Should U.P. Charge to Park at Burleson?
A lifelong area resident and loyal reader makes an excellent point about University Park’s turf near SMU.
I think someone should look into why the city leaves over 150 parking spaces around Burleson Park without time limits. SMU students/sororities/staff park there for free, in our public parking, all day and all night long. Meanwhile, residents get ticketed for weeds in the alleys behind their homes. That parking represents a valuable asset, owned by UP residents. We pay taxes for it’s upkeep, yet it is being used by a private university for free. The city should negotiate a fee with the school or put up parking meters and get paid if SMU wants to use it. In these days of budget deficits and code violation crusades, this looks like low lying fruit to me.
12 comments to "Should U.P. Charge to Park at Burleson? "
Here are some thoughts in response to a good question.
A few years ago the City placed a few 2-hour parking slots there. Recently we added a few more. These steps were taken to assure that those who want to use Burleson Park can do so. If the City adds parking meters to the mix, Burleson would be the only park in the city where residents would have to pay to play. Additionally, if parking meters are added there, some vehicles parked at Burleson would migrate to on-street parking near by. As a result those blocks would become more congested.
On the plus side, during the past several months SMU has added hundreds of on-campus parking slots. The City and University are discussing methods to maximize use at these locations. Although it’s a few years away, the University’s announcement that it will build more dorms will reduce on-street parking congestion too.
As an SMU employee I can say that if SMU lowered the price of parking (and it is quite a bit more than the $100 a year figure that was mentioned)it would remove the incentive for many to park at greater distance on U.P. streets. I should also say that if you metered all of the spots around Burleson Park it would push people to residential streets farther north and west of the park, many of which are not currently restricted in any noticeable way. So for this reason you are better off just leaving it as it is — UNLESS you are prepared to zone large swaths of U.P. streets for resident permit parking only AND spend your tax dollars hiring people to enforce it. I recommend that everybody just calm down.
Frankly, I am prepared to “zone large swaths of U.P. streets for resident permit parking only AND spend your tax dollars hiring people to enforce it.” At least it’d create a few jobs (which is more than the Obama has created in the last 2 years.) Quit being a cheap SOB and get your employer to give employees free parking to get them off our streets.
If I lived in U.P., I would indeed consider doing just that — just expand permit parking markedly and stop worrying about it. That was the case in the campus-adjacent section of a college town in the Midwest where I lived before I came here and people (residents and university parkers) seem to have adapted well enough. I’m afraid I have no leverage with the parking authorities at SMU, who seem to want to use the inflated fees to recoup their investment in the garages and who knows what else. I believe things will get somewhat better when all of the current construction projects are done, though many of the spots east of the library will never come back.
That said, I believe people need to be more civil. Some well meaning U.P. resident put a threatening sign on my car once for parking in a perfectly legal unrestricted spot (and NOT blocking traffic or anybody’s ingress/egress). I simply don’t understand the logic that because a spot is near your house that it is “yours”. Pass the law if you’ve got the votes.
Leave a Reply