MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Faust]

Mayor, councillor clash during discussion about Calgary's social procurement program:

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mayor-cou...gram-1.6424126

[kevman]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I definitely don't like the idea of paying for visitor permits on my street and I submitted a requested to the city for a review of the parking restrictions on my street. If I have to pay for a visitor permit I would rather just get rid of the restrictions on my street. I haven't heard anything about my submission or about what is actually involved in the process.

We live close to a train station and a popular shopping district so it would never happen but I'd also happily get rid of parking restrictions.

In lieu of that I'd be happy to have a park plus pay zone instead. We rarely use our visitors passes during the day, and it's free at night, so I'd be better off paying $3/hour as needed instead of $75/year for a pass I forget to register half the time.

[Flames0910]

I also live next to a popular shopping district but if the problem is "too many cars being stored on inner city streets instead of in garages" the fix of charging market rate for parking permits should be sufficient.

IMO making residents pay for visitor passes (currently free but limited to two per household) is an overreach. The problem is my neighbours' cars that are being stored on the street 10-24hrs per day, not two vehicles coming to my place for dinner (4 hrs) once a month, or the electrician that comes for 2hrs and uses my permit to park his truck. Essentially as an inner city resident I now have to pay to subsidize guests and contractors who live in the suburbs -- this is the city's design problem, not mine.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Faust

The Breakdown @TheBreakdown

Oooooh…

Maybe this is how the arena deal happened so easily?

Just “ticking boxes”?

#abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

https://twitter.com/thebreakdownab/s...536146441?s=21


The video clip is something else with Councillor Dan McLean essentially admitting that he gamed the system on a bid submission for the 2010 Olympics for providing golf carts and utility vehicles

CBC just had an article that was along these lines (at a much larger scale). Climate programs being used to fund seemingly non climate related projects so long as they can find some tangent so they can 'tick a box'. Not trying to defend the councilor but it really highlights why alot of people are opposed to these programs, not because they dont believe social changes are needed or things need to be done to lower humans atmospheric carbon footprint but because bureaucratic programs are rife of this BS 'box ticking' that have no enforcement, no set standards, and thus no actual gains in the areas that these programs are trying to improve.

It becomes a means for people (typically corporations or the wealthy class) to game the tax payer.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/un-c...ance-1.6861666

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Torture

Ooof.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1664692849995313154

It's clear that he's learned nothing the last time he started talking about Indigenous people. It's amazing what he thinks is acceptable to talk about on camera. The apology then was pretty weak and I expect the next inevitable apology won't be better. I really wish he wasn't my councillor...

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's clear that he's learned nothing the last time he started talking about Indigenous people. It's amazing what he thinks is acceptable to talk about on camera. The apology then was pretty weak and I expect the next inevitable apology won't be better. I really wish he wasn't my councillor...

I am curious what he said specifically that is offensive? I kinda get his point about companies and businesses trying hard these days to pacify the public in regards to some social issues.

In some way's, it's an honest reflection of where we are in the conversation. Everybody running around playing a little game of checking boxes and trying to pacify everybody with these minor little things but in some ways nothing changes and nobody is happy. If people want to change things, you have to do the real hard stuff, the unpopular stuff, the stuff that causes people to lose their cushy political jobs and their pensions.

Look at the city's recent policy shift on Canada Day celebrations. I personally think this was a dumb policy move but when the pressure mounted and councilors felt the heat, what did everybody do? Collapse. What about the city's rationale of First Nations, LGBTQ, Environmental and animal concerns etc? It all went out the window fast. Somebody checked some boxes and than erased them quickly. Better to play the game and move along.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I am curious what he said specifically that is offensive? I kinda get his point about companies and businesses trying hard these days to pacify the public in regards to some social issues.

In some way's, it's an honest reflection of where we are in the conversation. Everybody running around playing a little game of checking boxes and trying to pacify everybody with these minor little things but in some ways nothing changes and nobody is happy. If people want to change things, you have to do the real hard stuff, the unpopular stuff, the stuff that causes people to lose their cushy political jobs and their pensions.

Look at the city's recent policy shift on Canada Day celebrations. I personally think this was a dumb policy move but when the pressure mounted and councilors felt the heat, what did everybody do? Collapse. What about the city's rationale of First Nations, LGBTQ, Environmental and animal concerns etc? It all went out the window fast. Somebody checked some boxes and than erased them quickly. Better to play the game and move along.

The admission of unethical, possibly fraudulent activity. I'd imagine some local journalists are FOIPing the relevant documents right now to see how concretely he misrepresented himself in those bids.


Social progress will always require a multi-pronged approach, including big/challenging things, and trivial/lip service things. Look at something like the Rooney Rule in the NFL (must interview at least one minority for every coaching position) - pretty easy to be cynical about how its largely meaningless, but it's also better than nothing, and has been one tiny prong of gradual improvement.

This Olympic vendor thing he's referencing is probably just organizers ticking boxes themselves so they can say that they've prioritized XYZ without proper follow-up (which is easier said than done tbf), but it's still better than nothing. On the optimistic side, ethical people would not misrepresent themselves on these forms, but perhaps start to recognize how they can make some changes to be more competitive in procurement processes.

I also think people overstate the importance of these check boxes in a procurement process. They are rarely a disqualifying filter, but may be helpful as a tiebreaker when other bid elements are nearly equal.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by curves2000

If people want to change things, you have to do the real hard stuff, the unpopular stuff, the stuff that causes people to lose their cushy political jobs and their pensions.

I think you just answered it yourself. Maclean had no interest in putting any serious thought into why those policies existed and ignored them. He didn't have any self-reflection - and he was the person in a position of power to affect change for the benefit of society. This isn't a comfy feel-good thing initially, it's going to make you uncomfortable when you confront deep-seated biases you maybe didn't even know you had.

Unfortunately you called it "minor little things" but the two specific examples the procurement policy he brought up in the video are trying to address aren't minor issues in the slightest.

[calgarygeologist]

Maybe someone that has good knowledge of employee rights and legislation can answer this because my knowledge is pretty limited. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, but an employer can not ask about an employee's gender, sexual orientation, races, etc. If that is true, how can a business really check the boxes accurately when submitting information to the city? Why should a business be put at the bottom of the list because of a low "social procurement score" if they don't honestly know their employees? What if a business suspects some employees are queer or First Nations and checks the boxes and then an audit is done by the city, how do they provide proof other than a statement that they believe it to be true?

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I am curious what he said specifically that is offensive? I kinda get his point about companies and businesses trying hard these days to pacify the public in regards to some social issues.

In some way's, it's an honest reflection of where we are in the conversation. Everybody running around playing a little game of checking boxes and trying to pacify everybody with these minor little things but in some ways nothing changes and nobody is happy. If people want to change things, you have to do the real hard stuff, the unpopular stuff, the stuff that causes people to lose their cushy political jobs and their pensions.

Look at the city's recent policy shift on Canada Day celebrations. I personally think this was a dumb policy move but when the pressure mounted and councilors felt the heat, what did everybody do? Collapse. What about the city's rationale of First Nations, LGBTQ, Environmental and animal concerns etc? It all went out the window fast. Somebody checked some boxes and than erased them quickly. Better to play the game and move along.

He checked a box that his bid for supplying golf carts to the 2010 games included an indigenous component because his daughter was dating an indigenous kid. You don't see a problem with that anywhere?

[The Fisher Account]

Nm

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I think you just answered it yourself. Maclean had no interest in putting any serious thought into why those policies existed and ignored them. He didn't have any self-reflection - and he was the person in a position of power to affect change for the benefit of society. This isn't a comfy feel-good thing initially, it's going to make you uncomfortable when you confront deep-seated biases you maybe didn't even know you had.

Unfortunately you called it "minor little things" but the two specific examples the procurement policy he brought up in the video are trying to address aren't minor issues in the slightest.

Poorly worded on my part, I was referring to doing minor little things for today's society issues and environmental causes. We rename some bridge or building, take down some statue, buy some EV cars, proclaim some green program, do something that makes us feel good about saving the planet etc


There is a lot of fake box's being checked for these issues just to pacify everybody. A few years back with the city's recycling program it became apparent just how much things are not getting looked after. China had put a stop to importing low grade recycling matter and than all of a sudden a lot of North American city's programs were left scrambling what to do with, what is essentially garbage. Sure some of the high quality products get reused but a huge portion of it ends up being diverted as waste or being sent to low income countries meanwhile in the richer countries, we pat ourselves as doing a good job.

