SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
November 8, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Old Town Newhall Parking

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

My first thought when reading today’s Signal article on the conflict over parking lots in Old Town Newhall was this: “What a cool debate we are having. There is actually demand for Old Town Newhall Parking! That means people want to go there. This is a Good Thing.”

I live within walking/biking distance of Old Town Newhall, so I hardly ever drive to an event there. But a lot of people do. And they naturally need a place to park their cars. The City has apparently decided not to lease a parking lot adjacent to what I call the SCV Theater District, leading to some outrage.

Cue TimBen Boydston, Old Town Newhall businessman and sometimes city foe:

“People in the SCV are used to having convenient parking to their goods and services,” Boydston said. “It’s not good for business. Specifically to the seniors, and especially those whose mobility is impaired, it’s a burden for them to walk several blocks to get to the theater.”

I’m sympathetic to the seniors argument, so I took a look at the map. Parking is available for theater-goers at the Metrolink. It’s less convenient than the parking lot adjacent to the CTG, but really, it’s not that far away:

As you can see from the map, the Metrolink parking lot is just two blocks away. 358 feet as the crow flies. Clearly there are crosswalks from the east side of Railroad to the West. I see commuters using them every day.

Another reader asked an interesting question:

Since when is it the duty of the city to provide parking? Why should everyone else have to pay for the parking for customers of these businesses? Business owners, why don’t you lease the lot for your customers? I’ve read that one person is claiming that 30,000 customers a year visit his business, surely you could get them to pay $1 for parking and you will have paid for the lot and made $6,000 to boot.

Surely a good point. The City doesn’t subsidize parking lots for other businesses as near as I can tell, so why should they do it in Newhall?

I think a compromise is in order. It’s in the City’s interests and our’s that Old Town Newhall thrive and become a prosperous destination for the SCV. But it’s not there yet, despite the demand for parking we’re seeing. So I think the City should lease the parking lot and offer it for free for the next two years. After that, the Old Town Newhall Association or the theaters ought to buy or lease the parking lot and charge $1 or $2 for parking. This way we continue to encourage people to come to Old Town Newhall while we build it out and, in the future, local businesses can turn a profit by charging a small fee for parking there. Sure, some will be repelled by the cost (SCV drivers think they are entitled to free parking everywhere and always) but most will pay and others will be encouraged to get to the revitalized area via alternative means. Others will simply park at Metrolink and walk the 2 blocks to the Theaters.

There. Everyone happy?

Comments (19)

