Sanity from the City of Toledo: no authority to regulate private parking fees

It doesn't happen often, but when it does, we should definitely note it and appreciate it.

As part of the Toledo City Council discussion of the licensing of private business's parking lots because they will open and charge for parking during special events, council President Wilma Brown asked if the city could regulate the amount that these private companies charge.

In downtown Toledo, some local companies have parking for their employees and customers only. They have the temerity to open up those spaces during downtown special events and charge people to park there. It's profitable for them and gives the attending public more choices and options for parking. Seemed like a win-win, until the government got involved.

You see, the Toledo politicians, in their infinite wisdom, long ago created a licensing requirement for privately-owned public lots. In order to operate one, you have to get 'permission' - by way of a license - to do so. According to the city, this allows them to ensure that you've got proper pavement, adequate size and 'safety' (the ultimate arrogance of government). What it really ensures is that the city gets revenue from the requirement.

But these private companies who open up their private lots only for special events have never gotten a license. The vast majority of the time, their lots are reserved for their employees and customers - not the general public. So the city decided to require all those businesses to obtain a license or not allow public parking in their lots. Of course, protecting their lots from intrusion during special events would also cost money, so many of them paid the licensing fee.

Certainly a 'not-business-friendly' action.

But not content with the intrusion into the private sector, the woman who was elected by her fellow members of council to lead them as their president wanted to go even further and dictate how much all the lots could charge. She was 'outraged' that, as she claimed, some of those lots could charge as much as $20. Of course, if no one was willing to pay that much, they'd lower their rates, but apparently the concept of a free market and supply and demand are completely lost on Wilma Brown.

So she asked, by way of a referral to the administration, if council could regulate the fees so that council - not the property owners and the consumers - could set the amount for parking.

Thankfully, Adam Loukx, Law Director for the City of Toledo, imparted some sanity when he issued his legal opinion, included in last Friday's Council Packet:

It is my understanding that this referral seeks an opinion as to the limits of the City’s authority to regulate parking rates on private lots and does not seek an opinion as to the City’s authority over rates for public parking facilities (i.e. meters, public garages, etc).

Neither the Code nor the Charter specifically grants the City authority to set rates charged by private parking facilities. The Code does require licensing of these facilities1and there are many zoning and use regulations that are applicable to private lots.

Perusal of the Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati codes suggests that those cities likewise do not set rates for private lots.

In conclusion, under current law the City does not have the authority or duty to regulate parking rates on privately owned and operated parking lots. In contrast, under current law the City does have the authority and duty to regulate through the licensing found in T.M.C. Chapter 743 privately owned and operated parking lots.

Arguably, the City could, through appropriate legislation, regulate the fees charged by private lots in furtherance of the City’s general police powers. However, it is likely that such an action would lead to litigation.

Unfortunately, he does leave the door open for shenanigans from council, but does warn them that such actions would lead to litigation that, in light of his opinion, they'd seem destined to lose.

Kudos to the law department for telling council what they NEED - not what they WANT - to hear.

New council committees and the politics behind the appointments

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has the complete list of old Toledo City Council assignments versus the new ones under the reduced number of committees.

Interestingly, Phil Copeland has ended up as the Vice-Chairman of the new Human Resources, Information Technology and Finance Committee. Why is this so interesting? Because, as I understand it, D. Michael Collins was promised that position.

I've been told that Wilma Brown, the new council president, reneged on her promise to slot Collins there so she could gain Copeland's support for the council president vote.

Remember all the outrage when Lindsay Webb changed her mind and didn't vote for Mike Ashford as president of council? Something tells me that type of 'offense' won't be given for this broken promise between Collins, Copeland and Brown.

Lisa Renee, in her post, urges readers to call Wilma Brown and object to placing Copeland in the vice-chair role. Lisa believes, as do I, that the vice chair should at least have some experience on the Finance Committee before being put in charge of that vital assignment, especially considering the budget fiasco that faces the city. This is especially true since council also changed the rules about who could chair a committee's meeting. The vice-chair is now authorized to call and chair a committee meeting if the named chair doesn't do so within 24 hours of a request by the vice chair.

I can see all sorts of difficulties coming out of this rule change, especially with the friction we've seen on council between the various Democrat teams, but perhaps that's the point of the new rule: to allow one faction to upstage the other?

Some other interesting aspects of the new committee assignments include the ones given to Joe McNamara. He's vice chair of Economic Development and will serve on HR, IT & Finance; Intergovernmental Relations and Environment; Neighborhoods, Community Development & Health; and Utilities and Public Service. Of course, he's 'considering' (as in I formed a committee to start raising money and getting support but haven't officially announced) a run for state senate. Until he decides whether or not he's going to stay on council, I'd just appoint him to serve on committees and not put him as the chair or vice chair of any. Why 'reward' someone with a leadership position who's expressed an interest in leaving and will be rather busy running for another position?

Then there is brand new councilman Adam Martinez. As a new councilman, he's garnered some rather key positions: Chair of Neighborhoods, Community Development & Health; Vice Chair of Zoning and Planning; member of Economic Development; member of Youth Parks, Recreation & Community Relations; and an alternate on HR, IT & Finance.

