If it's implemented by Metrolinx, it would be GHTA-wide. So the 905 wouldn't see much of an advantage from it compared to the 416.
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
If it's implemented by Metrolinx, it would be GHTA-wide. So the 905 wouldn't see much of an advantage from it compared to the 416.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Better that Ontario impose a parking tax on ALL parking lots, including the ones that are currently "free", to be directed towards transit. That would include visitors parking in office parks and apartment buildings. Don't want to pay the tax, take local transit, or bike.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
A lot of those free parking lots are around things like malls.....and a lot of them the size is imposed upon the owner/developer....so this plan would see a situation where developer is forced to build parking by law and then taxed for doing so by law....seems a bit unfair...no? In your plan how does the user taking a bike to the local mall free the owner of the local mall from paying the tax?
Rainforest
Senior Member
Taxing parking lots of apartment buildings would be extremely problematic. They are owned by the landlord but mostly used by tenants, so who is going to pay the tax?
If you bill the landlord for the number of parking lots at the building regardless to their usage, the costs will be passed on to all tenants. Such proposal would be an electoral disaster for any pro-transit politician, as the tenants / voters will massively support politicians who do not want any transit investments.
Alternatively, you can tax only tenants who actually use their lots. That might be easier to swallow, but harder to implement as actual usage needs to be monitored.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Except that residential landlords are a bit of an easy target for politicians. In the last few days (for example) they were just told that they cannot pass on any additional costs brought to them by HST to their tenants.....they just have to make less money......politicians always try to favour tenants...they look at it as "mmmm should I risk losing the votes of the residents of those 300 apartments or the votes of the 1 guy who owns the building?"
Dan416
Senior Member
I think taxing parking is a good idea, and I'm sure some smart person can figure out a way to do it that will make us less reliant on parking, and fund public transit at the same time, but not make the price so high that it's a burden. And if we make the burden of a parking tax affordable, then we can do road tolls as well, but make them reasonable as well. That way we can have a whole slew of small "tax" increases, but they won't hit you too hard when you pay them. But taken together they'll still bring in a lot of revenue for transit. I don't see why we have to limit ourselves to one new tax for transit. Multiple revenue streams would be better.
kettal
Banned
Well minimum parking requirements need to be lowered of course. But once the tax is in place, the mall would be very quick to build condos or offices or whatever on their parking lots. Creates density and brings thousands of new customers literally to the mall's doorstep. Everybody wins.
Ansem
Banned
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...don-t-be-afraid-of-ford-says-campaign-manager
Do you support building more subway routes around the city?
Strongly support 66%
moderately support 28%
moderately oppose 4%
Strongly oppose 2%
Do you support a 5$ road toll to drive your car into downtown on roads like Gardiner Expressway and the DVP?
Strongly support 15%
moderately support 16%
moderately oppose 17%
Strongly oppose 51%
But 42% said they were more likely to support road tolls if money went to improving public transit like the TTC and GO
Do you support building more subway routes around the city?
Strongly support 66%
moderately support 28%
moderately oppose 4%
Strongly oppose 2%
Do you support a 5$ road toll to drive your car into downtown on roads like Gardiner Expressway and the DVP?
Strongly support 15%
moderately support 16%
moderately oppose 17%
Strongly oppose 51%
But 42% said they were more likely to support road tolls if money went to improving public transit like the TTC and GO
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Curious.............seeing Toronto bitched about having to bend over for the Ontario Municiple Board for a law geared to Toronto have they actually done anything with it to raise income?
TOareaFan
Superstar
So, to paraphrase that poll result (and it is a similar result you get when you poll about a lot of tax/spend issues).....I/we want subways but I/we don't want to pay for them.....someone else needs to do that.
TOareaFan
Superstar
There are cases in each of the suburbs, I am sure, where there is sufficient parking in sufficient location to roads/transit that you could see a redvelopment/intensification occurring. These tend to be the larger malls. By far, though, the situation is usually a bit more of a case where the requirment for parking has created a strip of stores surrounded by strips of parking.......so reducing that parking requirement is not going to produce a usuable piece of land for redevelopment.....
.....even if changing parking requirements on existing suburban retail created, instantly, a whole bunch of potential condo/office/whatever redevelopment opportunities, the rate that these opportunities would be developed would be controlled by such things as market demand (just because the land is available now does not mean there is a need for what you can do with it) and owner ability (owning a strip plaza does not automatically make you an office/condo developer).