  1. damageincNovember 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    If they charge won’t that make people walk from the metrolink?
  2. gobstopperNovember 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm
    If they don’t want to pay..they can walk. If they don’t mind paying, they can park close.
  3. Your Web GuruNovember 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm
    I seemed to have drawn some ire for my comments regarding this matter in the daily update. I don’t necessarily expect the city to subsidize free parking, but the fact that the lot was closed after 4 years of providing that lot for not only the patrons of the local theaters, but to the local businesses as well. Not to mention that, after all these months, the lot sits unused and chained up while patrons of the entire area have to do their best to find parking. So who wins? The owner gets no revenue, and everybody else has to walk. And don’t yak at me about ‘it’s only 358 feet’, either. I’m wondering how many of you are same the ones who up a parking lot waiting 5 minutes with your blinker on to pull into a spot close to the Costco entrance? So I’m not opposed to seeing an auto-pay lot or something similar. But that would still be up to the city and the owner of the property, would it not? Or can the owner of the property turn it into a pay lot and really clean up? Lastly, some of you have turned this issue into a right-wing/left-wing debate over entitlements and what not. Geez, it’s a freakin’ parking lot, not “Obamacare!”
  4. DamageincNovember 8, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    I just park where ever. I never wait for a spot, I think the time you wait for a spot you can find one farther back and walk in before the knob waiting with his blinker gets his spot. To the Subject———–> Why doesn’t TBB and company just offer a shuttle on nights they do a play if it is so far? I really don’t see why the City must pay for a parking lot, no other business gets a parking lot paid for. Or Make a deal with the owner they can hire an attendant and charge for parking on nights there are events like any other theatre district does. Or Make a deal with the owner and rent the lot on nights you have events, then check that cost verses how much to rent month to month or lease for a given period of time. Divide these cost by the number and tickets add that amount on and you probably is solved. Why is it always an A or B choice… there aren’t other options? TBB consistently plays the victim, he needs to pick himself up by the bootstraps and quite whining. We aren’t in the fiscal situation to be throwing money at parking lots because people are too lazy to walk a few hundred feet. Aren’t TBB productions worth walking a few hundred feet? I know people that will drive an hour to get a bag of specialty coffee…
  5. BrookNovember 9, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Ditto!
  6. PatNovember 8, 2010 at 7:05 pm
    In addition to the businesses and theaters, people who volunteer at the Santa Clarita Food Pantry often used that lot during the daytime hours. These people VOLUNTEER at the Food Pantry, providing a much needed service to citizens of our fair city. Since the lot in question has been closed, volunteers often have difficulty finding a place to park. Many of these charitable volunteers have to walk quite far just to help out! Said lot is occasionally used for movie trucks/equipment, but mostly it is blocked off and empty during daytime hours. It would be nice to at least have it available to volunteers trying to help out.
  7. ScvFanNovember 8, 2010 at 9:47 pm
    Imagine the car dealers petitioned for the city to lease another lot so they could park more cars. It brings sales revenue right? It’s for the people. Or maybe the mall needed more space? You guys would literally pass OUT with fury. The city was wasting money on this lease. If there is a need for private businesses…. They need to lease it. And the volunteer argument… While clever and emotional… Doesn’t hold weight. I could almost hear violin strings as I imagined poor volunteers walking TWO blocks. If the theater needs it then they should lease it. What about on busy show nights? A lease for only when THEY needed it? Why arent you guys pissed at the greedy owner?
  8. RemStarNovember 8, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    What? Boydston is panhandling for city paid parking for his business?? Really??? But didn’t he fight the hospital expansion because he said it didn’t have enough parking? Yup. Do you think he would’ve voted to use city tax dollars for more hospital parking? Nope. Is fixing his parking deficit the highest priority for tax dollars at the time of a deep recession? Doubt it. Is he being a hypocrite? Absolutely.
  9. cashNovember 9, 2010 at 7:41 am
    If I remember correctly, the owner of the lot is very unhappy with the city because the city has placed too many restrictions on the property. Restrictions that make development of the land too costly. I don’t blame the owner of the lot for wanting to make income off of the property. I understand than more than one land owner is not happy with the City. Perhaps the OTN proprietors can all chip in to rent the lot. Taxpayer money no!
  10. TimBen BoydstonNovember 9, 2010 at 9:01 am
