Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Weitz]

This is an interesting proposal.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...arking-permits

The city could put an end to offering free residential parking permits if members of council endorse a recommendation from staff that seeks to overhaul the 46-year-old program.

[TorqueDog]

"After the idea of making the city a playground zone, this has to be the second stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of," Farkas said. "People shouldn’t have to pay to park in front of their home. Increasing these fees is the last thing we need right now, especially with this economy."

Dear Calgary City Council: Please stop making me agree with things Jeromy Farkas says.

[Fuzz]

Maybe they could reduce it to one free permit, and an escalating cost for more.

[Table 5]

Personally I wish they went back to the simple hanging paper permits for visitors. Having to login every time to digitally do it is annoying.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Personally I wish they went back to the simple hanging paper permits for visitors. Having to login every time to digitally do it is annoying.

Finding a way to integrate it into the Calgary Parking app would make more sense, IMHO.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Finding a way to integrate it into the Calgary Parking app would make more sense, IMHO.

It's i n the Calgary Parking App... sort of.

It just sucks.

If the thing worked where you could have a list of favourite plates, and maybe some nicer widget/voice integrations it could be way easier than hang tags.

"Hey Siri, add parking for Steve".

Having to type the plate every time for regular visitors is such a PITA.

If you're suggesting that the person doing the parking opens their Calgary Parking app and opens a session at the residence they are in front of, and the permit holder can either approve them indefinitely or just that one time or something, that would be super handy too.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Dear Calgary City Council: Please stop making me agree with things Jeromy Farkas says.

Do you know what the cost to society is for parking minimums?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Do you know what the cost to society is for parking minimums?

Land is free, ain't it?

[Erick Estrada]

It's a thinly veiled attempt at further taxing inner city owners, penalizing them for not living in the suburbs. Rather than looking at solutions through higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils, the path of least resistance always leads to increasing taxes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's a thinly veiled attempt at further taxing inner city owners, penalizing them for not living in the suburbs. Rather than looking at solutions through higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils, the path of least resistance always leads simply to increasing taxes.

Yes, the mythical "higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils" that makes a nice sounding phrase, but no actual suggestion of what that entails.

Seems like they did the work:

In 2018-19, the city granted close to 36,000 residential permits. Combined with visitor and other special permits, the program generated $101,000 in revenue.

The city operates the program at a cost of nearly $1.4 million.

“Despite rigorous cost-cutting measures over the past four years using automated enforcement and online payment, resources are still needed to manage the program,” the report stated. “There is also considerable loss of revenue in specific areas where residential parking for the exclusive use of residents would otherwise be paid on-street parking.”

What solution did you have in mind? They cut costs, it still loses actual money as it stands and then misses out on potential revenue from paid parking on top of that.

Should the city just operate this problem at a loss forever, as a favour? The other alternative would be removing the program entirely and letting whoever wants to park there, park there. God speed residents.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What solution did you have in mind?

"Trim the fat, cut waste, and find efficiencies." You know, the conservative trifecta unicorn.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's a thinly veiled attempt at further taxing inner city owners, penalizing them for not living in the suburbs. Rather than looking at solutions through higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils, the path of least resistance always leads to increasing taxes.

It also allows a more true market approach to densification where other cost factors are taken into account. If there's demand for a building without parking (or with minimal parking), why shouldn't a developer be able to build it? If parking becomes an issue, then it should also be a market driven solution, by making people pay for the piece of property their car is taking up. Why should that be subsidized?



Let the market decide what the parking minimums are, not the government.

[StoneCole]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's a thinly veiled attempt at further taxing inner city owners, penalizing them for not living in the suburbs. Rather than looking at solutions through higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils, the path of least resistance always leads to increasing taxes.

The program operates at a loss.

So more accurately it's suburb-dwellers (that don't have permit parking signs in front of their homes which cost money to manufacture, install, monitor btw) subsidizing a system that restricts them from parking in front of your inner-city home when they go to visit restaurant 'x' in Kensington, Marda Loop, Britannia, etc.

Restaurant 'x' which by the way wouldn't be viable if not for people coming in to visit it from different parts of the City.

...but yeah...obviously it's just a ruse intended to punish people living in million dollar infills in favor of those living in $300,000 rowhouses or suburban condos in Cityscape or Livingston.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by StoneCole

...but yeah...obviously it's just a ruse intended to punish people living in million dollar infills in favor of those living in $300,000 rowhouses or suburban condos in Cityscape or Livingston.

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.

[Weitz]

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.

The bolded isn't really an argument because it happens in every tax situation out there.

I absolutely think you should have to pay for additional permits. You should get 1 freebie though.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

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.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by StoneCole

The program operates at a loss.

So more accurately it's suburb-dwellers (that don't have permit parking signs in front of their homes which cost money to manufacture, install, monitor btw) subsidizing a system that restricts them from parking in front of your inner-city home when they go to visit restaurant 'x' in Kensington, Marda Loop, Britannia, etc.

Restaurant 'x' which by the way wouldn't be viable if not for people coming in to visit it from different parts of the City.

...but yeah...obviously it's just a ruse intended to punish people living in million dollar infills in favor of those living in $300,000 rowhouses or suburban condos in Cityscape or Livingston.

I like this train of thought.

User pay model. When is that coming to the many suburb interchanges, including the ring road. I never use those as I can shop and dine within a small radius in Kensington.

So you saw it here, suburb dwellers like the idea of a user pay model for inner city parking. I as inner city dweller like toll roads.

See we can all agree on something, right?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I like this train of thought.

User pay model. When is that coming to the many suburb interchanges, including the ring road. I never use those as I can shop and dine within a small radius in Kensington.

So you saw it here, suburb dwellers like the idea of a user pay model for inner city parking. I as inner city dweller like toll roads.

See we can all agree on something, right?

Well the easy answer is to just remove the reserved parking zones. There, no costs.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Well the easy answer is to just remove the reserved parking zones. There, no costs.

This really is the most straightforward and sensible arrangement. Remove the reserved zones, end the money-losing program, and be done with it.

If people want reserved spots, that costs money to implement, so they need to pay for it. I'm not sure what else we should expect.

[Flames0910]

I just moved into an inner city house on a permitted street. Our neighbourhood would see a substantial increase in traffic if opened to parking so in that sense the permit system is necessary and working here. Now, I have a garage so frankly don't care too much about the city charging for additional residential permitted spots. And frankly, $50/car for full time parking is pretty good value anyway.

But I also have friends who come over and visit occasionally, and being able to give them a visitor spot is a nice gesture (we don't have a driveway). Under the current system I get two visitor spots. The proposal is $75 per permit, so $150/year for my friends to park for an hour or two at a time? That seems steep.