Home » Central West End »Downtown »Midtown »Parking »Valet Parking » Currently Reading:

Third Establishment Gets Valet Zone, Others Remain Out of Control

January 21, 2007 Central West End, Downtown, Midtown, Parking, Valet Parking 33 Comments

Last night I drove around for a bit over an hour looking for all the valet parking areas I could find. Starting at 9pm, I figure I hit pretty much all of them. In the past I’ve pretty much focused on the 1100 & 1200 blocks of Washington Avenue with Copia and Lucas Park Grille, respectively. Just over a week aga the Department of Streets set up new valet guidelines which includes the establishment of designated valet zones, they started with Copia & Lucas Park Grille. These keep the valets within a certain boundary but also alert motorists where they cannot park after a certain time.
Keep in mind the intent of the valet zones is to provide an on-street space for customers to drop off or pick up their cars — it is not intended to provide any sort of “VIP” parking for really nice cars. Here were my findings last night.

Restaurants w/valet zones:

  • Lucas Park Grille, 12?? Washington, a Range Rover was parked within the no-parking valet zone. Keep in mind they have an 88ft long zone which by many accounts is too long. If they can keep a Range Rover parked there then they don’t need the space.
  • Copia, 1122 Washington, a Maserati and Mercedes were parked within the no-parking valet zone. The Mercedes was parked in a designated no-parking area blocking fire access to stand pipe for an adjacent building — the fire marshall needs to keep a closer eye on them. Copia’s zone is an amazingly long 129ft so it is no wonder they feel they can park two cars within that
  • The Loft, Olive east of Compton, no problems to report. Zone is a very reasonable three spaces long, all were empty around 9:45pm.

Restaurants w/o valet zones:

  • Eleven-Eleven Mississippi, 1111 Mississippi, large amount of space, cones in street reserving spaces.
  • Pepper Lounge, 2005 Locust, cones reserving large number of spaces on both sides of street.
  • Kyo, 14xx Washington Ave, cones in front of business,
  • Dolce, Broadway @ Olive, massive quantity of spaces reserved on both sides of Broadway, charging $5. Midwest Valet.
  • Tony’s, Market St, block-long no-parking zone in front of restaurant was full of cars presumably parked by valets. Should be designated as parking with time slot for valet service like all other establishments or cars should be ticketed or towed from no-parking zone. Tony’s should not receive any special treatment simply because they are Tony’s.
  • Ten14, 1014 Locust, cones on both sides of street.
  • Harry’s, cones on both sides of street creating lanes with cones and signs.
  • Dante’s, Olive west of Compton, cones reserving spaces on both sides of club, Midwest Valet sign placed within marked bike lane.
  • Mandrin, Maryland Plaza, a few cones out but using limited space not yet marked as valet zone.
  • Bar-Italia, Maryland, cones reserving quite a few spaces.
  • Sub-Zero, Euclid, four spaces taken.
  • Restaurants on Laclede @ Euclid. Valet sign out, two cars parked on Laclede at narrow area.

I have no idea how many of the above actually posses a valid permit. If they do they will, at some point soon, be forced to comply with the new valet regulations and be limited to a still genereous valet zone. Those operating on the streets without permits will become more and more obvious to everyone as the will be the places lacking a designated zone.

In the past I’ve seen on-street valet service at a few other restaurants but none were observed last night. If you can think of additional locations where valets routinely operate let me know using the comments below. I will keep an eye on them and make sure they are all known to the Department of Streets – I’m just thinking they don’t have the staff to drive around at 9pm on a Saturday night.

Dante’s on Olive just west of Compton:


The actual club is up where the cars are parked. These three spaces plus about that many on the other side of their club are being reserved for those willing to shell out $5 to park at public parking spot after you are no longer required to feed the meter. Note the bike lane to the left of the image above.

Midwest Valet has placed their sign within the bike lane, a complete disregard for the safety of others. In more urban minded cities this sort of abuse of bike lanes would not be tolerated.

Harry’s on 22nd at Market Street:


Here they are using public parking spaces across the street from their restaurant to establish a valet lane. This place creates an interesting delima in that most customers will arrive off Market Street (behind me) and their parking lot used to park valeted cars off-street is up ahead. So here a valet zone directly in front of their location might present functional problems for both customers and the valet operator. That said, a reasonable solution needs to be worked out as they are taking up way too many public parking spaces but unless someone is visiting the FBI at night (behind fence at right) they literally are the only users of this street.

