In Evanston, what goes up does not come down.

That’s not because of some strange experiment at the physics department in the Technological Institute, but rather our theoretical government lab — the Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Ave. And what fails to come down is not that aging edifice (or even the Sherman Avenue garage) but the fees and fines City Council enacts.

This is not to say that revenue-generating measures are unnecessary. Taxpayers have made it clear sometimes a few extra expenses on their part is worth it to help support social programs. But when the city adds taxes and fines as a short-term solution to balance the budget, it creates a long-term burden for residents, because such measures are unlikely to be repealed in the future.

This year the council can avoid increasing that burden — and the hikes they must contain are increased parking fees.

At this point the city has essentially solved the 2004-05 budget gap. After recalculating the revenue generated by the real-estate transfer tax (thank you, condominiums) it looks like the council will not have to dip into city reserves. But concerns remain about balancing the parking fund, which has run at a slight deficit for the past two years.

The fund could be in worse shape. It has been shored up by increased enforcement of parking laws, more money from meters, and especially by income from a program to boot illegally parked vehicles. Last year an increased estimate from parking meters helped aldermen save programs such as the South Branch Library. But Mayor Lorraine H. Morton and others have warned that residents have begun to complain about the increased enforcement — and the connection between tickets and the city budget has not escaped them.

Though it’s hard to argue with more thorough enforcement of the law, these initiatives do not represent a solution to the parking-fund problem in the long run. Eventually, drivers’ behavior will change, and the revenue will begin to dry up. Out-of-town consumers will also be scared away from Evanston’s downtown businesses, which will further decrease city revenue. And because of the rules of city revenue physics — what goes up does not come down — council will continue to expect similar returns in the future.

A more reliable alternative exists that would be less likely to hurt the city in the long run: raising the rates at the city’s parking garages. These rates are already lower than many others in the area, and raising them wouldn’t hurt business so much as increasing fines. Although such an increase might be more noticeable because it would affect everyone, not just those breaking the law, it would also be more honest. Parking costs must rise eventually; it would be best to do it in the most straightforward way possible.

The only problem with this approach is that major changes in Evanston’s parking garages might take place this year, assuming the one on Sherman is finally demolished. Increased prices might further complicate the situation. Ultimately, the best solution would be a schedule of planned rate increases, but this might not be the best year to institute it. For that reason council should consider allowing the parking fund to run a larger deficit than usual this year and find a way to absorb the costs. Paying a greater price now will allow for more reasonable increases in the future.

In any case the nice thing is that if the budget solution will work as well as aldermen claim, council has time to consider these sorts of long-term problems this year — hopefully making up for the budgetary planning that didn’t take place last year. Future costs can be planned for and handled reasonably, instead of being treated as part of a perpetual “budget crisis.”

Evanston residents have learned by this time that the price of living in Evanston is going to increase over time. The best thing aldermen can do is make sure it doesn’t go through the Civic Center’s roof.

City Editor Andy Nelson is a Medill sophomore. He can be reached at [email protected].