The tax parking/reduce parking ratios/increase density theory is a good one and a bit of a text book idea.......in reality the number of applications of it are a bit limited.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The current gasoline tax is supposed to pay for road construction and maintenance. However, it falls short. Roads are paid for from general revenue, including property taxes. In other words, the 416 property owners pays for the maintenance of its expressways, parkways, and local roads so that the 905 drivers can drive on them.
Road tolls would be like transit fares, but as the survey shows, it is not well liked. That means that gasoline taxes have to be raised to help pay for the roads, not just provincial roads, but local roads as well. A portion of gasoline taxes should also go to local municipalities to help maintain their roads. The HST on gasoline (coming in July) is one step to that direction.
Europe pays higher gasoline taxes than North America, even with the HST added on. The result is also a higher proportion using public transit as an alternative.
Road tolls would be like transit fares, but as the survey shows, it is not well liked. That means that gasoline taxes have to be raised to help pay for the roads, not just provincial roads, but local roads as well. A portion of gasoline taxes should also go to local municipalities to help maintain their roads. The HST on gasoline (coming in July) is one step to that direction.
Europe pays higher gasoline taxes than North America, even with the HST added on. The result is also a higher proportion using public transit as an alternative.
If you're a little strip mall with 20-30 parking spots, this tax may not affect you as much. I would envision it being targeted mainly at the SmartCentres crowd. Maybe you can even put in some sort of an exemption, anything over X number of spots per store, you get taxed on them. That would also eliminate the "well the by-law says we need a minimum of this many, so we had to put in that many". The vast majority of the power centres put in muuuuuuch more parking than what is required by law. THOSE are the guys this tax should target. The little strip mall with 3 stores and 10 parking spots out front aren't where the majority of the money will be coming from anyway.
And residential units should not be taxed. A lot of the condos put in 1.5 spots for every unit, which is a very reasonable amount.
And residential units should not be taxed. A lot of the condos put in 1.5 spots for every unit, which is a very reasonable amount.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I can assure you that a fully developed Smart Centre does not have way more parking than is required by law. It is true that they build them in a modular fashion so at the onset some of them do have excess parking when the intial stores open but when you count the undeveloped square footage and the parking that that takes away they are typically at minimum (developers like to make money......they make money by building things that generate cash flow that can be sold or, at least, create a value, empty parking does not do this....they need to build parking to attract the tenants and satisfy the municipalities...that is the only reason they do it....I bet you there is not a significant retail developer anywhere who has not stood in front of some (likely many) municipal councils arguing for a varience on parking levels....and they are not arguing for more parking...I can assure you).
All that your suggestion would do is mean that they would not pave the undeveloped land.....then it would not be used for parking and would, then, not be taxed under your idea.
Not taking a shot here but now we are addinng to the list of parking exemptions.......residential is now exempt along with small retail.......would it not be better to just announce that what we want to do is tax Smart Centres and RioCan and be done with it....cause I think that is where the list of exemptions that people will earnestly support will lead.
valkoholic
Active Member
If people are really concerned about the overbuilding of parking, look into the City's new zoning by-law. It's the first in around 30 years and for the most part fails to reduce parking requirements for new developments. For example, new office developments downtown toronto will see their parking requirements go up pretty substantially. Residential requirements don't change much at all (when in fact they could be reduced drastically).
I mentioned earlier that almost all parking constructed in the City of Toronto is subsidized by developers. There is very little parking constructed in the City that actually makes money for the people that built it (urban or suburban, commercial or residential). Over-stating minimum by-law parking requirements is one of the reasons for this. City staff have stated they're happy with the new by-law and it could be passed soon.
Not to politicize this, but if we had a mayor that cared about changing travel habits this by-law would not have been so poorly done. This project was done on Miller's watch and will result in the unneccesary construction of lots of parking throughout the City.
I mentioned earlier that almost all parking constructed in the City of Toronto is subsidized by developers. There is very little parking constructed in the City that actually makes money for the people that built it (urban or suburban, commercial or residential). Over-stating minimum by-law parking requirements is one of the reasons for this. City staff have stated they're happy with the new by-law and it could be passed soon.
Not to politicize this, but if we had a mayor that cared about changing travel habits this by-law would not have been so poorly done. This project was done on Miller's watch and will result in the unneccesary construction of lots of parking throughout the City.