Dolce at Olive & Broadway (SE corner):


Once again Midwest Valet is up to old tricks. Here their sign is actually out of the way along Olive but that is only because Olive is two lanes between Broadway and 4th street to the east. My observations on several occassions has been they use Olive for customers to drop off or pick up their cars. It appears they take the cars to a parking garage and do not use the spaces coned off on Broadway.


Dolce is located at the far corner of the building on the right. They’ve coned off 10 spaces on the east side of Broadway and another 3 on the west side (visible at left above). The balance of the west side is no parking in front of the Metropolitan Square building.


This shot gives you a good overview of how empty the area looks, a false impression. Again, I think they park cars in a garage and simply cone off all these spaces so customers will be forced to use the valet service. If customers self-parked, how would they make any money? Again, these are public spaces and someone visiting a friend at a nearby hotel might wish to park there or perhaps going to see friends in the newly opened loft building seen in the background.

It is pretty clear these valet companies, especially Midwest Valet, will continue to abusively take spaces away from the general public until they are forced not to. I’m just glad the Department of Streets if finally taking charge of the problem.


Currently there are "33 comments" on this Article:

  1. john says:

    The Mayor’s office and other alderpersons are apparently too busy designing favors for their favorite “citizens”… especially those that are tax-exempt. Dangling a few million dollars in front of cash hungry politicians seems to monoplolize their attention and other issues, like valet parking, are too “complex” to warrant simple solutions. The basic principles of treating the public with respect and fairness can wait.

  2. LisaS says:

    Valet parking provides cash, too, John. Directly and indirectly. Money talks.

    But surely a balance can be found?

  3. joe b says:

    Giovanni’s on the Hill has valet. I don’t even think they use ANY spots.

  4. ATorch says:

    Charging $ 5 to park at a public meter (past meter hours) which ‘appears’ to be out of their valet zone is total crap and MidwestValet should be fined! No other business, except Busch Stadium, would be allowed to just throw up a $ 5.00 parking sign on a public street adjacent to their business, to park at a public meter …this is really getting out of hand. At least they aren’t parking on the sidewalks any more…….(although the bike lane violations are upsetting).

  5. Tim says:

    We all need to give the Street Department a chance to bring everyone into compliance. Even then I am sure there are those that will seek to take advantage. It is after all human nature to push the envelope, particularly entrpreneurial folks. I believe Steve in his post acknowledges the challenge the Street Department faces. Be patient, folks, it is not going to happen overnight.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Yes, I have patience at this time with Dept of Streets as they are addressing the issue.  What bothers me is the valet companies that now should know better (aka Midwest Valet) but they continue to milk it until the last day they can.]

  6. the dude says:

    i used to work for this ocmpany in my younger, and more foolish, days. and from the short amout of time i worked there, i have found that greg is the most evil man in the city. one of the reasons that they told us to take the spots on the street were not only because no one said they could not, but he had absoulty no lots anywhere to park cars in the vicinity. he should talk to some of the lot owners and see if he can get a few bought for saturday nights where parking on the street is impossiable. he also has yet to pay me. the bastard.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — please reserve your personal attacks on an individual for your own site.  Only I’m allowed to do that here.]

  7. STeel says:

    I think you have mentioned it before, but Wildflower on Laclede at Euclid does valet and it is a major pain in the ass for those of us that frequent the other establishments in that area. Over this past summer they eliminated 3 spots with their patio extensions, and now this valet has gotten out of hand. Often they block the street allowing no traffic in either direction, and although they use an off-site lot, they are quick to fill up any metered spot that is vacant. So they block traffic and take up all the metered spots. This allows very few free options for parking in this area.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Yes, I noticed a sign last night at this corner but with three restaurants all operating next door to each other I did not want to single out any one in particular and be wrong.  The new Euclid streetscape plan looks at cleaning up the hodge podge of design for the patios but fails to consider the valet issue.  Last night I had to wait in the intersection because two parked cars were blocking Laclede heading east.  Such a situation could cause problems with emergency vehicles should the need arise.]

