sent this in to the daily camera yesterday. we'll see if they actually print said editorial.
if you're from boulder let us know what you think about the kiosks.


11/30/08

Boulder doesn't like kiosks better than meters-



In regard to the story printed on 11/30/08, I am curious as to when The City of Boulder started influencing policy at The Daily Camera? Journalism is supposed to be ethical and unbiased, no? If not ethical and/or unbiased it becomes simply advertising or editorial. In this case it is a flagrant "high–five" to a city's new policy that the constituents DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT appreciate. So why the "high-five?"
I am a thirty-something professional living in Boulder. As per the stats I have read in various periodicals over the last year, per capita Boulder has one of the highest thirty-something populations in the country, ergo my peers make up a solid portion of the voting population here in the "Boulder Bubble." Also Boulder ranked in the top five if not first or second in highest educated population per capita. We are not fools and do not need our news dumbed-down, nor will we accept shoddy journalism without speaking up. My job keeps me social and I spend much time talking with my fellow citizens. NONE of them have ever expressed to me how much they appreciate the kiosks more so than meters. In fact it has been quite the opposite when the subject has been broached.
The fact that The Camera ran in its SUNDAY edition, and on the front page, how great the kiosks are, lends way to speculation about the motivation for such an article. Seems like something's amiss.
About ninety percent of the story glorifies the kiosks with no real evidence save for skewed and oddly worded statistics which do not express the full spectrum of pertinent information; an important stat left out being a comparison of tax dollars spent on parking pre and post kiosk, instead only giving us how many tickets were issued. The final two paragraphs give an embarrassing (for the camera) amount of time to an alternate and more likely perspective. The article states at its end "it's a pain." Hmmm. Maybe tell us why it's a pain? How about some fair and unbiased elaboration on those who think the kiosk system sucks?


What about this is better than having meters?
1- Having to wait until your time expires before "re up-ing" your time. For example, if you find you need a little more time you cannot simply add to your already purchased time. You must wait until the receipt expires or waste money paying for overlapped time for which you've already paid. In a social climate where every penny matters, I cannot see how anyone could suggest this is a good thing. In and of itself this point is reason enough to get rid of the kiosk system.
2- Having to go back to your car to put in the ticket. In a climate where half the year is prone to cold inclement weather, having to go to one's car again up to 50 yards away could be the difference of getting soaked or having one's child get sick due to exposure. The latter of which is far fetched I know, but nonetheless still possible.
3- The paper receipt – more trash in your car and yet more paper waste produced.
4- Using a credit card or bankcard seems to make it easier for the city to get an extra quarter or two simply by bad arithmetic by the consumer, or simply to try and purchase more time due to my first point.
5- We still haven't been told if the situation is such that fewer tickets have been issued but more of the taxpayers dollars are needlessly going into parking system.
6- Let us not forget the extra hour added six days out of the week to charge the public. How is that better for the consumer?

Considering that we are a nation at war; a nation in an harsh economic downward spiral; a nation presently dealing with mass corruption of our corporate and political structure; a nation with virtually no state health care system, unlike EVERY OTHER EQUALLY DEVELOPED NATION IN THE WORLD; a nation with an ever polarized population pitted against each other, with not a little help from the media I might add, I would suggest there are more pertinent stories worthy of being front page news. This piece is obviously city propaganda to try and convince the public into believing something that is simply not true. I challenge you the reader, or you the editor, should this little diatribe fail to go further than your desk, to go ask anybody how he or she likes the kiosks in comparison to meters. What you would find, at the very least, would surely merit more perspective than The Camera's biased and front page take on the matter. Instead we get what is nothing more than some meaningless piece with no more validity than a paid advertisement.

Shame on you, Daily Camera. We deserve better from our city newspaper.