Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
I think there is an argument to be made that the $1M infill owner is paying a lot more tax than the $300K subarbanite, and not necessarily getting a higher standard of service because of it. Is it ok that their taxes pay for some metal signs and enforcement?
I personally would be in favour of some grandfathering. If you have a garage, you should have to pay for on street permits. There are still lower income people in the inner city, and some of them have no option for parking a vehicle they may depend upon to make a living. If you have no garage, free permits.
I do agree that opening more parking for suburbanites in the inner city is important to support businesses, and the urban dwellers shouldn't forget that their "cool" neighbourhood is often of such low density due to their NIMBYism that it relies on tourists from the suburbs to survive as it is.
|
I actually really like this solution.
It's a nice balance between the two options, and it puts a little bit of responsibility on the city for allowing housing that requires on street parking, while still ensuring that people who are parking 4 cars on the street should maybe bear some of the responsibility/cost of doing so.
I would like something along the lines of
50 ft lot with a garage: 1 free pass
50 ft lot without a garage: 2 free passes
25 ft lot with a garage: 0 passes
25 ft lot without a garage: 1 pass
Of course, this plan will probably cost more than the current system, so maybe it's not such a great idea.
Now let's figure out what is appropriate for visitor passes.