Parking in the downtown core of Aspen is not free. There are short term metered spaces and there are spaces in which you can park for a longer period of time which get progressively more expensive the longer you're parked.
There are also spaces reserved for those people who carpool from downvalley. The carpoolers stop at a booth by the airport, pick up a parking pass based on the fact that there are multiple individuals in the vehicle and park for free that day.
Recently the City Council told the director of the parking department that those vehicles with only one person of driving age do not qualify for a carpool permit. This means a parent chauffering his/her children does not qualify for a carpool permit.
And here we go again . . .
There have been multiple letters to the editor on this topic. The parking director has been insulted and called names.
While I understand the disappointment which attaches to losing such a benefit, as far as I'm concerned, it seems that it's a benefit these parents have been accessing through a loophole and now they're upset that the loophole has been closed.
I'm having a hard time getting behind the sense of entitlement these parents are exhibiting as they whine about having to pay for parking.
The free carpool parking is an incentive for the people who are willing to undertake the inconvenience that usually attaches to carpooling and a reward for their willingness to remove a vehicle from the upvalley commute.
A parent is doing neither of these when he drives his own kids to daycare. Why therefore do these parents think they're entitled to free parking?
One guy went so far as to detail how inconvenient it would be for him to take the bus with his kids.
My response is that there are costs to either decision; one of the costs of taking the bus is the added inconvenience while one of trade-offs for the convenience of driving is having to pay for parking.
My prediction however is that City Council will cave and re-open the loophole. Call me a cynic.
Of course, since none of these carpoolers are eligible to vote in city elections, perhaps the Council will stand firm. Wait, that was cyncal too, wasn't it?
There are also spaces reserved for those people who carpool from downvalley. The carpoolers stop at a booth by the airport, pick up a parking pass based on the fact that there are multiple individuals in the vehicle and park for free that day.
Recently the City Council told the director of the parking department that those vehicles with only one person of driving age do not qualify for a carpool permit. This means a parent chauffering his/her children does not qualify for a carpool permit.
And here we go again . . .
There have been multiple letters to the editor on this topic. The parking director has been insulted and called names.
While I understand the disappointment which attaches to losing such a benefit, as far as I'm concerned, it seems that it's a benefit these parents have been accessing through a loophole and now they're upset that the loophole has been closed.
I'm having a hard time getting behind the sense of entitlement these parents are exhibiting as they whine about having to pay for parking.
The free carpool parking is an incentive for the people who are willing to undertake the inconvenience that usually attaches to carpooling and a reward for their willingness to remove a vehicle from the upvalley commute.
A parent is doing neither of these when he drives his own kids to daycare. Why therefore do these parents think they're entitled to free parking?
One guy went so far as to detail how inconvenient it would be for him to take the bus with his kids.
My response is that there are costs to either decision; one of the costs of taking the bus is the added inconvenience while one of trade-offs for the convenience of driving is having to pay for parking.
My prediction however is that City Council will cave and re-open the loophole. Call me a cynic.
Of course, since none of these carpoolers are eligible to vote in city elections, perhaps the Council will stand firm. Wait, that was cyncal too, wasn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment