Editor’s note: Jordan Dixon is a current Master of Social Work graduate student at San Diego State University and a UC San Diego alumnus. The news piece Dixon is adding to was originally published in Vol. 59, Issue 17, titled “City Council partially rolls back Balboa Park paid parking.” The UCSD Guardian welcomes feedback, criticism, and continued dialogue from our readers in the form of letters to the editor. Our full policies for submission can be found here.
Dear Editor-in-Chief Adalia Luo,
On Jan. 5, Balboa Park decided to end its century-long commitment to free parking for its community members. As expected, this initiative has ruffled the feathers of San Diego residents and visitors over the past few months. In a recent article, April Kato scratched the surface of several social service issues arising from this initiative that deserve expansion.
This paid parking initiative has faced severe backlash from community members and visitors alike. Kato discusses that, in response, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria has offered some “adjustments.” Gloria has allotted a few free parking lot spaces that are set to be accessed starting March 2. The problem with these free parking spaces is that only verified San Diego residents may have access to them. Sequentially, there are unconsidered issues with the resident verification process. To be recognized as a verified San Diego resident, one must register online by providing proof of residency, such as a driver’s license, and pay a $5 fee. Gloria has failed to consider that not all San Diego residents have access to the internet or an in-home electronic device to register. In fact, it is estimated that 53,000 San Diego families are without internet access, with low-income families being disproportionately affected. Further, the proof of residency verification process fails to account for community members who may not have a form of identification, or for those who are experiencing homelessness and do not have established residency. The inability to complete this verification process results in higher parking fees for these visitors who may already be struggling with accessibility issues, housing instability, job insecurity, and more. Additionally, the idea of “proof of residency” and forced identification raises concerns around immigration status.
While there are accessibility concerns regarding this initiative, there are ways to remedy them. Simplistically, Gloria and affiliated administrations can consider the above factors that were discussed in this letter and recognize how reversing the initiative is more conducive to an inclusive, accessible community that allows enrichment for all. If complete reversal is not plausible, they can take other measures. Visitors could be allowed to access the free parking lots on a first-come, first-served basis, regardless of residency status. Additionally, the residency verification process could be dissolved, resulting in all visitors paying the same affordable price. Another aspect of the initiative that could be modified is the fact that verified residents must register and pay for each household car separately. If dissolving the resident verification process is not plausible, residents should be permitted to register more than one car under their family account.
Ultimately, the decision to impose parking fees on the community has caused an uproar and created barriers for many, resulting in about a 20% to 57% decrease in park attendance since implementation. This leaves many to wonder: What will the projected $15 million parking fee revenue fund for the emptying park?
