Expansion of Parking Meters Should Be Nixed

To The Editor:
In a town whose existence depends on historic ambiance, the proposed ordinances that represent the largest expansion of parking meters in Cape May’s history should not be adopted by the City Council.
The ordinances propose deployment of used meters to create pay parking from Trenton to Wilmington in East Cape May and convert parallel parking to denser “back in” angled parking along Beach from Madison to Wilmington, reducing the size of usable roadway along Beach Avenue to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists alike creating further congestion.
This proposal is not just a bad idea — it is flawed because it violates the requirements of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law and is incompatible with objectives outlined in the City of Cape May’s master plan.
According to Cape May’s zoning regulations, blocks affected by the installation of meters are zoned R-1 Residential and R-S Residential Seasonal—low density uses restricted to secondary historic residential. Most of these homes are used by single families but others are rented to multiple tourist families. The fact remains these homes and the character of the neighborhood is residential. Parking meters placed in these locations will send a message this area is being commercialized. Meter installation in East Cape May represents a destabilization and commercialization of that neighborhood further eroding an intact residential identity and value.
Equally important, areas to be surrounded by meters include architecturally valuable structures dating from the development of East Cape May’s “Newport” beachfront emulation period, once anchored by the Christian Admiral Hotel and thus protected for over 100 years.
Parking meters were designed in 1935 and used in business districts with no thought to ambience. They are litter on a stick. They are inappropriate to preserve the aesthetic ambience of any historic district just as Cape May has avoided using them in other historic districts in the city, such as Hughes Street, Washington, and Columbia. This policy should extend into East Cape May’s residential / historic district.
The installation of used parking meters has been identified by the city as necessary to help raise needed money. However, if meters are to become the vehicle for generating new money, the city should look to other city zoning locations that are more consistent with commercial use and, in fact, it should look into other revenue sources and traffic controls such as a centralized parking facility.
It is most important that economic vitality for the city is accommodated without destabilizing one of Cape May’s most desirable residential neighborhoods. As a former resident of the area, I understand the challenges this secondary historic residential community faces positioned near beach and downtown as it strives to continue to maintain a high quality of life despite the impacts caused by its proximity to the commercial activities in its business district and seasonal tourist traffic.
It is my opinion the city, its hard-pressed taxpaying residents, and tourists will lose more than can be gained by installing parking meters in East Cape May.
Cape May’s elected leadership most certainly is aware that a primary responsibility to the community and future of Cape May is to protect and preserve the integrity and scale of the city. It should do so by abandoning this bad scheme.
JOHN SCHNEIDER
Cape May