Parking Discrimination Downtown

Many taxpayers who reside in Chattanooga (but outside Chattanooga's core) feel left behind when it comes to neighborhood paving, sidewalks, policing, streetscaping, street sweeping, public transportation, and other services. Some think most tax dollars are spent on downtown and not in their neighborhoods. It's not as if they can't vicariously experience the largesse of downtown. The self-described "second-class citizens" know they can visit downtown, if they can find a parking place.

Parking downtown has long been a problem.

Some folks have it, some don't. Some have struggled to get it and others just don't go downtown anymore. Downtown residents usually have parking. They have it because zoning regulations have required parking spaces be designated nearby or created at the time of new construction. That may be a thing of the past because newly proposed Form-Base zoning codes will alter parking requirements and much more, if approved.  A proposal going before city council for a vote (June 14) will allow construction of increased population density for commercial and residential properties. It will also decrease or eliminate parking requirements for some of the same areas. The net effect is developers of new construction and rehab projects will be less, not more, responsible for solving the parking problems their developments create.

Why is the Regional Planning Agency championing the near extinction of essential parking with these proposals? The national fad for city planners is to promote Form-Based zoning regulations. "Form-Based codes," in other locations, have encouraged the development of tall, dense, tiny dwellings packaged in large structures that crowd sidewalks. Think of walls that meet the sidewalks. It's considered by some to be the highest best use of space.

With this comes a huge push toward tiny dwellings compartments. Thanks to past zoning approvals, we already see signs of tiny and taller development downtown. Recent downtown zoning cases at city council meetings have pitted new big development against the wishes of one or two story home owners who do not wish to be located next to a 4-6 story hotel or commercial complex. The tight, tall and tiny residential concept is not new. If you travel to parts of Russia, you can see it in their 1950-60 constructed high rises. Chattanooga already has one old tall, tight, densely packed housing faculty called Patton Towers. Tight and tall sounds like a novel concept, but when the new wears off it resembles housing project accommodations. How well does that function?

The reasons stated for moving to "form based" codes is prevention of urban sprawl, reduction of vehicular pollution, continuity of developer guidelines and promotion of healthy people. It may be that fewer protective code requirements will allow more city planner discretion. Will that improve neighborhoods or just increase density? It will be important to know if more planner discretion means decision making with or without neighborhood input.

Another often stated reason for suggested changes in development priorities is improving city walkability. Our city planners want Chattanoogans to walk, not drive. Great idea!. However, let's understand the difference between encouraging people to walk and forcing all people to walk miles. The proposed code changes are a heavy handed approach forcing non-downtown residents to marathon walk or not go downtown. In the future you may go downtown, but you may not be able to park when you get there.

Is there an ideal candidate for all the suggested changes? If you are a single college student living in 1 of 100 new tiny apartments located above a commercial first floor that contains a diner, food market, hair stylist, a Starbucks and a few bars nearby--perhaps life can't get any better. If you live in Lookout Valley, and want to go downtown, downtown parking availability does matter.

When I first heard about "walkable, bike friendly cities," the buzz phrase was "multi-modal streets." Chattanooga's planners and public works folks were all about multi-modal streets. We were told it would provide better options for drivers, bikers, and walkers. Now we see street lanes become bike lanes. Ok, bike lanes are good. However, when you decrease or eliminate parking provisions, how are drivers part of in the multi-modal plan? Reality check: They aren't.

How are people who live outside of core downtown supposed to access the city core? When there are little or no requirements to sustain parking with the new regulations, must we be content to drive "around" for the pleasure of viewing the infrastructure tax dollars bought? If City Council approves this boondoggle laden code, those who shoulder the majority of infrastructure tax burdens (the middle class) will be forced into a situation that actually precludes them from using much of downtown.

The last time my husband and I were downtown we circled several locations for a parking space, parked and walked 16 blocks round trip. I didn't mind, but I hate to think of about what will happen when parking decreases. When you are on the south side of 60, walking and biking can become a struggle. What about the less fit, elderly, or disabled folks? Do non-spandex wearing lives not matter?

Too often citizens are promised improvements, but receive something worse. Sure, "you can keep your doctor," but he/ she won't have the same name or be the same doctor. Sure, "you will pay less for health insurance," but you will need to pay more for your next next years insurance premiums. Yes, we are building inclusive transportation infrastructure for our diverse population, but you must bike, walk, or move downtown to enjoy it.

Visit downtown while you can. Have someone drive and drop you off. If you can't do a half-marathon hike, just stay home. Downtown will not need you until tax time.

Deborah Scott