Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Think of the area around Foothills Hospital, or the University, or SAIT. Those areas are not designed to handle the traffic that would be using them as free parking. I do believe that street parking should not be totally reserved for a homeowner to park in front of their house, but there needs to be some way to prevent side streets becoming parking lots.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Why not just expand the Parkplus system to those higher demand residential areas?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why not just expand the Parkplus system to those higher demand residential areas?

That'd fall into the "you have to pay for it" option, for sure.

If I owned a home in the inner city, though, I'd much rather pay in the current system or have it be a free-for-all than constantly deal with parkplus.

Unless you're suggesting that homeowners would be exempt from paying in those areas, though... that could work too as sort of a half-measure between free reserved spots and paid reserved spots. Basically a free spot if you live there but not guaranteed. Could work.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I was first adamantly against changing the parking because....and then I realized I couldn't come up with a great reason other than "that's the way it is." Sure, parking near your home could be considered a public necessity so I don't have a super strong feeling one way or another.

However, everyone paid for those streets through our taxes and yet unless you have a permit you can't park there. That's already a bit iffy when you think about it. But then we've been "paying" a million/year for a program to make sure we can't park there? Seems like a double-whammy.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That'd fall into the "you have to pay for it" option, for sure.

If I owned a home in the inner city, though, I'd much rather pay in the current system or have it be a free-for-all than constantly deal with parkplus.

Unless you're suggesting that homeowners would be exempt from paying in those areas, though... that could work too as sort of a half-measure between free reserved spots and paid reserved spots. Basically a free spot if you live there but not guaranteed. Could work.

Yeah, I was thinking the home owner / primary resident would be given the equivalent of a monthly pass on Parkplus. Anybody else would just pay like regular through the app or by SMS. It kind of maintains the status quo, but adds a bit of revenue for the City. Not sure if the City would make more just issuing fines though.

Just my experience of visiting businesses near these residential permit areas (Capital Hill), where the businesses didn’t have adequate parking, but there was a lot of street parking available.

[Bill Bumface]

I can imagine a lot of scenarios where people have disabled/aging family and friends that just stop visiting them because the constant shortage of parking in some areas that will be used as free parking lots.

It doesn't seem that the street front of tax payers becoming free parking for the rest of the city to skirt intended pay parking (near downtown, universities, hospitals, etc) is necessarily the best solution ether.

Paid permits seems better than a free-for-all.

[81MC]

The thing with inner city parking - when most of the homes, and when many were bought, the areas were zoned for single family. They were purchased as a part of community of single family homes.
When you open up the entire neighbourhood to multi family, and there is several times more vehicles in the sale space, it fundamentally changes the neighbourhood.
The City is already actively looking to remove parking stall requirements for businesses. Yeah, it’s a risk you take and the city moves in and yada yada yada.
But I really don’t think it’s fair to tell the lady who bought a house in 1980 or the family in 2001 that the nearest parking for their home might be several blocks away, because there’s multi-unit residence on the corner and a Starbucks down the road.

[Oling_Roachinen]

“Hey that house you bought for peanuts during the 1980 struggles that has sextupled in price since you bought it now requires a $52 charge to park in front of it” doesn’t seem that hard at all.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

“Hey that house you bought for peanuts during the 1980 struggles that has sextupled in price since you bought it now requires a $52 charge to park in front of it” doesn’t seem that hard at all.

You realize that you don't get the appreciated value of an asset until you sell said asset, right?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, I’m sure that $52 will force her to walk away from her house completely without realizing that hundreds of thousands of dollars of appreciation.

[Wormius]

How many homes that require parking permits actually have alternative parking arrangements available for the primary resident? I kind of like the rationale of pricing it based on whether garage / back lane is available.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

If the city does decide to start charging for these permits, I think they should also allow for neighborhoods to have the parking restrictions removed.

I know right now it takes something like 80% of the residents to agree to have it added (just went through this at my old house). I think having a slightly lower bar to have it removed is reasonable.

If X% of residents don't want to pay for it, the can have it removed.
That's likely the way it is now so it's not like the people in these neighborhoods don't have any recourse, and if they currently don't, then the city should give them a way to have the restrictions removed.

That way the people in the neighborhood get to decide what is more important. Paying to make sure they have relatively guaranteed parking in front of their house or not having to pay $50/year to do that.

Full disclosure, I don't currently live on a street with permit parking, but I used to, and if I still did, I would likely support some model that would have cost me more.

[Bunk]

I live in an area with parking zones - I use this thing called a "garage". Almost all houses have them. Instead of using it to hoard useless crap, I use it for its intended purpose to store my "car". I literally never park on the street.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I live in an area with parking zones - I use this thing called a "garage". Almost all houses have them. Instead of using it to hoard useless crap, I use it for its intended purpose to store my "car". I literally never park on the street.

A garage? Hey fellas, a garage! Well ooh la-di-da Mr. French man.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

The thing with inner city parking - when most of the homes, and when many were bought, the areas were zoned for single family. They were purchased as a part of community of single family homes.
When you open up the entire neighbourhood to multi family, and there is several times more vehicles in the sale space, it fundamentally changes the neighbourhood.
The City is already actively looking to remove parking stall requirements for businesses. Yeah, it’s a risk you take and the city moves in and yada yada yada.
But I really don’t think it’s fair to tell the lady who bought a house in 1980 or the family in 2001 that the nearest parking for their home might be several blocks away, because there’s multi-unit residence on the corner and a Starbucks down the road.

This is exactly what we should be telling them.

The inner city residents like to blame the burbs for sprawl but then get angry that they can’t park in front of their house. Properties should accommodate parking if their is demand on on street parking should be charged at market rate.

Everyone should read the high cost of free parking

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...f_Free_Parking

If parking was charged at market rate in front of residential houses it would drive down inner city property values by that amount allowing those that choose to go car free a more economic option. Instead we give away a public resource to a private owner and reserve it for them.

[Flames0910]

If parking was charged at market rate in front of residential houses it would drive down inner city property values by that amount allowing those that choose to go car free a more economic option. Instead we give away a public resource to a private owner and reserve it for them.

Unless you are saying that market rate for suburban parking is $0, then unfortunately nobody is suggesting that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I live in an area with parking zones - I use this thing called a "garage". Almost all houses have them. Instead of using it to hoard useless crap, I use it for its intended purpose to store my "car". I literally never park on the street.

Maybe everywhere in the city people should have to pay for a pass if they park on the street and have a garage or a driveway? It’s a gear grinder to me.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A garage? Hey fellas, a garage! Well ooh la-di-da Mr. French man.

What do you call it?

[Fuzz]

Car hole.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Car hole.

Or is it “car hold”?

[Fuzz]

Nope, it's car hole.

https://twitter.com/user/status/476641398859776000