OTR parking veto: Fair to everyone or a blow to affordability?

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley overruled the will of City Council Wednesday, vetoing a plan that would set up a $108-per-year residential parking plan in Over-the-Rhine.

It was Cranley's first mayoral veto and the first veto since 2011.

Make no mistake, this is about more than where people park their cars.

For the mayor, it's about being fair to all taxpayers who paid for city streets. And it's about residents of Over-the-Rhine paying their fair share of the streetcar he says will benefit their neighborhood and their property values.

For neighborhood supporters, it is about making sure all Over-the-Rhine residents, even the middle class and low-income residents, can continue to afford to live in the historic district undergoing a renaissance.

It's even about zoning.

Should every unit of housing in OTR have a parking spot? In 2013, at the urging of neighborhood leaders, City Council approved reducing the parking requirements for new projects in Over-the-Rhine. Previously, every new housing unit had to have two off-street parking spots. It was changed to none, because Council wanted density, not large open parking.

The change was also made to encourage a less car-dependent environment. The streetcar was specifically cited as a reason to allow developers out of the requirement to provide parking.

The veto means the spots that would have been dedicated to residents will remain free for all people parking in Over-the-Rhine.

Cranley's wielding of the red-inked veto stamp in his office after Wednesday's Council meeting was not a surprise. He has said for the past two weeks that residential parking in Over-the-Rhine must go toward helping streetcar operating costs, a $200,000 shortfall.

At $108, that wouldn't be the case.

Still, the majority of Cincinnati City Council pushed ahead. Voting for the plan: Council members David Mann, Chris Seelbach, P.G. Sittenfeld, Wendell Young and Yvette Simpson.

They didn't have a sixth vote to override the veto.

"In the interests of basic fairness to all Cincinnatians, I am vetoing this Over-the-Rhine residential parking plan," Cranley said. "Cincinnati taxpayers from all neighborhoods paid for the public streets in OTR and, therefore, all Cincinnatians deserve an opportunity to park on the streets they paid to build and maintain."

The veto meant he overturned what members of his own party wanted. But he said he didn't think about that.

"I make every decision as mayor based on what I think is right for the people of Cincinnati, not partisan politics," Cranley said.

Supporters targeted Councilman Kevin Flynn as the sixth vote. He briefly wavered, but in the end refused to support the plan. He wants to take a larger look at parking in the neighborhood.

Mann, who sponsored the bill and worked for months on the final legislation, said he was "saddened and disappointed."

"I don't understand the logic of vetoing it," Mann said. "If we do injury to a neighborhood by building there and bringing people to play there, we should work with them to alleviate the problem they have parking where they live. The notion that this is a way to raise money ... escapes me as a reason."

Mann, his committee and the city's Transportation Department has worked on the parking plan since Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation suggested in 2014 there was a need for residential parking permits.

Seelbach and Over-the-Rhine Community Council President Ryan Messer, who both live in the neighborhood and supported the $108 plan, argued making it difficult to park will drive residents away.

"If you're a big wealthy developer, you're moved to the front of the line," Seelbach said. "If you're a minimum wage worker living in OTR Community Housing, you don't even get in line because you're too busy trying to survive.

"The vote today was about trying to represent those people, the ones struggling to survive, who we want to remain a part of OTR." Seelbach said. "Mayor Cranley's veto will speed up the gentrification of OTR, forcing low income residents to move to find suitable parking."

Messer said, "Today's veto appears to be another case of the mayor pitting downtown and OTR against the rest of the city. This 'us versus them' mentality hurts Cincinnati. Each neighborhood is unique and deserves solutions that are tailored to its particular needs.

"Over-the-Rhine's density and growing restaurant, retail and entertainment venues require different parking policies than largely residential neighborhoods," Messer said. "Ultimately this will hurt all our neighborhoods."

The plan on the table Wednesday provided 450 residential spots and 150 free spots, which would be for people who work in the neighborhood.

A similar plan came to Council last month – and likely would have passed – but Seelbach voted against it in an effort to tweak the number of spots allotted to residents and Sittenfeld was absent.

Right after that meeting, it came to light that the streetcar had a projected $200,000 deficit in the operating fund, prompting Cranley to call for his own residential parking plan that would help cover the shortfall.

He proposed allowing the city manager to set the cost of the residential parking permit based on the market rate. That could mean yearly parking permits might cost as much as $1,500 a year, Mann said.

Council's Neighborhood's Committee indefinitely postponed the idea earlier this week.

At $108 a year, OTR would officially have the most expensive residential city-run parking plan in the country, topping even that of San Francisco, which charges $100 a year. Residential parking permits in Pendleton, just blocks away, cost just $30 a year.

Jorge Garay, a handyman and Spanish tutor who lives on Vine Street with his wife and two children, one of them with special needs, said it's become nearly impossible to find a parking spot.

"We circle for 20-30 minutes, and then have to park blocks away," he said. "All this while carrying a baby, other kids, and groceries. I think he should reconsider."

Mary Burke Rivers, executive director of the affordable housing non-profit OTR Community Housing, said her residents are the ones suffering.

"I feel bad we didn't do a good enough job expressing the need for resident parking," River said. "I feel like they don't have an appreciation for the low-income residents in the neighborhood. Many of our residents – and I mean even two-parent, working families – cannot afford the meters until 9 p.m."

Cranley said late Wednesday he would be willing to work on a plan that sets aside spots for OTR Community Housing.

Reporter Ben Liebing contributed to this report.

The veto; power granted in 1999, rarely used

In 1999, voters approved Issue 4, a strong mayor form of government. It allows the mayor to veto "legislation," meaning ordinances and resolutions. It took affect it 2001.

* In 2011 Mayor Mark Mallory vetoed an ordinance that removed a clause in council rules that required the mayor to put an item on the council agenda of the next meeting.

* In 2005 Mayor Charlie Luken vetoed an ordinance that would have allowed red light cameras in the city limits.

* In 2005, Luken vetoed $6.5 million in capital improvement spending on recreation centers because the money was earmarked for neighborhood development.

* In 2003, Luken vetoed spending $150,000 from the Neighborhood Reserve Fund to help build a Community-Oriented Policing Center in the new East End School. Council overturned the veto.

* In 2002, Luken vetoed spending $65,000 on a study involving subsidized housing.