The councilor did and is saying out loud what a lot of people already think and know, a lot of these policies aren't worth their weight in any sort of meaningful fashion.

[photon]

On one hand $150 a month for on street parking for my rental condo near downtown is a lot, on the other hand it's better than what it was previously which was "tough bananas the nearest pay parkade is 6 blocks away".

[timun]

Originally Posted by Faust

'An obscene amount': Anger grows over residential parking fees

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/an-obscen...fees-1.6422232

So ####ing tired of the belly-aching over this. Bunch of freeloaders griping about not getting to freeload anymore.

As I wrote before in this thread, there's a fundamental misunderstanding and exaggeration of what it is that people are getting from this. People are framing this as "I should be allowed to park in front of my home just like any other resident of the city, but now I'm expected to pay $150 a month for it?!?" The truth is:

Originally Posted by timun

[...] you're not paying to park in front of your house, you're paying for the privilege of no one else being allowed to park in front of your house. And rightly so.

And because I'm the kind of prick who will go to the lengths required to prove a mother####er wrong, let's get this whole thing put into context.


The map below is "Residential Parking Zone C", the only zone where a "market permit"—that is to say, a permit for residents of ≥4-storey, ≥20-unit apartment buildings built after 1945—will cost $150/month.

Spoiler!

Those areas I circled are the only stretches of road in the entire Zone C area that have permit-only parking, representing only about 57 car-lengths' worth of street parking. The only directly adjacent properties are:

• 1523 - 10 St SW, a house
• 1104 - 16 Ave SW, a 12-unit, 2-storey apartment building built in 1912
• 1201-1211 9 St / 1-6 Fountain Walk SW, a 12-unit townhouse building built in 1994 (with a common parkade under it)
• 721 - 13 Ave SW, a 16-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1911
• 725 - 13 Ave SW, a 20-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1911
• 128 - 15 Ave SW, a 55-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 1979 (which has private surface parking at the back and a common parkade shared with 120 - 15 Ave SE)
• 120 - 15 Ave SW, a 34-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 1978 (which has private surface parking at the back and a common parkade shared with 128 - 15 Ave SE)
• 114 - 15 Ave SW, a 57-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 2000 (with its own parkade)
• 1411 Centre Street, a 29-unit, 3-storey apartment built in 1908
• 108 - 15 Ave SE, a 49-unit, 7-storey apartment built in 2002 (with its own parkade)
• 114 - 15 Ave SE, a house
• 121 - 15 Ave SE, a 3-unit, 2-storey commercial building built in 1980 (with its own surface parking, ~12 stalls)
• 124 - 15 Ave SE, a 133-unit, 16-storey apartment built in 1981 (with its own parkade and surface parking in back)
• 129 - 15 Ave SE, a 21-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1912 (with ~12 stalls of surface parking)
• 131/133 - 15 Ave SE, a semi-detached house
• 135 - 15 Ave SE, a house
• 136 - 15 Ave SE, a 10-unit, 2-storey apartment built in 1915 (with three garages in back)
• 1411 - 1 Street SE, a 2-unit, 2-storey commercial building built in 1948
• 1501 - 1 Street SE, a house

These are the only people affected by the permit parking program, and by my count only about 90 of them wouldn't already have off-street parking. Of those, the only ones that would have to pay $150/month for the market permit are...

... LITERALLY NONE OF THEM. The big buildings built after 1945 all have surface and underground parking anyway. The rest are older buildings where they'd be charged only $75/year, or houses who'd only be charged $50/year.

The guy in Mission interviewed by CTV is full of kyit. They say he'll be paying $150/month. *bzzzzt*, WRONG! He lives in zone J, which would cost $100/month. And he lives in 333 - 22 Ave SW, a six-storey apartment building with a big ####ing parkade under it.

[Fuzz]

Big fan of well researched rage posts.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by timun

So ####ing tired of the belly-aching over this. Bunch of freeloaders griping about not getting to freeload anymore.

As I wrote before in this thread, there's a fundamental misunderstanding and exaggeration of what it is that people are getting from this. People are framing this as "I should be allowed to park in front of my home just like any other resident of the city, but now I'm expected to pay $150 a month for it?!?" The truth is:



And because I'm the kind of prick who will go to the lengths required to prove a mother####er wrong, let's get this whole thing put into context.


