Not to mention instead of raising revenues from the most fortunate and wealthy calgarians, the burden will now be on people who live in multifamily dwellings, low income families and the elderly who live in their inner city century homes.
How many inner city century homes don't have garages?
Well I don’t think there can be much debate about what a century home is. But I hardly see any with garages in the inner city. I’m sure some exist somewhere. But garages weren’t exactly a common thing when houses were getting built before the invention of cars.
Well I don’t think there can be much debate about what a century home is. But I hardly see any with garages in the inner city. I’m sure some exist somewhere. But garages weren’t exactly a common thing when houses were getting built before the invention of cars.
Don’t most have lane garages?
Do you have a neighbourhood in mind that doesn’t? I look at a google map of everything north of downtown to 16th ace and all appear to have garages
The elderly living in valuable inner city homes should move if they can’t afford parking passes. I don’t have much sympathy for the elderly should get to live in their home forever at the expense of younger generations because they are old. It’s the least impoverished demographic. We should more or less not be concerned with senior poverty.
Well I don’t think there can be much debate about what a century home is. But I hardly see any with garages in the inner city. I’m sure some exist somewhere. But garages weren’t exactly a common thing when houses were getting built before the invention of cars.
Even if they don't have a physical garage, most have a parking pad in the laneway.
Well I don’t think there can be much debate about what a century home is. But I hardly see any with garages in the inner city. I’m sure some exist somewhere. But garages weren’t exactly a common thing when houses were getting built before the invention of cars.
The number of houses that remain in the city that predate cars is pretty damn low, much less neighborhoods.
If it seems like inner city homes don't have garages because the streets are filled with cars, it's because you typically don't see the alleys, and their garages are likely being used for storage and they just park for free on the street instead. Or park the nice car in the garage and the other on the street. Subsidizing people's private property storage is something we as a city need to get away from, and getting the elderly to stop driving is also something that is typically in our best interest. If they're feeling the pinch because of a policy like this, I'd call it a win for driving by getting more elderly people off the road, and a win in giving financial incentive to get people to clean out their garage.
I don't know if I saw it as aggressively as you but I agree, the prices are insane. Up to $250/month to park a vehicle at your residence is significant.
The cost of a THIRD residential permit will be $250 BIENNIALLY, not monthly. Jesus Christ guys, did anyone ####ing read the policy?
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
And it's not like the $150/month for condo dwellers is super cheap. And those are people's residence as well.
It's not $150/month.
The prices are
First permit: $100 (every 2 years)
Second permit: $150 (every 2 years)
Third permit: $250 (every 2 years)
So yeah, it ain't free, but it ain't really that expensive.
I suspect any household that can afford 3 cars can afford $21/month to park all 3 of them on the street.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
It's not $150/month.
The prices are
First permit: $100 (every 2 years)
Second permit: $150 (every 2 years)
Third permit: $250 (every 2 years)
So yeah, it ain't free, but it ain't really that expensive.
I suspect any household that can afford 3 cars can afford $21/month to park all 3 of them on the street.
There are different parking permits based on building situation. Some are residential and charged every two years while others are multi family and designated as Select or Market. The Market permits are the ones for larger condos and are charged monthly.
The Following User Says Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
There are different parking permits based on building situation. Some are residential and charged every two years while others are multi family and designated as Select or Market. The Market permits are the ones for larger condos and are charged monthly.
Yeah, missed that, good point.
But that's also for buildings with more than 20 units.
There needs to be an incentive for people in a building that large not to park on the street, because there isn't a single neighborhood in the city that can handle that level of street parking. If people aren't willing to buy into a condo because they'll have to pay $150/month to park on the street, then developers will start providing more parking.
I used to live in a townhouse complex where everyone had a garage and a driveway, and still our biggest issue parking. People assume it's the god given right to park wherever they like, and that's not sustainable.
I truly believe the city needs to densify inner city neighborhoods (I live in one such neighborhood), but we can't rely on street parking when we're planning it. You can't put a 20 unit building onto a lot with 100-200 ft of street frontage and expect street parking to make up the difference.
Essentially by letting street parking go unabated we've been subsidizing developers. We need to give builders incentives to add parking in the building, and to do that we need to incentivize buyers to demand/require it.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Annoying then that we've seen buildings being constructed with no underground parking whatsoever.
Don't buy a dwelling that can't fit your car if you want to own a car.
We can't keep throwing an insane amount of public money and land at facilitating everyone's perceived right to car use.
It's a tough spot, because we built our whole damn city in a way that is extremely challenging to provide sufficient alternatives (transit, walkability) to car ownership, but we're never going to get anywhere if we just keep going down the same path.
By making owning a car part of the cost of participating in society, we place a massive drag an the low income demographic of our city.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Don't buy a dwelling that can't fit your car if you want to own a car.
We can't keep throwing an insane amount of public money and land at facilitating everyone's perceived right to car use.
It's a tough spot, because we built our whole damn city in a way that is extremely challenging to provide sufficient alternatives (transit, walkability) to car ownership, but we're never going to get anywhere if we just keep going down the same path.
By making owning a car part of the cost of participating in society, we place a massive drag an the low income demographic of our city.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Calgary city council voted to maintain the status quo when it comes to the tax share born by residential and non-residential properties, but the mayor is warning the province may step in if the city continues to avoid a difficult tax decision.
Administration had presented council with three options on how to adjust this number, including maintaining that ratio, or shifting either one or two per cent more onto residential properties.
A one per cent shift to residential properties would add $48 per year to the average residential home valued at $555,000. A two per cent shift would add $96 to their annual bill. Those increases would be on top of the $120 annual tax increase for an average homeowner already expected after the budget was voted on in November.
It’s a wierd threat by the mayor that the province will step in if we don’t listen.
The Chamber of commerce is advocating for a 2 point shift per year until it’s 60/40 residential/commercial. This would be a 25% tax increase for homeowners.
If they are concerns about small businesses targeted tax breaks could be considered but there is no tease on to give Brookfield or O+G tenants down town a tax break
It’s a wierd threat by the mayor that the province will step in if we don’t listen.
The Chamber of commerce is advocating for a 2 point shift per year until it’s 60/40 residential/commercial. This would be a 25% tax increase for homeowners.
If they are concerns about small businesses targeted tax breaks could be considered but there is no tease on to give Brookfield or O+G tenants down town a tax break
Yeah, the enthusiasm of homeowners (aka 'voters') for that is going to pretty low. 25% increase is real money.
I know Smith is both incompetent and in the pocket of big business, but surely her handlers wouldn't let her actually do that. Why pick a municipal issue to overrule on where it will only hurt your popularity. Let Gondek wear that either way - one group will be pissed off no matter what they do. The most Smith will do imo is give a couple of speeches saying whatever the city picks is hurting (small businesses/households), depending on what the city does.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