  8. Craig says:

    I would suggest that the City lease these parts of the streets to the valet company for 99 years at a rate of $5,000 per linear foot a year and pegged every ten years to US Treasury bonds. We could use the revenue to maintain the streets.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Very funny suggestion!  I love it!  Let’s see, we need money for maintenance of Forest Park so a long-term lease of a small fraction to a non-public entity is the answer.  So we need street maintenance let’s lease part of the street.  Need sidewalks repaired?  Why not lease sidewalk space to corporate sponsors?  We need municipal money for so many things — I wonder how much our assets we can actually lease to get’r done.]

  9. Jim Zavist says:

    We have (weak) (new) rules. What we don’t have is aggressive enforcement. Hook up all those Range Rovers and Mercedes on a regular basis and force their owner to bail them out of the city impound lot at midnight and THEN you’ll get the attention of both the valet companies and the business that hire them . . .

  10. Jim Zavist says:

    Can the valet companies be cited for the blatant theft of public property when they take over parking spaces (without the appropriate permits) and charge the public to park on a public street (and pocket the cash)?! Valets in handcuffs + patrons unable to retrieve their vehicles after a night of fine dining and/or partying would send a pretty stong message! It all boils down to enforcement . . .

  11. john says:

    Yes Craig’s idea is funny but already true. The power and influence of political offices are already being leased to the highest nonelected bidder… perhaps the only things we have left are the sidewalks and the parks. Unfortunately the sidewalks are being poorly maintained so they can be used to prove blight (therefore giving government officails the power of ED), the park already has a highway built through it and new non-public buildings being planned for the SE corner. The lack of law enforcement in the valet issue is policy whether or not the local elected leaders want to admit it. This abuse of public right-of-ways can be fixed by one phone call. In a larger context, the privatization of public assets, particularly those lacking adequate funding, has the potential to eliminate public burdens and improve the quality of life for the whole community, if properly managed. Good public policy is rarely the result of desperate leadership… leadership that doesn’t even care about equitable law enforcement.

  12. What about the Chase Park Plaza? When they have events they basically cone of a lane and use it as a landing strip for guests. What is your view on that usage? Not actually for parking but can cause traffic issues as I have seen two accidents in my semi-frequent visits to the Cinema or Cafe Eau.

  13. k.m.neill says:

    As Jim said, once some of these schnazzy cars get towed up to the city impound lot, then things will start to happen. These valet companies aren’t going to comply if they don’t even get a slap on the wrist. I guarantee a trip to the Hall St. impound lot will change their attitudes!

    Also, Steve, if we citizens of St. Louis feel that are public spaces, in this case, public parking, are being abused by others, is there an individual or entity we can contact to express our concern?

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Most likely all of the abuses I show in this post are “legal” in that the city issued permits as such.  Slowly the city’s Department of Streets is working their way to each and every spot to bring about reform by way of a designated valet zone.  

    The issue of parking high-end cars within a valet zone is a new one as they zones have only been around for a week.  Again, the new acting director of streets is being very pro-active with respect to valet parking so I’m optimistic he will address issues.  Keep in mind, one of the key issues in the new valet rules is that permits are renewed every 3 months.  Repeat violations, such as parking cars within the valet zone, may result in the permit not getting renewed.   Copia & Lucas Park Grille need to understand that is where this is headed — they abuse the space they are given and they may find themselves without valet parking at all.]

  14. john says:

    I tend to disagree with your conclusion that these abuses are “legal”. Two examples which you illustrate with pictures are typicallly characterized as illegal: Expropriation (the transference of ownership rights w/o payment); Hazards (creating unnecessary and dangerous situations such as the blocked bike lane and cones placed outside of permitted zones). Certainly local ordinances must be updated to clarify vague or missing regulation. However, towing Mercedes and Rovers is a terrrible idea and irresponsible. True enough, it will cause a stir but the true vilians should be punished not those who dealt in good faith. Towing the vehicles of the wealthy will likely result in more power to the violators, not less. Using the Rover-Mercedes reasoning, perhaps the ones that should be arrested and jailed are the voters who elected these irresponsible leaders.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Yes, I guess what I meant was that taking up large quantities of spaces in exchange for a fee paid to the city is legal.  That is, the city set a fee and issued a permit upon payment.  I agree we should not be towing people’s cars  — although a ticket or warning would certainly prove embarrassing to the city, the restaurant and valet company.  After that, have a city tow truck show up around 10pm on a Friday or Saturday giving the valets 5 minutes to move the offending vehicles.  I’m guessing that sort of show will communicate quickly to the valet companies the city intends to enforce the rules.  Given my experiences over the last year, it will take the threat of towing a customer’s Maserati to get their attention.]

