Permit Plan Article Angers Port Tenants
I've already gotten quite a few angry emails from people who work in the Square/Port.

Let me just say it publicly. Your anger should not be focused towards me, but towards your landlord. Your landlord wanted NOTHING to do with the parking permit plan. Nothing. So why should they be included? And what do they have to give back? Parking on Water Street? The on-street parking permits are for people that live or work on the streets that are giving up parking. They give nothing, they get nothing. Pretty simple.

Remember that it was a choice between meters and permits. With permits you get FOUR WHOLE HOURS OF FREE PARKING! FOUR!! FREE!! If you company has a client come to visit, instead of paying to park in the garage, they can now park for free nearby. More diners are also more likely to visit the local restaurants because they can - wait for it - PARK FOR FREE! Shoot, all of the workers in the Square could figure it out - just move your car to another street at lunch and then YOU too get to park for free. Would meters have made you happier?

Trust me. We didn't want the fees to be $150/yr. I have a feeling that this is why they haven't sold so many. But City Council was unwilling to budge. At one point they wanted $600/mo. If it comes to meters or permits, I'm thinking it was a win-win for all.

But to add Water Street and the County Buildings to the pool that can get permits when they wanted nothing to do with the plan and have no parking to give to the plan seems wrong. I'm sorry you feel differently, but that's an arguement that I feel you should have with your landlord whether your landlord is the Port of Oakland, Jack London Square, or Alameda County.
Posted 6/17/2008