TAS
Senior Member
Well as one important next step, at least the city appears to be headed in the direction of eliminating parking on downtown lots that aren't even zoned for it. Coun. Salvador made that inquiry recently.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Well as one important next step, at least the city appears to be headed in the direction of eliminating parking on downtown lots that aren't even zoned for it. Coun. Salvador made that inquiry recently.
Greenspace
Senior Member
^I am hoping something comes out of that report. 5 years ago Bylaw Enforcement was actively trying to shut down surface parking lots that don't have proper permits in place to do Non-Accessory Parking. Now they don't bother. I can list half a dozen lots that don't have proper development permits in place. They just do it and operators like Impark know they can get away with it until someone complains and Bylaw actually cares to clamp down.
CaptainBL
Active Member
There seems to be a massive disconnect between what is allowed and what is actually enforced downtown. And I am not just referring to parking lots, but your comment reinforces my thoughts. Whether its operating parking lots without a permit or allowing a developer to leave their lot in poor condition, there are bylaws to protect against this yet enforcing it seems to be a different unfortunate reality.
IanO
Superstar
^a massive former pet peeve for me. You must 'light, landscape, hard-surface and drain' them, but the is little to minus 20 enforcement and few folks caring about them. Sadly, those that do upgrade or comply have little inventive to do so for it often means higher taxes due increased assessment AND required higher rates to offset those upgrades.
There is NO place for a dirt or gravel lot in the core, period; let alone the very real and negative impact to a pedestrian's experience when the wind picks up.
There is NO place for a dirt or gravel lot in the core, period; let alone the very real and negative impact to a pedestrian's experience when the wind picks up.
Gronk!
Senior Member
There are 275 surface parking lots in downtown Edmonton, most without permits - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca
The city said there are limited options to address the lots operating without a permit as ramping up enforcement would be time-consuming and costly.
globalnews.ca
Barnaby
Active Member
I hope they make an effort to close them down and make holding them undesirable.
TAS
Senior Member
There are 275 surface parking lots in downtown Edmonton, most without permits - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca
The city said there are limited options to address the lots operating without a permit as ramping up enforcement would be time-consuming and costly.
I don't understand or accept the city response of basically accepting the status quo.
northlands
Senior Member
100% agreed
"The city said ramping up enforcement against lots without permits is not the best option."
“Options for stricter development permit enforcement are limited, time consuming and costly,” the report reads.
“Forcing the closure of parking lots is unlikely to compel a landowner to develop a lot. If surface parking lots are closed, it creates vacant land, which could then be subjected to social disorder.”"
OK so why can we not simply enforce bylaws regarding the upkeep and maintenance of vacant lots? Can somebody please help me understand why it's been an issue the City either is unable and/or unwilling to solve. Bylaw will put the screws to a private citizen whose grass is a couple inches too tall but Regency can leave 3/4 acre parcel of land looking like a bomb went off smack in the middle of our CBD for five consecutive years. Make it make sense.
JuliallThat
Active Member
I don't expect all the lots to be closed, but I certainly expect the rules to be enforced. We shouldn't aim at forcing the lots to be closed outright, but we should obligate all parking lot operations to acquire permits, and improve the quality of their lots as necessary to qualify for those permits.
Only if they fail to obtain the appropriate permit, or fail to maintain their parking lot as required should we resort to forcing closures.
For one reason or another this status quo has been accepted for decades, and I can't blame landowners for operating unpermitted parking within a system that has allowed exactly that to operate for so long. But we also can't allow this to continue.
If a parking lot operator decides that obtaining permits for their paid parking lot is too burdensome, then they're welcome to develop something else there.
The suggestion from administration that we shouldn't enforce this is exactly the sort of flaccid response that leads to this problem.
Only if they fail to obtain the appropriate permit, or fail to maintain their parking lot as required should we resort to forcing closures.
For one reason or another this status quo has been accepted for decades, and I can't blame landowners for operating unpermitted parking within a system that has allowed exactly that to operate for so long. But we also can't allow this to continue.
If a parking lot operator decides that obtaining permits for their paid parking lot is too burdensome, then they're welcome to develop something else there.
The suggestion from administration that we shouldn't enforce this is exactly the sort of flaccid response that leads to this problem.
Last edited:
The_Cat
Senior Member
Are the lots managed by parking providers? Perhaps one thing to look at is what parking restrictions are on the adjacent street. If it's restricted, the adjacent lots should have the permits.
No parking restrictions (which I assume for streets further away from downtown), there would be no incentive for parking on those lots.
No parking restrictions (which I assume for streets further away from downtown), there would be no incentive for parking on those lots.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
I don’t understand the reluctance of the city to push for permits from the “non conforming” parking lots. Send a letter to each to get approvals or extension of their permit. If an owner chooses to ignore, block the entrance with jersey barriers to not allow parking and bill the owner for that cost. I am sure the majority will do the right thing as they will lose the revenue and be encouraged to be in compliance. If the city is worried about cost, do five or six parking lots first. Word will spread quickly hat compliance is worth it.
The_Cat
Senior Member
When I looked at the map, many of these lots were around Boyle Street (95 Street and 103A Avenue), and they have probably been that way for decades.
Greenspace
Senior Member
Bylaw did a lot more 4-5 years ago to manage the situation than they do now including shutting down lots, putting up barriers and fencing. I understand turning a bit of a blind eye during the pandemic, but what's the excuse now? There are standards they need to maintain, every business is required to have proper licences and permits.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
I don't think the answer is to shut down parking lots, but to enforce the existing rules with fines and penalties, enough to make it worthwhile for these lots to become compliant and better maintained.
If the city can not do that, then there is no reason to keep rules they can or will not enforce.
If the city can not do that, then there is no reason to keep rules they can or will not enforce.