  15. Jim Zavist says:

    Philosophical question – Is valet parking viewed more as an amenity (a way for folks to impress) or as a necessity (suburban folks won’t come into the city if they have to walk around the corner / park in a “scary” garage or lot)? The predominant mindset colors the majority of these discussions. My guess is that most establishments (especially restaurants) offer valet parking as a way to encourage suburban customers who would otherwise be uncomfortable or afraid of walking more than half a block in “the most dangerous city in the country”. If so, it’s going to be difficult to persuade the powers that be that significant changes are in order. The ones that already have valet parking will claim that any drop in business is a direct result of limiting parking, and any drop in business results in a drop in tax revenues . . .

    [UrbanReviewSTL — This is certainly a valid question.  I think the answer is a bit of both — a service for those that simple don’t want to walk to far in their fashionable but expensive Manolo Blahnik’s as well as an increased perception of safety.  I’ve never advocated the elimination of valet service but it may indeed be the only way to curb abuses.  

    When the Tap Room opened in 1991 their entrance was off of 21st street — a pretty desolate area at the time.  I don’t recall them ever having valet yet they managed to attract and retain a healthy business. KitchenK has been open for a number of years without valet.  Upscale places like Mosaic and Dubliner, all in the same area as Copia, have managed without valet service.  So either they attract a different clientele or maybe valet service is more a luxury than necessity.]

  16. Jim Zavist says:

    Yes, towing would be pretty aggressive. But if you look at the disclaimer any valet service provides, they assume no responsibility for anything – they just provide a limited service. Would it be “fair” to Joe Chesterfield to have his Range Rover towed? Not in his mind. But it’s also very unfair to all of us city residents to see our city infrastructure generating revenues that are not returned to the city (by unlicensed valet services or by ones claiming more spaces than their permit allows)! The restaurant typically leases the space inside the building, but can’t or won’t lease any adjacent parking. What gives their customers more of a priority to “claim” a nearby parking space than you or I? We don’t “own” the spaces in front of our homes (unless we can claim a handicapped parking space), so why should a business be allowed to “claim” multiple spaces in front of their location (don’t get me started on similar abuses by government agencies)?

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Agreed!  The problem is the Dept of Streets, in trying to fix the problem, set the valet zones for too large a space.  Clearly the valet companies do not need the amount of space they were given if they are able to leave cars parked within the zone. If they are able to functionally operate their service in the space remaining after they leave a car or two parked within their zone that means the zone is too large.]

  17. equals42 says:

    It is nice to see something open at night on the corner of Olive and Broadway. Even the newsstand is closed on weekends which gives the whole area a dead feel. With the Marquette filling with new Downtown residents soon, the valet company here really needs to be reined in. The first impression of new homeowners and their friends should not be ruined by the site of a whole block of cones. It is bad enough in that block with the past three years worth of construction blocking nearly every parking spot. [The Hilton and the parking garage across Olive blocked a whole block for at least a year. The Marquette construction has taken away two lanes on Olive and a lane on Broadway for 2 years. The Fed Reserve has permanently taken one lane on Broadway and removed Locust from 4th to Broadway.] A vibrant restaurant/club there helps greatly as long as they plan nice with the neighbors and other Downtown residents.

    BTW, the best cobbler in town hangs his shingle at the foot of the Marquette on Broadway. He has had to move around during the construction to around the block at Locust and 4th. I hope he is back in his original spot. Great guy who can save any pair of shoes! Even fixed up my leather jacket once.

  18. Margie says:

    john said: “perhaps the only things we have left are the sidewalks and the parks.”

    Ummmm … except for where we’ve given them away too … like at Washington and Tucker, SW corner, an attractive pocket park which the mayor’s office handed over to the developer of the adjacent loft building for a private surface parking lot without so much as one neighborhood meeting.

    I was prez of the Downtown Residents Association at the time, and this was unfortunately an all-too-typical gesture by this administration.

  19. STL Resident says:

    Steve, in response to one of your responses.

