[timun]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I don't buy into the logic or premise that "we all paid for it". Parking, permits, enforcement etc. It's a city service and the city is paying those expenses by the taxes and parking revenue it generates. It's not like enforcement and parking control in the far flung suburbs is being paid by those who are benefiting directly. It's spread across the board.

"We all paid for it" in the sense that the cost to administer the program was not being made up by the enforcement revenue brought in. That's what the new pricing is based on: how much to recoup the cost of the program and make it "revenue neutral"?

I have no problem of changing the way things are run in the city but there needs to be some perspective. We are a car oriented city, 100%. Previous councils and the current council are 100% on board with expanding our far reaching communities even further, needing a car for transportation for a lot of people. I get we have transit, but out transit usage outside of major rush hour and off peak hours is very weak. Getting around the city for some basic errands and seeing friends etc on a weekend can literally take a few hours in travel time, and I am not talking about end to end parts of the city, inner city to a SW suburb like Braeside can take forever.

So I am left with how to we bridge the gap of a very cold winter city who has

1) Poor overall transit options across the board that really doesn't make it convenient to get around different parts of the city during the entire day

2) A road network that could use improving

3) A council, no matter who get's elected, that continues to expand the reach out further and further away needing more roads and more cars.

4) A city metro population approaching 1.5 million people and growing, mostly outward

5) A DEAD downtown for a city of our size. I am not talking about a street like 17th or 4th having some action on a Saturday night. Huge vacancy issues, a lack of life after office hours and a lack of opportunity for growth downtown for residents.

I just don't know if charging for more parking and pushing more people away is the answer. People downtown and in these parking zones are also paying a LOT in taxes and a lot in rent and that will only continue to go up. How much are we trying to extract from people for basic things like parking?

Frankly these are a bunch of strawmen arguments. "Transit is mediocre, the road network could use improving, the city continues to sprawl, the city continues to sprawl, and the nightlife in the central business district isn't lively" has absolutely nothing to do with residential parking permits whatsoever.

"Charging more for parking and pushing people away"? Pushing people away from what? "People downtown" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion: there are no residential parking permits downtown.

Let's not kid ourselves, this program WILL be expanding and expanding quickly and than all of a sudden it's going to be everybody else's turn to have the fun. I don't think for a moment that a lightbulb went off in someone's head and asked if it made sense to have this become "revenue neutral"

Let's not kid ourselves: this is an entirely fictitious scenario. Just like this remark earlier:

Originally Posted by curves2000

From my understanding the city is planning on introducing this style of paid parking privilege for on street parking onto streets that aren't currently in permit parking zones, just the normal 2 hour limit zones until 6 pm etc.

Prove it. Prove to me that this is the plan. Cite a planning document, a policy; something that says this.

Like I said earlier:

Originally Posted by timun

The biggest problem with this change to the parking permit program is blatant misinformation and falsehoods like buddy in Mission having to pay $150/mo. for parking, and spurious rumours like this.