Other than his political connections, what, exactly, qualifies him to be put in leadership positions as a novice council member? Every council person who has served says that the first six months (or so) are spent just learning where to go to get information. But Brown has put a 'newbie' (with respects to my favorite TV show NCIS) in charge of critical committees?

My district rep, Lindsay Webb, previously chaired the Youth, Parks and Recreation committee. Now she's the vice chair Utilities and Public Service. She also serves on three other committees, including the one she used to chair. No chairmanship for her.

Surprisingly, Tom Waniewski, District 5, ended up with the fewest assignments: Chair of Intergovernmental Relations & Environment and member of Economic Development and
Utilities & Public Service.

UPDATE: As Lisa Renee writes in the comments below, and which I forgot when doing the original post, Waniewski is also considering a run for the same senate seat as McNamara, so the comments about giving any leadership position to people who would rather have another position apply to Waniewski as well.
***

I do not know if Webb's and Waniewski's assignments are by choice or part of some other political reasoning.

I understand both the logic of the appointments and the philosophy of 'to the victor go the spoils' when it comes to committee assignments within a political body. Understanding, however, does not equate to approval and it's sad when such assignments are used for the good of the individual making the appointments rather than for the good of the constituents council is supposed to be representing.

Remember, members of city council are your employees. You are their boss. If you have opinions about this, you have an obligation to call Council President Wilma Brown and instruct her accordingly.

wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov
419-245-1050

Not 'business friendly' - Post #13: no more day cares

We've seen the fiasco that the convenience store licensing law has created with a federal judge ruling that Toledo cannot enforce the law until the settlement of the lawsuit over its constitutionality. Now, District 1 Councilwoman Wilma Brown wants that same type of regulations for day cares in private homes.

In order to 'research' the issue, she's got an emergency ordinance on the agenda for next Tuesday's council meeting.

Declaring a 180-day Moratorium on the authority of the Division of Building Inspection to accept applications for Special Use Permits for Type A day cares; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
Toledo City Council has seen a large increase in applications for Special Use Permits for Type A day cares. Historically it has been understood that homeowners have chosen to stay home and watch children within their home. It is becoming more prevalent to have the applicant not be the person who is living in the home and to run these businesses 24 hours round the clock with three shifts and increased staff. It is not known just what effects these types of establishments have on the neighborhoods. There is a great concern that to allow a 24-hour business to operate in a residential neighborhood may be detrimental. Businesses that are located in commercial districts but abut residential have hour limitations put on them in order to preserve our neighborhoods. Therefore allowing these businesses to operate these hours seems to be adverse to previous decisions in our zoning plans.

City Council is requesting the Plan Commission to look into and research and present to Council a text amendment change that would greater restrict Type A day cares to assure greater protection to the neighborhoods. This moratorium will prevent the establishment of additional Type A day cares while this research is being undertaken. NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That the authority of the Division of Building Inspection to accept applications for Special Use Permits for Type A day care is hereby suspended for a period of 180 days from the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. That this Ordinance hereby is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in force and effect from and after its passage. The reason for the emergency lies in the fact that same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and property, and for the further reason being that a moratorium is necessary to allow the City time to review its Special Use Permit regulations for Type A day care.

Yes, this seems like an emergency to me ... and that the public peace, health and safety are certainly at risk.

According to previous statements, Councilwoman Brown doesn't like the fact that some of these day cares operate 24-hours a day. So if council regulates them out of business, where are second- and third-shift workers going to find care for their kids? Maybe they'll just have to quit their job so their neighbors aren't disturbed by their work hours.

Toledo isn't exactly a hotbed of job growth. If a family can open a business, be licensed by the state (as all day cares are) and provide an income by caring for other people's kids, isn't that the type of entrepreneurship we're desperate for? Isn't it possible that success as a neighborhood day care might lead to a growing or expanding operation? And if you've got a demand, might you also hire some friends or neighbors to help you, thus creating jobs????

I guess these council members are just overlooking these types of questions and potential outcomes. They're too busy being disturbed by the noise of some who cater to people working around the clock.

This is NOT business friendly, nor is it worker friendly. Our council members are so quick to use the phrase 'working families' in their political rhetoric. These 'working families' need day care for all three shifts and it's best if they have that option within their neighborhoods.

Council should reject this moratorium - and reject further restrictions on businesses in Toledo. If you agree, call council and let them know: 419-245-1050.

Not 'business friendly' - Post #11: too many day cares?

First it was convenience stores, now it's day care businesses. We have too many of them, according to District 1 Councilwoman Wilma Brown.

Yes, that's correct. According to Brown, there are too many people providing day care in their homes and the city needs a moratorium on them until council can come up with some regulations to limit them.

Apparently, the NEED for such places completely escapes this council member - for if there wasn't a NEED, they'd be out of business. Of course, the fact that this is a way for individuals with limited work skills to actually earn money and support their families must have been overlooked as well.

I'm certain that, in addition to creating zoning regulations to try and limit the numbers of these types of businesses, there will also be some kind of registration fee to increase the revenues to the city of Toledo. After all, you can't have some types of regulation without a corresponding fee - and there are soooo many things the city wants to spend money on.

It's stuck on stupid ideas like this that continue to drive people and businesses away from our city.