Trending
I read with interest the recent coverage of the parking meter complaints being raised before City Council, particularly Councilman Bonfiglio’s reference to a “yelling match in front of Pace’s.” Before anything else, I want to thank Councilman Bonfiglio for continuing to raise this issue and for the support he has shown Pace’s throughout this entire situation. His willingness to bring this before the Council, more than once now, has not gone unnoticed, and we are grateful to have him championing this on our behalf.
I also want to say, outside of this particular parking issue, that the city has been a good friend to Pace’s over the years, and we hope the feeling is mutual. This letter comes from that same spirit of partnership, not from a place of frustration with the city as a whole.
I do want to correct the record on what actually happened that day, because it matters for how the Council thinks about a solution. The meter in question was not a mystery. When the parking meter supervisor was called out, an associate of Pace’s told her exactly which meter was malfunctioning. That is precisely the kind of documentation Mayor Ecklund said the city needs to investigate these complaints, a specific meter number and location, and it was provided on the spot. What actually escalated the situation was not a lack of information on our end. It was the supervisor raising her voice at a Pace’s employee who was simply trying to help her do her job, to the point that our employee had to ask her directly to stop yelling. That is not a two-sided dispute over a broken machine. That is a city employee handling a routine service call poorly. To her defense she said she talks loudly because she is "hard of hearing."
The parking problem is not an issue unique to Pace’s. We have spoken with neighboring businesses on this same block, including the owner of Panache Salon and Solt, who has described ongoing problems of her own with metering times and with signage restricting certain spaces to compact cars only. Many customers simply do not know what that restriction means or realize it applies to their vehicle, and are then ticketed at a significant cost for parking in a space they had no reason to believe was off limits to them. This is precisely the kind of block-wide pattern that should inform the Council’s decision, not a complaint from a single business, but a shared, ongoing frustration among the businesses actually operating on this stretch of Third Street.
I raise all of this not to rehash one bad interaction, but because it is a small window into a larger problem the Council is only now getting a full picture of. The city’s own officials confirmed at that meeting that the current parking meter vendor is going out of business and that the city is already having trouble sourcing parts. Councilman Engquist separately noted ongoing complaints about the credit card readers failing and the new payment app being difficult to use. In other words, this is not a matter of one stubborn meter in front of one business. It is a metering system that the city itself now acknowledges is becoming harder to keep running, at exactly the moment a vendor relationship is collapsing.
Given that reality, I would ask the council to consider a solution that does not depend on repairing or replacing failing equipment on a block that has already generated repeat complaints and at least one public incident. Section 290-33 of the City Code already establishes a two-hour free parking zone within the Central Business District covering Third Street between Washington Street and Spring Street, along with portions of Pine, Main, and Cherry Streets. The same reasoning that supported that zone applies to this block as well. I am not asking for a special favor carved out for one business. I am asking the council to extend a zone it has already established under Section 290-33, to a further stretch of the same street, using the same criteria that justified it the first time. If the concern is that this invites every business in the city to ask for the same thing, I would say that is not a flaw in the request. Any block that can show the same pattern of mechanical failure, customer friction, and now a vendor that can no longer reliably support its own equipment should be evaluated on the same terms. That is a standard the council can apply consistently, not an exception made for one address, and as the experience of our neighboring businesses shows, this block already meets that standard.
I would also note that this is squarely within the council’s own authority to decide. Section 290-35 of the City Code authorizes the installation and operation of parking meters on whatever streets and off-street areas “may hereafter be designated from time to time by the City Council.” Removing meters from this block would not require new legislation, a variance, or approval from any outside body. It is simply a matter of the council exercising the same authority it has already used to establish the existing free zone under Section 290-33 and, separately, to authorize the removal of meters near the DMV in favor of posted time limits. We are asking the council to make that same call here.
On the question of cost, I recognize the council has to weigh any loss in meter revenue on that block. I would ask that this be weighed against the increase in sales tax revenue that comes from more customers being willing to stop and stay a while rather than avoiding the block over parking friction and confusing signage. A single block of meter revenue is a modest sum against what steady foot traffic and repeat business at Pace’s, Panache Salon and Solt, and any other neighboring businesses that benefit from the same change, can generate for the city over time.
I would ask that this be referred to the Public Works Committee for review, alongside whatever broader response the council is considering for the vendor situation, and I again thank Councilman Bonfiglio for keeping this in front of the council until it gets resolved.
Joe Town is a Jamestown resident and the owner of Pace's Pizzeria.