Location: City Hall West Annex Commission Room
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Was Car2Go Ever Approved by the City Council?
Mayor Furey announced at the last council meeting that Torrance will host a public meeting tomorrow night to provide information about and receive public comment with regard to Car2Go. The timing of the planned meeting is somewhat odd given that the city has already provided authorization for the company to begin operating within its borders as evidenced by the many smart cars parked in residential areas with the distinct Car2Go logo that have been spotted throughout Torrance.
Car2Go was last discussed by the Council at the April 9th, 2013 meeting. There, several members of the public voiced support for the company, including the Executive Director of the South Bay Cities Council of Government who claimed that Car2Go was supported by area businesses as it provided low cost mobility. He also noted it could reduce the need for secondary cars and serve as a compliment to public transit.
Many other members of the community spoke in opposition to Car2Go. Several residents expressed concern that would it further restrict available parking spaces, especially in such areas as downtown and around El Camino College. Representatives from Honda, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and All Yellow Cab all expressed concerns that there be a level playing field. Enterprise complained that they there were required to provide off street parking at considerable expense for their fleet of 550 cars while it appeared that Car2Go would not. All Yellow Cab explained that taxi companies pay an estimated $220K in annual fees to Torrance including a per company $35K annual franchise charge. Honda, who is affiliated with Car2Go’s closest competitor ZipCar, urged the Council to open the South Bay market to all competitors on comparable terms.
The Council ended up effectively tabling the issue by directing staff to create a draft of a non-exclusive franchise agreement for car-sharing programs for consideration at the May 7th, 2013 council meeting. The minutes for that date, however, reflect that the item was not heard at that time. It came up again on the agenda at the July 2nd, 2013 meeting but was deferred. I could find no record of it being discussed since that date which raises the question of why the agreement was apparently never brought forward for public comment and approval by the Council as was done in neighboring cities such as Hermosa and Redondo Beach.
The Beach Reporter noted that Redondo Beach requires Car2Go to pay an annual fee of approximately $40K to operate within their city. Torrance, on the other hand, is only requiring that Car2Go secure a business license at $108 per car.
The Daily Breeze also reported that City Hall has received several complaints from residents due to Car2Go cars parked in residential areas since the program was implemented. In response to those complaints Mayor Scotto promised to, “meet with them [Car2Go] and suggest areas where they could park their cars that would be less intrusive to residents.”
How will that less intrusive parking plan be implemented? Why does it appear that other cities were able to negotiate much more favorable franchise terms? Did the Council ever approve this? These are just a few of the questions that I’m sure residents will want answered at the meeting tomorrow, the details of which are as follows:
Mr. Paulson,
Even in support of your issues I would caution you to utilize more quantifiable language when discussing opposing issues. In your discussion of the Cars2Go meeting you described the supports as several and the dissenters as many. My reaction to this is you are on the anti side . My initial reaction was and still is that your synopsis lacks journalistic credibility.
If your website is biased then you should indicate that to the readers. From your title I thought it to be a nonpartisan forum. In reading it, it appears otherwise. In fact in doing a little more research it would appear to be somewhat sour grapes.
Not sure what your political aspirations are but you need to take a stand. The site is either an non partisan reporting of the political environment in the city or an editorial blog of your perspective of same but acknowledged as such.
I appreciate your astute observation and would welcome further comments from you on this site. I described the Car2Go meetings in that way because my observation was that the public in attendance was decidedly not in favor of the company. It was not meant as a reflection of my own personal feelings on the matter though I will admit I am not a trained journalist and it is likely that my personal feelings will color my commentary (As a side note, I might mention that my observation of the media today is that even trained journalists have a hard time not reporting in unbiased manner). Knowing my journalistic limitations, I am allowing myself the freedom to not structure my posts in the manner you describe. Some posts might be purely reporting. Some posts might be more editorial. Some might be a mix of the two. That said, I am exercising significant caution to present factual information. I would be very disappointed if information I provide is not factually correct and would welcome corrections in that regard.
The site absolutely is intended to be a non-partisan forum and my hope is that the focus will be on the merits of the issues and not the politics. The main goal with my posts is that they will stimulate a conversation of the issues as my title suggests. Whether I am successful in that regard, or whether people just view this as sour grapes, will be up for the readers to decide.
Dear Mr Paulson,
I am a resident of Torrance and I am not happy with the infestation of these Car2go vehicles, they are taking up residential street parking and becoming a problem. Can you reply on this forum as to whether Torrance ever had a public response session? It appears Torrance approved this company but residents like myself were never notified or even had a chance to feedback.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yes, there was a public meeting. See the link below for a summary of that meeting. Unfortunately, the City had already implemented the Program prior to holding the meeting. Thus, the intent of the meeting was probably more to try and alleviate people’s concerns than to solicit input. I will agree that the cars can be frustrating. I live by a school zone and the cars are constantly parking there. I think that is probably to avoid parking in front of people’s houses. School zones get really busy during drop off and pick up times and during soccer matches on the weekend. The cars end up taking valuable parking spaces at really busy times.
http://torrancecitycouncil.com/?p=113