepping back from parking because the community couldn’t agree —
things were getting out of hand, she said.
Because the parking board is advisory
to PLJ, Marengo and other PLJ board members discussed progress the board made
regarding the parking plan. Then, Marengo suggested PLJ send the pilot-parking
plan to the city.
“Since Martin Mosier, the chair of the
advisory board was standing before us and he said that Aguirre forced them to
stop functioning, so based on that, it would be in the best interest to have
the advisory board stop meeting,” Marengo said.
Marengo advised the group to promote
Mosier’s parking plan.
“It’s probably best to take all that
information and sent that down to the city,” Marengo said.
The group made a motion to send the
parking plan – the Pilot Program framework that was voted on in spring of 2007
– to the city.
Ashley reiterated the survey results,
asking if PLJ board members realized they were voting against the wishes of the
majority of the merchants they represent; PLJ is La Jolla’s business improvement
district, and all merchants in the village are assessed fees.
But Ashley’s announcement had no effect
on the PLJ board. She asked the board members if they were aware the merchants
did not want the pilot plan, and said 679 merchants said they were opposed to
paid parking.
The board members then rescinded the
vote and decided they’d take their motion up a notch – they added an extra
endorsement to the pilot-parking plan.
George Hauer, Peter Wagener and Marengo
all agreed, on the record, that they were aware of the parking survey, which
Ashley cited earlier, and that they were going ahead with the motion anyway.
But Marengo said PLJ wasn’t
disrespecting the merchants they represent. She said that she understood the
results of the survey, as did the rest of the board, but that the parking plan
they endorsed contains many elements, and the survey only asked if merchants
were opposed to meters.
“It says that they are opposed to
parking meters, and it is not just about parking meters,” Marengo said. “The
framework has a lot of elements, and some are good and some are OK. The parking
board tried to have a dialogue with the community but that stopped.”
“That was a violation of the Brown Act
because it wasn’t on the agenda,” said Steve Haskins, attorney for La Jollans
for Clean Government. Haskins said his group intends to pursue the matter.
After hearing of the endorsement, both
Sherri Lightner, candidate for City Council District 1 and the La Jolla Shores
Association, came out against PLJ and its vote.
“We want to point out that this plan
was never approved or even voted on by LJCPAB,” wrote La Jolla Shores associate
chair Jim Heaton. “We want to clearly state that the citizens of La Jolla
Shores do not support this plan nor do we support on street parking.”
Lightner wrote a letter to Peters and
the council, urging them to dissolve the parking board. She said that PLJ is
“running amok,” and that the group needs to break its tie with the parking
board. Lightner also said PLJ’s actions were against the Brown Act.
Alyssa Ramos
April 18, 2008
Despite a
recent survey showing a majority of businesses inside La Jolla’s village oppose
paid parking, Promote La Jolla (PLJ) – the nonprofit group representing those
merchants – voted to endorse the La Jolla parking board’s paid parking plan
during last Wednesday’s meeting, and forward it to the San Diego City Council.
Darcy Ashley, of nopaidparking.org and
an alternate on the La Jolla Community Parking District Advisory Board,
announced survey results during the April 9 PLJ meeting. She said 679 merchants
in the village were against paid parking, and less than one quarter of the
businesses were in favor of paid parking.
In 2005, the city council created six
parking boards, including La Jolla’s, to seek programs for paid parking such as
installing meters, but with backlash from citizens and merchants who cried foul
– in the form of conflicts of interest – La Jolla’s parking board was the first
forced to suspend operations.
Parking board chair Martin Mosier
announced the board was forced to stop the deliberation process after City
Council President and District 1 Councilman Scott Peters told the Village News
he wanted to flush the parking process; the board’s conclusion came after
questions regarding conflicts of interest among parking board members.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre stepped
in weeks ago, starting a process that would require members of the six parking
boards to file financial disclosure statements.
“I’m here today to tell you that as a
practical matter it has become impossible to meet,” Mosier said.
He further explained that the parking
board is solely advisory and he believes the city attorney misled him and
threatened him with misdemeanor charges.
“Aguirre is threatening me and my board
members with misdemeanor prosecution and we have no way to disagree with
Aguirre; we’re at a stalemate situation,” Mosier said.
PLJ President Deborah Marengo thanked
Mosier for his dedication. Neither made any reference to Peters’ statement
regarding the board just days earlier. But in a later interview, Marengo said
Peters was stepping back from parking because the community couldn’t agree —
things were getting out of hand, she said.
Because the parking board is advisory
to PLJ, Marengo and other PLJ board members discussed progress the board made
regarding the parking plan. Then, Marengo suggested PLJ send the pilot-parking
plan to the city.
“Since Martin Mosier, the chair of the
advisory board was standing before us and he said that Aguirre forced them to
stop functioning, so based on that, it would be in the best interest to have
the advisory board stop meeting,” Marengo said.
Marengo advised the group to promote
Mosier’s parking plan.
“It’s probably best to take all that
information and sent that down to the city,” Marengo said.
The group made a motion to send the
parking plan – the Pilot Program framework that was voted on in spring of 2007
– to the city.
Ashley reiterated the survey results,
asking if PLJ board members realized they were voting against the wishes of the
majority of the merchants they represent; PLJ is La Jolla’s business improvement
district, and all merchants in the village are assessed fees.
But Ashley’s announcement had no effect
on the PLJ board. She asked the board members if they were aware the merchants
did not want the pilot plan, and said 679 merchants said they were opposed to
paid parking.
The board members then rescinded the
vote and decided they’d take their motion up a notch – they added an extra
endorsement to the pilot-parking plan.
George Hauer, Peter Wagener and Marengo
all agreed, on the record, that they were aware of the parking survey, which
Ashley cited earlier, and that they were going ahead with the motion anyway.
But Marengo said PLJ wasn’t
disrespecting the merchants they represent. She said that she understood the
results of the survey, as did the rest of the board, but that the parking plan
they endorsed contains many elements, and the survey only asked if merchants
were opposed to meters.
“It says that they are opposed to
parking meters, and it is not just about parking meters,” Marengo said. “The
framework has a lot of elements, and some are good and some are OK. The parking
board tried to have a dialogue with the community but that stopped.”
“That was a violation of the Brown Act
because it wasn’t on the agenda,” said Steve Haskins, attorney for La Jollans
for Clean Government. Haskins said his group intends to pursue the matter.
After hearing of the endorsement, both
Sherri Lightner, candidate for City Council District 1 and the La Jolla Shores
Association, came out against PLJ and its vote.
“We want to point out that this plan
was never approved or even voted on by LJCPAB,” wrote La Jolla Shores associate
chair Jim Heaton. “We want to clearly state that the citizens of La Jolla
Shores do not support this plan nor do we support on street parking.”
Lightner wrote a letter to Peters and
the council, urging them to dissolve the parking board. She said that PLJ is
“running amok,” and that the group needs to break its tie with the parking
board. Lightner also said PLJ’s actions were against the Brown Act.