If we charged for parking it should drop property values in an amount equal to the cost or change the owners of those types of properties to ones without vehicles.
Either way that’s fine. 5the revenue from the scarace resource goes back to the city.
I’d like to see this expanded throughout the city and eventually streets made narrower and ban on street parking in communities all together. We essentially have added about 30% road width increasing sprawl to accommodate occasional parking.
I argue that visitors to an area should be able to park on street and those who are residents should be accommodated within the property they are residents of.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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"
^^^ I don’t get this. Are you suggesting that the people who previously received residential parking permits for basically free, to exclude everyone else from being allowed to park in their neighborhoods, are victims of something? If they don’t like it, they can get together and have the program cancelled, as Timun brought up.
I’d also argue if you live in these areas you have much better transit access than anybody else in the city. Transit is so d.t and inner city focused, if you need a car to get around everyday, maybe you picked the wrong place to live.
I feel like curves’ points have literally nothing to do with what’s being discussed. The residents aren’t paying for parking, they’re paying so that nobody else can park there. How is this confusing?
And I’m not sure how he went from “we’re a city of cars growing outwards!” to “residents downtown should have exclusive parking for free!”
Someone please tell me one other situation where you get a reserved parking spot on property you don’t own that you don’t have to pay for anywhere in the city.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I'll have to read it more thoroughly not at 11pm on a Sunday night, but it sounds like they're going to recoup their investment over time, through 'lease' payments which are really loan repayments which in essence is really 'rent.'
I think I know why they did that, but I've got to think on it more clearly later.
Its still not a good deal for the City. I dont dispute that.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
When has it been a good deal for the city? Ever? It started as a badly uneven deal and with every negotiation it has just become progressively worse for the city and better for CSEC.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
I don’t see the objection to the money up front. The city has better interest rates than the private sector so to reduce the overall cost of the project it makes sense for the city to hold the debt and the flames repay it over time.
The hey there is to pick a range of NPVs to decide how to account for the value of that cash flow in todays dollars. I think it’s disingenuous to say the flames arent paying anything for the arena because of the nature of the setup of the cashflow.
I’m not saying this is a good deal, I just disagree with the herald article that a loan and repayment to take advantage of financing costs changes how we should look at it.
Like the Farkas tweet says 97% up front and no revenue is misleading because it ignores the lease/loan payment which is either upfront commitments or revenue. Making it disappear is not a reasonable way to approach it.
I don’t see the objection to the money up front. The city has better interest rates than the private sector so to reduce the overall cost of the project it makes sense for the city to hold the debt and the flames repay it over time.
The hey there is to pick a range of NPVs to decide how to account for the value of that cash flow in todays dollars. I think it’s disingenuous to say the flames arent paying anything for the arena because of the nature of the setup of the cashflow.
I’m not saying this is a good deal, I just disagree with the herald article that a loan and repayment to take advantage of financing costs changes how we should look at it.
Like the Farkas tweet says 97% up front and no revenue is misleading because it ignores the lease/loan payment which is either upfront commitments or revenue. Making it disappear is not a reasonable way to approach it.
The lease payments are acting as a capital repayment, which is the issue. It’s using what should be regular operating costs as a form of capital repayment.
So the city is either getting a loan repaid over time and receiving no revenue for their building, or they are incurring 97% of the capital costs and receiving lease payments for their building.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
The lease payments are acting as a capital repayment, which is the issue. It’s using what should be regular operating costs as a form of capital repayment.
So the city is either getting a loan repaid over time and receiving no revenue for their building, or they are incurring 97% of the capital costs and receiving lease payments for their building.
Yeah, which is what makes Farkas posts misleading. It doesn’t mention the lease payment.
My understanding with the last deal, but haven’t seen it confirmed with this deal was that the flames covered all Opex and maintenance costs during the lease of the building. The city just “owns” it to eliminate property taxes.
The city also owns it when the lease term is up and major capital upgrades (that were previously not deemed immediately necessary) are needed to provide a competitive facility for a potential tenant.
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?
It's not necessarily based on confirming a certain percent of your staff fit into a category. Some of the questions are related to 3rd party certifications, others are about your policies and employment practices, and how you ensure compliance with those practices. There are also questions related to what percentage of your staff are paid a living wage, and whether you have a social procurement policy (and evidence it is being followed).
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"?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
I don’t see the objection to the money up front. The city has better interest rates than the private sector so to reduce the overall cost of the project it makes sense for the city to hold the debt and the flames repay it over time.
The hey there is to pick a range of NPVs to decide how to account for the value of that cash flow in todays dollars. I think it’s disingenuous to say the flames arent paying anything for the arena because of the nature of the setup of the cashflow.
I’m not saying this is a good deal, I just disagree with the herald article that a loan and repayment to take advantage of financing costs changes how we should look at it.
Like the Farkas tweet says 97% up front and no revenue is misleading because it ignores the lease/loan payment which is either upfront commitments or revenue. Making it disappear is not a reasonable way to approach it.
No objection to the money up front, but the proportionality is absurd.
This is like if the city's loan program for solar panels required homeowners to repay only 40% of the total install cost. But of course homeowners get to keep 100% of the electricity generated. Oh, and whenever the solar panels are no longer useful, the city will bear the cost of removing them. Sweet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
The lease payments are acting as a capital repayment, which is the issue. It’s using what should be regular operating costs as a form of capital repayment.
So the city is either getting a loan repaid over time and receiving no revenue for their building, or they are incurring 97% of the capital costs and receiving lease payments for their building.