    Valet is both a necessity and a luxary. True, the rich and fabulous dont want to mess up their shoes so they choose valet. But valet can be used for many purposes; safety, luxary, attraction (by that I mean people see valet and they think, ooo this place is happening).
    Remember, the valet companies that do pay the permits are paying the city. So the city is making money. I dont want to get into the whole paying 5 bucks for public parking argument like above, we will go in circles.
    The remark that got me is “I’ve never advocated the elimination of valet service but it may indeed be the only way to curb abuses”

    All business deserve the right to operate. Anything can be controlled, it just HAS to be controlled, and this falls on the lap of the department of streets.

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Ah, I see your point now. The city’s failure to control the issue absolves the valet company and restaurants of any responsibility.  That argument might work for blaming parents for not controlling their minor child but it doesn’t work with licensed businesses.  They are big boys, they should be able to restrain themselves especially now that they know new rules are being set.  Like I said, they are simply milking the system for as much as they can get away with until someone does something about it.] 

  20. john says:

    Valet is an amenity and necessity. Increasing law enforcement only disturbs the valet company that breaks the law and shouldn’t interfere with customers (although I would expect business owners to make such claims). The best attention getter for violations would be revocation of the valet permit (all permits if a repetitive pattern becomes evident). Tell me why should a Masreati parked in a metered space receive a ticket, especially if the owner placed it there and outside the permitted zone? (If the valet service did it then it’s a different matter…but then again the valet must be witnessed doing such and the owner should not receive a ticket). In addition, there seems to be a strong bias in these comments regarding non-city residents as if they’re the ones creating the “demand for valet”. My bet is that many of the customers are from the ‘burbs, but city dwellers in StL drive too, as if you didn’t notice. This business generation should be appreciated, especially in a city desperate for revenues. And yes it is clear to me that the sidewalks and parks have low priority… shameful. Even simple issues can be made complicated by conflicted leadership.

  21. LisaS says:

    Margie …. the City Property Tax records show that plot as being currently owned by the LCRA …. email me, I’m curious about the story …

  22. Jim Zavist says:

    John, yes city dwellers drive, as well – we’re just more likely to park around the corner on a “scary” side street where we can score a free parking space (or hop on Metrolink) . . . a Maserati or a Yugo that’s parked legally (by either an owner or a valet) won’t get a parking ticket – our whole discussion centers around the misappropriation of on-street parking spaces by private companies and vehicles being parked illegally by valet companies. I also have no problem with valet companies who operate legally (with appropriate permits), using ±3 spaces to provide drop-off and pick-up service in front of a business. I do object to any business claiming 5-10-20 spaces or even both sides of a street, and I have major problems with valet companies operating without permits, since they are NOT generating revenues for the city!

  23. john says:

    Jim, what’s your point? Besides advocating to punish car drivers who deal in good faith, your comments have nothing to say about revenue generation. Ridiculing people who are “scared” (where in the world does your info come from: “more likely to park around the corner”?) is wrong. No offense, but the issue is “non-permitted” use which is clearly abusive. Valet parking interferes with revenue collection and the public’s right-of-ways. Bullying business practices should not be tolerated and ugly suggestions, due to strange biases, are only beneficial to those who succeed through abusive tactics. For the city coffers, expanding the hours and rates of metered parking would probably more beneficial. Personally, I avoid valet service like the plague as I, my wife and children ride our bikes or walk whenever possible, even at night. The trouble in riding in the city is the number of laws continually being broken which endangers my family, especially those running red lights and not caring for bike riders. We agree that the problem is due to inadequate law enforcement but he who suggests that the innocent should be punished in order to get “attention” is promoting the thesis that two wrongs can make a right.

  24. Jim Zavist says:

    John – My point? There are a lot of suburbanites who won’t venture into the city unless they absolutely have to, and when they do, they have a lot fears, both real and unfounded, over both their own personal safety and that of their property (you can thank the media). That’s why many restaurants in urban areas offer valet parking – it addresses one of the big reasons for not patronizing that establishment / coming into the city. Since we live in the city, we have a better grasp on the reality of living here, so we’re less in need of dashing 20′ from door to door and handing over the responsibility for finding a parking place to a third party. Personally, like you, I’d rather avoid using a valet – I know that they’re not responsible. I’d rather find an on-street space or one in a garage and hang onto my own keys, even if it means walking a block or two. Which is also why I’m not a big fan of valet parking, legal or illegal. There are only so many on-street spaces, and if you have a half-dozen dining places in the same block and most decide to offer valet parking (even if it’s properly permitted), you’ll eliminate all on-street parking! These are still public streets, and it should remain a first-come, first-served situation when it comes to claiming parking spots. I also agree that longer hours for metered parking is probably a good answer, but it needs to be balanced with the reality that dining often takes longer the two hours. As for punishing “innocent” drivers whose vehicles are ticketed because they were parked illegally by a valet – that’s an issue between two private parties, the vehicle owner and the valet “service”. If it happened to me, I’d insist that the valet or his or her employer pay the ticket. As a city resident, I simply want to see the existing laws enforced, and it doesn’t matter who parked illegally, the car is still illegally parked!