The map below is "Residential Parking Zone C", the only zone where a "market permit"—that is to say, a permit for residents of ≥4-storey, ≥20-unit apartment buildings built after 1945—will cost $150/month.

Spoiler!

Those areas I circled are the only stretches of road in the entire Zone C area that have permit-only parking, representing only about 57 car-lengths' worth of street parking. The only directly adjacent properties are:

• 1523 - 10 St SW, a house
• 1104 - 16 Ave SW, a 12-unit, 2-storey apartment building built in 1912
• 1201-1211 9 St / 1-6 Fountain Walk SW, a 12-unit townhouse building built in 1994 (with a common parkade under it)
• 721 - 13 Ave SW, a 16-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1911
• 725 - 13 Ave SW, a 20-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1911
• 128 - 15 Ave SW, a 55-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 1979 (which has private surface parking at the back and a common parkade shared with 120 - 15 Ave SE)
• 120 - 15 Ave SW, a 34-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 1978 (which has private surface parking at the back and a common parkade shared with 128 - 15 Ave SE)
• 114 - 15 Ave SW, a 57-unit, 6-storey apartment built in 2000 (with its own parkade)
• 1411 Centre Street, a 29-unit, 3-storey apartment built in 1908
• 108 - 15 Ave SE, a 49-unit, 7-storey apartment built in 2002 (with its own parkade)
• 114 - 15 Ave SE, a house
• 121 - 15 Ave SE, a 3-unit, 2-storey commercial building built in 1980 (with its own surface parking, ~12 stalls)
• 124 - 15 Ave SE, a 133-unit, 16-storey apartment built in 1981 (with its own parkade and surface parking in back)
• 129 - 15 Ave SE, a 21-unit, 4-storey apartment built in 1912 (with ~12 stalls of surface parking)
• 131/133 - 15 Ave SE, a semi-detached house
• 135 - 15 Ave SE, a house
• 136 - 15 Ave SE, a 10-unit, 2-storey apartment built in 1915 (with three garages in back)
• 1411 - 1 Street SE, a 2-unit, 2-storey commercial building built in 1948
• 1501 - 1 Street SE, a house

These are the only people affected by the permit parking program, and by my count only about 90 of them wouldn't already have off-street parking. Of those, the only ones that would have to pay $150/month for the market permit are...

... LITERALLY NONE OF THEM. The big buildings built after 1945 all have surface and underground parking anyway. The rest are older buildings where they'd be charged only $75/year, or houses who'd only be charged $50/year.

The guy in Mission interviewed by CTV is full of kyit. They say he'll be paying $150/month. *bzzzzt*, WRONG! He lives in zone J, which would cost $100/month. And he lives in 333 - 22 Ave SW, a six-storey apartment building with a big ####ing parkade under it.

I can understand people's concerns with ever increasing city costs for just basic things though. This isn't anything to sneeze at either. Even if it's only $100 per month for someone, a lot of people need to gross $2k-2400 in gross annual pay just to net the fee. This is on top of ever increasing property taxes, city user fee's for utilities/ bin collection and/or significantly increased rent on rental properties for the above mentioned costs to the property owner.

This isn't hitting hard to high level executives with summer sports cars and boats, this is hitting working class people who are already struggling.

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. The streets that this policy will hit in the Beltline will have significant impact on a lot of people who live in multi-generational families, new immigrants , people who drive taxi, Skip, Uber etc and local businesses.

Some of what is happening is that the city is taking out parking on these streets to introduce bike lanes, than create an already tight parking situation even worse and now want's to introduce fairly high fee's for the right to park in your area.

I am personally not affected by this policy but I think a lot of people would be upset if their costs rose significantly and are getting very little in return for it.

[timun]

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.

[citation needed]

Residential permit parking is introduced where residents petition for it.

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.

Some of what is happening is that the city is taking out parking on these streets to introduce bike lanes, than create an already tight parking situation even worse [...]

Literally the only location this is happening at in the beltline is the north side of 15th. The City will be removing the bike lane on 14th in the process.

[...] and now want's to introduce fairly high fee's for the right to park in your area.

No no no no no no no, a thousand times: NO. You're not paying for the right to park in your area, you're paying to exclude everyone else from parking in your area.

