Friday, June 22, 2007
Parking Tax Debate Needs to Be Curbed
Pittsburgh’s parking tax—the highest in the nation—is on the track to being reduced, but City Council is not happy about it. That’s because they want to see the parking rates reduced commensurate with the tax decrease. Pardon us if we don’t buy into the concern for the consumer being exhibited by City Council, who, after all, in 2004 made the then high 31 percent tax into an even higher 50 percent tax.
As part of the state’s tax reform package, the parking tax is being whittled away in small steps, year-over-year, until 2010 when it will be 35 percent. Those reductions are expected to cost the City $10 million in revenue over the next three years. The City could find those savings and petition the state’s overseers to immediately roll back the parking tax to 35 percent, which would force the public and private operators of parking facilities to enact a rate decrease. State law says the reductions should result in rates “no more than” the annual targets, meaning the City could go even further in its zeal to show it wants to improve the parking situation in the City.
But that won’t happen. There are rumblings on Council that there will be some effort to resist the next round of the decrease set for the 2008 budget.
Why not work on the Parking Authority whose members are appointed by the Mayor and control public parking? After all, the audit performed by the Controller’s office found that none of their rates were rolled back after the tax decrease. As we pointed out in a Policy Brief late last year, the Authority actually increased their rates well in excess of the amount needed to cover the impact of the tax. And the Authority controls enough parking that a roll back in their rates would have an impact. The characterization that the Authority “is not price gouging” is inaccurate.
If City officials are looking for someone to step up, the Parking Authority is the place to start.
As part of the state’s tax reform package, the parking tax is being whittled away in small steps, year-over-year, until 2010 when it will be 35 percent. Those reductions are expected to cost the City $10 million in revenue over the next three years. The City could find those savings and petition the state’s overseers to immediately roll back the parking tax to 35 percent, which would force the public and private operators of parking facilities to enact a rate decrease. State law says the reductions should result in rates “no more than” the annual targets, meaning the City could go even further in its zeal to show it wants to improve the parking situation in the City.
But that won’t happen. There are rumblings on Council that there will be some effort to resist the next round of the decrease set for the 2008 budget.
Why not work on the Parking Authority whose members are appointed by the Mayor and control public parking? After all, the audit performed by the Controller’s office found that none of their rates were rolled back after the tax decrease. As we pointed out in a Policy Brief late last year, the Authority actually increased their rates well in excess of the amount needed to cover the impact of the tax. And the Authority controls enough parking that a roll back in their rates would have an impact. The characterization that the Authority “is not price gouging” is inaccurate.
If City officials are looking for someone to step up, the Parking Authority is the place to start.
