Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

Most people that visit Ken Drennon are certain that he lives in Gardena.  As Ken will readily tell you, however, he is a proud resident of Torrance.  Ken claims nobody believes he lives in Torrance due to the condition of his street.  He has lived just off 164^th street (pictured right) for the past 35 years.  Not once, in all that time, does he recall 164^th being paved.  The street is in such disrepair that Ken can fit a full sized stapler in many of its cracks.

Road repairs, or the lack thereof, is a big issue in Torrance.  Former Mayor Scotto recently stated in a Daily Breeze article that residents are “seeing a lot of potholes, because they [the roads] are 10 years past when they should have been fixed.”

Ken has a bad back and says that constantly traveling the bumpy road is painful.  He’s called the City several times a year for the past 10 years to see if they could do anything about his street.  At his wits end, Ken recently decided to show up at City Council meeting to complain.  The timing was ironic as the Council recently budgeted an additional $1 Million for road repairs to address the poor condition of Torrance streets.  Unfortunately for Ken, however, it does not appear any of that money will be going to fix 164^th  or any other street in his neighborhood.

A staff report indicates that money will instead first go to paving streets in some of the wealthiest areas of town.  Those neighborhoods can be found here and include such streets as Reese Road (pictured right).  Another recent staff report reveals that decisions on what roads to pave are based on the existing pavement conditions, current maintenance needs, and the length of time that has elapsed since previous repairs were completed.

Whether Reese Road and the others designated for repair are truly the highest priority or whether some neighborhoods receive preferential treatment is difficult to say for certain without additional information.  Ken, for his part, can’t say for sure, but what he will say is that he doesn’t believe his street would look like it does if he lived on the other side of town.

When I initially heard of Car2Go my first thoughts were neat concept and great use of technology.  I also liked the idea of giving the public more affordable transportation options.  As I’ve become more educated about the company, my opposition to it has grown to the point that I now think Car2Go should go – go as in leave Torrance.

My biggest concern is the use of public property to gain a competitive advantage. I believe public property, especially here in Torrance, is extremely valuable and that each taxpayer has a stake in how that property is utilized. Selling a license to use public parking virtually without restrictions in residential areas for as little as $108 dollars is a devaluation of public property and opens the door for other corporations to take advantage of the same offer. According to Council meeting notes, Taxi companies pay $210K a year at as much as $35K per company to Torrance just for the right to utilize Torrance streets (not park). Allowing Car2Go such favorable terms to operate their service, while not affording other similar companies the same deal, exposes the city to costly lawsuits not in the best interest of the taxpayer.

If allowed to continue to operate, I believe it opens the door for other companies to utilize public parking in residential areas on the same terms.  Some residents may not be bothered by a Smart car parked in front of their house.  I wonder, however, if those same residents might be concerned about a U-Haul truck.  What about an Ice-Cream Truck, a Hot Dog Stand, or a Food Truck?

The Car2Go operation is also a fairly clear violation of City Ordinance 88.5.9 and I think allowing them to violate that ordinance for such a small price sets a bad precedent and again exposes the city to lawsuits.

The convenience of the Car2Go service already exists in the form of buses, Taxis, and other companies like Uber. You could make an argument it’s more affordable for some, but I think those savings would be minimal. An Uber from my house to my work in El Segundo, a ride that generally takes 30 minutes, is quoted by Uber at $13 – 18. A City bus, which I’ve taken many times, costs $1.50. Car2Go would be around $13.

In my mind, the possible cost savings to what will likely be a very, very small percentage of Torrance residents, is overshadowed by the concerns described above as well as the inconvenience many have expressed due to further reductions in available parking. The parking inconvenience is a real issue to me as evidenced by the many complaints received by City Staff, and the number of folks speaking out against it at public meetings and on social media.

The Car2Go issue needs to formally come before the City Council and the Council should decide whether to renew the business license instead of the deal being brokered behind closed doors by City Staff.  At the very least, I think the Council should consider having designated parking spots in the City similar to bus stops and that Car2Go should only be able to park in those spots and I think the City should negotiate a much better deal to the taxpayer for the license to use those designated spots.

Some might also find the link found here eerily similar describing the Car2Go experience in England. It didn’t seem to be very popular there.

Fran Fulton from the Torrance economic development department and Will Berry location manger from Car2Go opened the Car2Go meeting by briefly explaining the service.  Ms. Fulton then opened the meeting for public comments.

Many residents raised concerns about the service and the potential loss of available parking spaces.  Aurelio Mattucci, a recent candidate for City Council, objected that Car2Go was able to utilize public property at the expense of the taxpayer to gain a competitive advantage.  He also commented that it could lead to other auto rental services such as U-Haul trucks and Enterprise rent-a-cars parked on public streets.  John Paul Tabakian, another recent candidate for Council, questioned the legality of Car2Go and posited that the City opened itself up to lawsuits by allowing Car2Go to violate one of its own ordinances.  That ordinance is Article 88.5.9 and it states the following:

“Any vehicle with advertising permanently attached to it or temporarily placed upon it for the purpose of advertising a business, service or product shall not be parked on private or public property so as to serve as a billboard or sign.”

Mark Stephenson, a frequent commentator at Council meetings, noted it could undermine significant investments the City has already made in other public transit avenues such as the forthcoming mass transit center thereby diminishing the value of those investments to the taxpayer.

Other residents expressed support for the service citing increased ability to reduce the number of personally owned vehicles and availability of more affordable short trips.

City Staff and Car2Go also responded to several questions raised including the following:

Q.  Has the city met with Car2Go and mapped out the city providing suggestions on where they could park their cars that would be less intrusive to residents as indicated by former Mayor Scotto in a recent Daily Breeze article?

A.  No.  The City has not met with Car2Go on this subject and currently has no restrictions on what public parking spaces Car2Go can utilize within Torrance.

Q.  What is the exact term of the agreement and will other entities be afforded the same deal.

A.  Car2Go will pay just over $5K for an annual business license.  This was based on Torrance charging $108 per car estimated to be used within Torrance.  Car2Go provided the 48 car estimate.   Yes, other entities will be afforded the same deal.

Q.  How did the Car2Go agreement bypass City Council approval?

A.  Torrance and Car2Go could not come to terms on a franchise fee as Car2Go did not want to pay the fees they are paying to other local cities to compensate for lost parking meter revenue.  In Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach these fees amount to about $40K respectively.  When talks broke down, it was determined that Car2Go could go forward solely with the business license and that Council approval was not necessary.

Q.  How will the city regulate Car2Go?  For example, one citizen expressed concern that they recently had 3 Car2Go cars parked at one intersection.  Car2Go would come and rotate the cars every 3 days to avoid the 72 hour no parking rule.

A.  City Staff will let Car2Go know about any complaints and will rely upon Car2Go to self-regulate.

Q.  Will Car2Go be subject to ticketing for Street Sweeping and who will pay the tickets?

A.  Car2Go consumers are responsible to not park on public streets that have scheduled Street Sweeping within 24 hours.  If they do and the car is ticketed the last user of the vehicle will owe the ticket.

It was a lively meeting with one resident drawing chuckles from the crowd when she exasperatedly queried company officials, “If you only have 15 North American cities that you operate within, WHY TORRANCE??”