Editorial: Parking bane of city

Tauranga would get a boost if the expensive parking fees were adjusted.

Yesterday I had a coffee in downtown Tauranga and it cost me $10.60. An expensive coffee? Yes, when you figure that $4 did not feed me, but rather the parking meter.

While I enjoy the cafes downtown, it is a no-brainer to aim to have meetings at the cafe around the corner to our office, so I don't have to fork out for a meter and I am only paying for the cost of the coffee. All the more money for a chocolate brownie.

So why isn't it so obvious to Tauranga City Council that adjusting the parking fees for the city centre would be a much needed boost to the area. In the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend, Julia Proverbs' analysis of the state of our downtown was a depressing tale. Every retailer spoken to cited parking fees as the "biggest problem" that "kills the CBD".

In the same paper, a possible solution was discussed. We reported how successful Rotorua's two-hour free parking trial had been. The first seven months of the trial reversed stagnation in the city centre, restoring confidence to retailers. Shop owners said foot traffic had increased with customers having enough time to shop.

While Mayor Stuart Crosby admitted paying for parking in Tauranga CBD was a deterrent, he was cautious about comparing the two cities - yet both have suffered from similar issues with suburban malls drawing consumers away from the downtown area, with a knock-on effect of pressure on retailers and empty shops. In the next four weeks, the council will unveil how much this free parking scenario will cost.

Surely it is worth a serious look at, especially with the buy-in of retailers. True, there would be loss in revenue. Rotorua's loss of meter revenue is calculated at $534,000 a year.

Mind you, the Tauranga council cannot be so desperate for our hard-earned coins that we ferret around for in our wallets to feed the meter. On Monday, we reported the $27,000 collected weekly just lies around in a council back room until someone gets round to banking it. I find it hilarious that this was only discovered in "an audit of procedures".

Council is lucky to be so rich that it can afford to leave $27,000 hanging around. Or is this another example of financial mismanagement? Or at the very least, a lack of attention to detail and necessary frugality in using city money.