If we weren’t previously convinced that parking is one of the thorniest issues in America, we are now. As a June 17 story in the Source detailed, parking has been a divisive issue in Bend for decades — probably going back to when Bend became one of the first cities, in the 1940s or ‘50s, to add meters to its streets. That program continued until the 1980s, when meters were removed, according to our reporting, “to spur economic improvement.” The notion of having people pay for parking downtown continues its back-and-forth swing into the present date — a political football, passed around and argued about among average citizens, business owners, political operatives and policy wonks alike.
The issue heated up again in Bend last month, when the Downtown Bend Business Association released its Parking Management Plan Draft — a suggested plan that solicits community feedback while it also recommends doing away with much of the free two-hour parking on Bend streets. The plan suggests replacing free spots with paid spaces that people can stay in for longer than two hours, paying more as time progresses.
The DBBA doesn’t manage or control parking, as it states in its plan, and released the plan with the idea that it would be a springboard for further conversation about the topic. And boy, did it start conversation.
As of the time of our reporting on the draft plan, over 1,000 people had submitted feedback on the plan to the DBBA itself. Meanwhile, a group of business owners, representing about one-third of the property owners downtown, signed a letter asking the City to pause the draft plan. They told the Source they want to gather more information before moving anything forward — and as it stands, it seems more information is needed.
One thing glaringly missing from the draft plan thus far: How much the program is projected to bring in, and how that revenue, if any, will be spent. If an expanded paid parking program would bring in significant revenues for the City of Bend’s coffers, some residents, keen to see more streets improved, for example, might be more inclined to support it. (The DBBA suggests using any revenue for things like beautification of downtown or future public amenities, such as restrooms.) If, however, the program would be merely self-supporting, paying for parking staff but not much else, some residents may see that as a waste of time and resources.
What’s more, the data thus far analyzed in the DBBA’s draft plan is murky on the need for the program. According to our reporting, “The City’s monitoring data shows that during mid-day on the busiest weeks of the year, like Thanksgiving or Fourth of July, up to nine out of every 10 parking spaces were occupied, according to a summary provided by the City. But most streets did not see average occupancy climb higher than 85% when considering averages from the three busiest times of the day.”
So on the busiest weeks of the year, parking was nearly full — but presenting the data from the two busiest weeks of the year is akin to analyzing one’s drinking habits based on your consumption on New Year’s Eve. It’s not exactly indicative of what happens the rest of the year.
Cities, of course, need to plan for growth and for circumstances as they will exist in the future. Those numbers give local planners a sense of what things could be like five years down the road. Still, cherry-picking numbers is problematic. So, too, is the notion of a “community survey” about parking, which doesn’t appear to have been set up to accurately poll a representative sample of the community. Were it the City, rather than a private business association, doing the survey, we’d be able to hold our government to those basic standards. Presently we have a survey that includes, we can only assume, a high number of business owners and building owners who do not own the City streets any more than the average resident does.
If you’re not yet convinced that parking is the toughest gig in America, here’s one last piece of evidence: After releasing this plan and speaking on its behalf, the executive director of the DBBA resigned this week.
Why the DBBA, a private entity that doesn’t control parking, is the entity presenting a plan, rather than the City itself, is a lingering question here. Perhaps cloaking it in a friendly survey from the business community was a less-blistering way to pass around this political hot potato, but in any case, the issue of parking downtown is no less red-hot.
This article appears in the Source July 9, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I’d ask what the DBBA is hoping to glean from a change in current parking practices. What’s their motive for all paid slots and time extension potential? Murky is right!
Good story. This all seems pretty slap dash to me. I suspect the program will cost as much as it will earn. What is gained?