    The City leased this lot for five years because it made good sense. It still makes good sense. The parking lot is sitting on property that is in the Downtown Master plan as being …you guessed it a parking structure. The City paid the experts 1.2 milliom dollars to tell them how to make the Downtown a success, and they told them to put public parking on that site. Seniors walking late at night time several blocks in Newhall do not feel safe. Perhaps when the redevelopment effort produces more businesses that stay open late, this will change. Commuters were using the lot. Perhaps not as many as before, due to the economic downturn, but they were still using the lot. Farmers market customers, theatre goers, people attending services at one of the three houses of worship within one block of the lot, and customers of businesses in the 6th street block were using this lot to capacity many days. The Canyon Theatre Guild is a non-profit organization and does not have the resources to buy or lease the parking lot. Also, there is no paid parking anywhere in the SCV. To put it into Newhall makes no sense, especially when you are trying to get customers to shop and come to entertainment there. The City has millions in redevelopment funds, which it has the latitude to spend as it sees fit, to make Newhall work as a commercial success. The whole idea of successful redevelopment is to have the City act as a “Master developer” over an area that has many property owners. No commercial developer in the SCV would dream of trying to create a shopping area that did not have enough adjacent parking, so yes it is the responsibility of the City to supply the parking.
  11. SCVFanNovember 9, 2010 at 10:15 am
    TBB: Then for goodness sake…make a deal with the owners to lease only for your little shows! That would be more cost-effective. The City already has a huge lot around the CORNER. And I rarely agree with Damageinc … but he’s right. TBB is whiny. OTN Assn needs to figure it out and leave the tax payer money alone. $24,000 a YEAR for an extra parking lot is so stupid when the City already put one in 300 feet away. People are lazy and need to walk. And Newhall isn’t scary at night. It just isn’t. Santa Clarita residents are lazy, and pampered. Walk! It’s fiscally responsible and healthier.
  12. JayceNovember 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    “I think the time you wait for a spot you can find one farther back and walk in before the knob waiting with his blinker gets his spot.” and “Santa Clarita residents are lazy, and pampered. Walk! It’s fiscally responsible and healthier.” Come on you two! That goes against America staying 70%+ overweight!!!
  13. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogNovember 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    “your little shows” Condescend much SCVFan? Don’t take the tone of the dialogue down that path and in the next sentence call the guy you are arguing with whiny.
  14. Your Web GuruNovember 9, 2010 at 9:17 am
    Let’s also remember that it is not just the theaters and volunteers who benefitted from the lot. Events sponsored either by the city or at least provided a benefit to the city (IE Farmer’s Market, Street Art Festival, etc.) were made more convenient by having that parking lot open.
  15. CalimanNovember 10, 2010 at 9:56 am
    I have gone to both events and even with the parking lot closed I seem to find a parking spot every time with no problem.
  16. cashNovember 9, 2010 at 10:23 am
    Perhaps it is the city responsibility to provide parking, but that does not mean the taxpayer need pay for it. It seems the taxpayers have already pumped million into the downtown area, and not much has resulted from it. I for one would like to know if all the money spent for redevelopment has even begun to generate new tax revenue. I kinda doubt it. Perhaps the farmers market and street art fair should be moved to a location that can accommodate them.
  17. Coastal SageNovember 9, 2010 at 11:14 am
    As long as the parking lot at issue is owned by a private party, when the parking lot lebase ran out it was up to the landlord to decide how much to charge the City for a renewal of the lease. Fairly obviously, the landlord and the City staff did not come to an agreement on the rent. If the landlord perceived the parking lot to be a “must have” for the City’s operations, the landlord would jack up the rent sky high because the landlord would think he had the City over a barrel. From a “smart real estate” point of view, the City would ultimately negotiate to buy the parking lot, or that failing condemn ownership of the parking lot. What better way to get a bargain price, conserving taxpayer money, than for the City not to renew the parking lot lease, and let the landlord learn that his/its property produces little revenue as a private pay parking lot. Perhaps that’s what’s going on here.
  18. SCV SageNovember 9, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Folks – when we were looking at creating Old Town Newhall (back in the day of folks like Ruth Newhall; Doc Rioux; and City Manager/Philanderer George Caravalho), the Planning Commission led by Chair Linda Townsley (also removed for political reasons like Diane Trautman) brought in folks from Brea and Pasadena (in the early 1990s)who had successfully redeveloped their civic centers. Their message, which was not well received by Caravalho & City Staff who had their own agendas, was to creat a distinct, unique Old Town. We hired a consultant who told us not to do a bypass street, which City staff ignored, thus we now have Railroad as a quasi freeway. They told us to provide parking, including parking structures — which Pasadena told us was the core to getting key anchor tenants to come back in and re-develop their area, which we all know happened successfully. Clearly, our City as the Redevelopment Agency for Newhall needs to acquire land such as this lot and build the planned parking structure which will support existing business, the new library, provide needed Metrolink parking (their lots are always full). I am not opposed to meters in those lots at a nominal fee either. They can always contract with parking lot vendors to man, secure and maintain them.
  19. spineflower2November 12, 2010 at 8:48 am
    But the City only listens to those consultants it has paid to parrot back what they wanted to do in the first place.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support