I think a lot of people would be upset if their costs rose significantly and are getting very little in return for it.

This is a false premise. There was always a cost to this. The only thing that has changed is that the cost used to be borne by all of us, and now the <1% of us who benefit from this program have to pay for the privilege. They get a lot in return for it, they get exclusionary street parking! The problem is that they've been accustomed to getting something for nothing, while you and I and everyone else in this city have been paying for parking zones that we're explicitly not allowed to use.

[Muta]

I can't speak to other non-City-based RFPs, but for City RFPs, you do now have to submit a response to the City's social procurement questionnaire. To answer the indigenous component in the way McLean did would be fraudulent, if not unethical. I would assume the response is asking if your firm has indigenous hiring / workplace polices... answering that your daughter is dating a First Nations person and standing that that's good enough to check the box is lying and disingenuous at best. That has nothing to do with your company's policies. Company practices like MacLean's give the rest of us answering those questions ethically and honestly a bad name. Can't believe he'd actually do that in practice, let alone admit it in a council session.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by timun

No no no no no no no, a thousand times: NO. You're not paying for the right to park in your area, you're paying to exclude everyone else from parking in your area.

I think the premise of anyone having any "right" to street parking is flawed, and makes for bad cities. So I'm on board with you here.

That said, let's try have some empathy for a second.

Joe Yaupgaubler, suburban resident pays taxes. As part of his taxes, we maintain a bunch of street parking across the city which he can use, subject to various restrictions.

Renée Latte, inner city resident pays taxes too. In fact, likely proportionally more taxes, but let's leave that aside for now. She too can use this street parking across the city as she pleases, subject to various restrictions.

But there is one glaring difference here. No one in the world want's to park in front of Joe's house unless they live there, or are visiting there. So Joe now benefits very directly from a piece of infrastructure that everyone pays for, but is only useful for him.

Everyone wants to park in front of Renée's house, because she lives somewhere popular with people all over the city. So either:

A) There is no parking restrictions, Renée will not get the same piece of infrastructure in front of her residence that Joe has, despite paying more taxes

B) Parking is restricted on Renée's street so she can use it, and everyone else is denied this piece of infrastructure they paid for

I can understand why Renée feels Joe is advantaged in this situation. I guess people should move to the suburbs if they want to get the benefit of more street parking. It's also a bit at odds with navigating the transition to more people living in central areas. There's probably no "fair" here.

Maybe we're looking at street parking all wrong. Maybe visitors to businesses and residences are what should be prioritized, and no one should be free to semi-permanently store their personal vehicles in front of their house. I'd personally be fine if they just blanket revoked all the permit parking zones as part of this move, then there is no "visitor permits" unless streets opt back in to permit parking.

[timun]

I do empathize with Renée Latte, but she knew what she was bargaining for when she moved to a street with permit parking, and the whole idea of living in a denser neighbourhood is that she wouldn't need to use a car as much in the first place. Maybe instead of leaving her car on the street all day it'll encourage her to pay for a spot in her building's lot, thus freeing up that spot on the street for someone else who needs it more.

In the most expensive parking areas—that is to say, in RPZs C (Beltline), AAA (Bridgeland), D (Ramsay), G (Bridgeland), GG (South Calgary), J (Mission/Cliff Bungalow/Rideau Park/Roxboro), K (Hillhurst), L (Sunnyside), LL (Inglewood), M (Crescent Heights), O (Richmond/Bankview), P (Bankview/Sunalta/Connaught/Mount Royal), SNA (Sunalta), V (Renfrew), W (Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill), Z (West Hillhurst) and ZZ (Erlton)—there is an underlying issue at hand as well: there isn't enough street frontage to accommodate all the residents of ≥4-storey, ≥20-unit apartment buildings parking a car on the street anyway. They won't all physically fit. And part of what had made finding street parking in these areas difficult for these residents in the first place is that the parking permits were free and handed out like candy. Why pay $100/mo. for a spot in the building's parkade if you could get a street permit for free?

My parents live in an apartment in Windsor Park (RPZs I & BEW) and parking on the street anywhere near their building is a pain in the ass. However, their building's parkade is usually >70% empty. It's absurd how unoccupied it is. If having to pay $75/mo. for street parking makes the residents use their own parking facilities: good. So much the better. It'll ameliorate the situation for everyone.