|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
From infill builder Niche Developments
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
edmontonjournal.com
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
Opinion: Time for Edmonton to charge for on-street, overnight neighbourhood parking
Parking and vehicle use is a luxury item and should be taxed as such.
edmontonjournal.com
johnnyboy
Active Member
This should have been done a decade ago; hopefully council has the gumption to bring it forward.From infill builder Niche Developments
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
Opinion: Time for Edmonton to charge for on-street, overnight neighbourhood parking
Parking and vehicle use is a luxury item and should be taxed as such.
MacLac
Senior Member
What exactly have they built lately or ever? They should be the last ones to talk.....From infill builder Niche Developments
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
Opinion: Time for Edmonton to charge for on-street, overnight neighbourhood parking
Parking and vehicle use is a luxury item and should be taxed as such.
David A
Senior Member
This is a very half baked idea that will really only work for those who have large garages or few residents in their home. We probably want to start by focusing on only certain areas where parking is in high demand and limited, definitely not the whole city. There probably should also be at least one permit per household available if needed at no or modest cost, along with time limited and/or paid parking allowed for visitors.From infill builder Niche Developments
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
Opinion: Time for Edmonton to charge for on-street, overnight neighbourhood parking
Parking and vehicle use is a luxury item and should be taxed as such.
Didama
Active Member
I like the idea in principle but the reality is it would impact the less wealthy the most as they are unlikely to have a house with a garage. An extra $60 a month, or $120 for two cars, is a lot for a family to absorb. Not everyone can choose to take transit.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I don’t understand this?
For those with large garages or few residents?
In many cities, street parking is either paid/permitted, or banned overnight. This isn’t a new idea.
Your personal property is your personal responsibility to store. You aren’t entitled to any public land for permanent storage. The VAST majority of detached/semi homes in Edmonton have garages, and many of those also have driveways on top of that. Most apartments and condos historically have had 1+ stalls per unit too.
The majority of cars on the street are:
A) people with garages, but they use them for storage or other stuff and there’s 0 cost to using the road if it’s free.
B) people with too many vehicles to all fit in garages/on driveways. We artificially subsidize car ownership, to the detriment of improving other modes, by offering these people free street parking as well. If a 2 car family suddenly gets a 3rd for an adult child for example, then paying to park on the street makes a lot of sense.
C) those trying to avoid multi family parking fees. If streets are free and only a bit further to walk, many will consider it vs 75-250/month parking spot fees
D) secondary suites. More of these are happening now and a logical solution, since changes to garages and driveways are hard retroactively, is to have these renters pay for street parking.
E) visitors staying overnight somewhere. In many cities you use a driveway or pay for overnight parking in that scenario.
I get that change is a huge challenge with decades on free-for-all here. But I don’t understand the logic of there being this huge contingent of people this unfairly hurts. Especially if it helps to raise revenues that improve transit, street repair, snow clearing, etc. Phase it in slowly so people can prepare. But with more infill, there has to be solutions.
Again, it’s your responsibility to store your own crap on your own property or to pay to store it on someone else’s.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
That is never going to happen, but it's an interesting idea. I wonder how they would try to enforce it.From infill builder Niche Developments
"On-street parking is not a fundamental right and should be taxed, which would incentivise greater use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation. This measure would also prompt homeowners to maintain their garages, potentially reducing the number of cars parked on the streets overnight."
Opinion: Time for Edmonton to charge for on-street, overnight neighbourhood parking
Parking and vehicle use is a luxury item and should be taxed as such.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
Hire more Bylaw Officers...which will increase taxes...which will piss off the masses.
But enforcing this will probably end anyone's political career as, IMO, there are more important things to worry about as a City.
northlands
Senior Member
The City already has a (free) street parking permit program for numerous neighbourhoods, usually due to event parking or proximity to post secondaries, so all the City has to do is expand it to more neighbourhoods that are identified as having issues with excessive street parking, and eventually make it city-wide. From there, introduce a small fee ($25/year or something) to cover "administrative costs" of the program before incrementally increasing it till it hits a limit.
As for enforcement, bylaw is already generally quite reactive and based on reporting rather than proactive identification. I don't see this being any much different. Likely the City starts heavily farming out the parking enforcement to contracted third parties (which I think they already somewhat do) but the collected fees and fines make it cash flow positive.
That said, boy I can sure understand the frustrations and pain about this. I think the suck hole reality we all have to accept here is for a variety of reasons, previous generations lived lives that were unsustainably cheap and convenient, and that cannot feasibly remain the case. A tough pill to swallow, I fully agree.
As for enforcement, bylaw is already generally quite reactive and based on reporting rather than proactive identification. I don't see this being any much different. Likely the City starts heavily farming out the parking enforcement to contracted third parties (which I think they already somewhat do) but the collected fees and fines make it cash flow positive.
That said, boy I can sure understand the frustrations and pain about this. I think the suck hole reality we all have to accept here is for a variety of reasons, previous generations lived lives that were unsustainably cheap and convenient, and that cannot feasibly remain the case. A tough pill to swallow, I fully agree.
inclusion
Active Member
If it would really piss off the masses, the recent election likely would have had a different outcome. I know the Journal and Sun like to say people are outraged, but the election results say differently.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
I still think whoever presents this will take a big hit politically...but that's just my opinion.
David A
Senior Member
If the restrictions have low or no fee for residents, it could be accepted. If the city tries to turn it into another cash grab it will not.
Markyeg
Active Member
I actually think this is one of those things that if the city tried to implement with a fee, the UCP would just override that bylaw. It’s something that would make a lot of suburbanites angry, so it’s an easy “win” for the UCP.
Didama
Active Member
Maybe the city should have a referendum....
Option A: 5-6% property tax increase but free street parking
Option B: 0% property tax increase (maybe for 2 years) but $50 per month street parking fee
This would probably be the only way to package it. If the UCP tried to kibosh the street parking then the property tax increase can be blamed on them.
Option A: 5-6% property tax increase but free street parking
Option B: 0% property tax increase (maybe for 2 years) but $50 per month street parking fee
This would probably be the only way to package it. If the UCP tried to kibosh the street parking then the property tax increase can be blamed on them.