I think we’re saying the same thing re: the arbitrariness of the RPZs.
My point is that there are areas within and neighbouring the Marda Loop BIA which make more sense to be RPZs than other areas that have been established as RPZs (GG as an example), but don’t meet the arbitrary criteria to establish them (e.g., a hospital).
I also agree with you about establishing paid parking, but would point out that in an area like Marda Loop (33/34 Aves specifically), the recent changes made to the RPP program actually makes an RPZ “paid parking”, because residents of buildings of 4+ stories or with more than 20 units requires a Market Permit (in GG, the 2023 cost of a Market Permit is $100/month ($1,200/year)). These streets (33 in particular) are transitioning to these types of buildings.
If we only establish paid parking on 33/34, and don’t establish RPZs in those areas, residents of these buildings will just park one or two streets away where paid parking is not established.
It’s easy to say “so what, the residents on those nearby streets don’t own the street in front of their home” (and I agree), but the point of paid parking (and the RPZ) is to promote people to ditch their cars (or one of them) for alternative forms of transportation, or to find off-street parking, not to park them on a different street.
I’ll also note that all those people who live in small multi-residential buildings and ground-oriented buildings within RPZs do now have to pay for their RPPs. Although the cost is low (~$75-$250 per vehicle per year), and I think the cost for street parking for these types of residents should be higher, it is kind of satisfying that residents in those arbitrary (influential) RPZs will now have to pay for street parking).
My personal opinion is that establishment of paid parking (including RPZs) needs to be undertaken by the City, not in response to citizen lobbying, and needs to have redefined,” and defensible criteria.