  25. The Realist says:

    I suggest that in the midst of your petty ramblings, you discover an actual valid subject to debate and exploit. Midwest Valet uses a reasonable portion of normally unused parking spots and locations to store its customers vehicles. So what. The business, the company and the city are all making money from the transaction. And yes, Midwest DOES have permits for every location they valet for. They have legal documentation at each venue along with rights to use those given parking locations. This was one of the most bitterly juvenile articles I’ve read in a while. I even worked for Greg and yes, he is an obnoxious jackass, but for future reference, find something interesting or honestly controversial to complain about…

    [UrbanReviewSTL — Wow, what a brilliant comment.  First, for future reference, you might want to read more on the subject before commenting.  This has been  ongoing for more than a year when I wrote this piece and have fully documented how they’d cone off spaces simply to force people to pay for valet services rather than use free and available on-street parking.  Furthermore, we must take into account other businesses in the area and guests of residents — these people have as much right to public parking spaces as anyone else.]

  26. Myself says:

    As a midwestvalet worker I can say that all that people that let us park their cars are being scammed,you guys can park the car across the street or nearby.
    Why do you guys pay for such stupid service?
    I shouldn’t say this(you might don’t believe me) but most of are venues have tons of parking lots around the area and you are paying for that,many,many times we park your cars in areas where ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY is allowed to do so.
    I need the money that’s the reason I work…..but it’s not fair what you pay for that.

  27. bizarrehumor says:

    what in the hell is wrong with you people…. do you honestly have an entire blog dedicated to parking spaces? do you frequent these places so often that you have a genuine outrage that you cant get a free spot in front of the building because a valet service that by law pays for the spaces to the city and then charges money to park there? i think that the issue is not the amount of parking spaces or the inconvenience to bikers, its that you have nothing more fullfilling in your sad lives to concern yourselves with other than bitching about a ridiculous subject. live alittle bit….you know…outside of the internet.

  28. john w. says:

    bizarrehumor- you’ve clearly not read many posts on many subjects at this blog if you actually believe what you just wrote. The range of topics on this blog spans the small, like this very thread (however, the current trend of valet services being offered when not necessary could be considered a larger problem) to the very large (state legislative issues, tax incentive issues, unforgivable demolitions of great historic architecture, etc), so I would encourage you to explore the archives if you’re truly interested and not assume that those who care enough to post their opinions live “sad lives”.

  29. john says:

    Tampa growing up? Postdarmer Platz is serious, artsy too in Berlin…message clear:

  30. mvpemploye says:

    ATorch – “Charging $ 5 to park at a public meter (past meter hours) which ‘appears’ to be out of their valet zone is total crap and MidwestValet should be fined!”

    I currently work for Midwest Valet and the $5 that is collected goes to the establishment that we are parking for. It is a way for them to get some money back for having the valet service at their business. The valets only get what they are paying hourly out of that $5 per car, and we don’t receive that for two weeks after the event. I’m not standing up for the company by any means but I feel that you should be aware of the facts.

    I have only worked for the company for a few weeks and during that time the company has seemed quite shaky. Management was late for my interview, I was 20 minutes early. The manager was late dropping of equipment my first day on the job, we were unable to park several cars during this time. For our “training meeting” the manager was at least 15 minutes late. There have been several complaints made about the company on a number of websites. I can’t understand how you would like to run your business in this manner. I am currently seeking another job to get me through college. Wish me luck!

  31. a.torch says:

    I left that response in 2007; thanks for the timely response, you managed to miss the point too! At the time (2005 – 2007) the valets were out of control, usurping parking meters a block away when others had business to do in front of their our buildings. They usually did not have permits for the spaces they were taking too….we left in 2006 so I am not going to revisit or extend the converstaion any longer.

  32. a.torch says:

    It was the ‘OUT of their permitted zones’ that was the problem, not the $ 5!


Comment on this Article: