5619 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

We have some renters near us who have to park on the street. Some of them are service people of some sort, electricians for example. I don't think a bike will suit them. One lady works all hours at a care home. Tons of people don't have much choice but to drive to work. I'll be alerting them to this proposed charge when I next see them.

I am not advocating the removal of street parking, just the removal of residential parking only areas. We have created a Bizarro market here where most residential areas are free and some are free but restricted to some people. What I think we should be doing is adding a small cost to all parking and allow anyone that pays into that system (and is a resident or business owner) park anywhere they want in the current residential parking areas. This would remove the essential theft of public property by those with restricted areas and also discourage vehicles being parked on the street if there is available space on their property. In my personal opinion free things tend to mess with things.

[Mike K.]

There is no open market for residential parking, in the majority of cases. Like you don’t have demand for the parking by anyone other than a resident living next to the spot. Charging residents would only pad municipal coffers but otherwise offer no service (and it might be revenue negative ultimately once bureaucracy has to manage the spots).

[Midnightly]

For just the cost of a couple months parking, you can buy a bike instead!

yup and end up having to buy a new one every couple of months as it repeatedly gets stolen

[Barrrister]

Our city leaders have made it clear that Victoria is the next Amsterdam so you better get with the program. Street parking costs should be done with a view to not raising revenues as much as eventually reducing the number of cars in the city. Learn to either bike or that the bus. Besides the city should notbe for rich folks who can afford a car.

[Ismo07]

There is no open market for residential parking, in the majority of cases. Like you don’t have demand for the parking by anyone other than a resident living next to the spot. Charging residents would only pad municipal coffers but otherwise offer no service (and it might be revenue negative ultimately once bureaucracy has to manage the spots).

 

There actually could be an open market in most residential areas that might be close to work.  It's the main reason residential street parking restrictions.  No most residential streets would never be busy, especially during the day, unless there has been poor zoning to the street.  A little amount of passes might be able to be sold to commuters of those office buildings near residential areas.

 

There are a few ways to monitor/enforce these residential zones.  The City does it by complaint and based on living on that specific block.  Charging for permit parking would be a large cost to set up and maintain.  Most of these programs do not increase revenue earl on.  The revenue that is received from a program like this would reduce the annual tax increase.  I love the 'fill City coffers' line...  Like they are sitting on a pile of doubloons deciding how to collect more taxes.

 

There are other hybrid models like a limited time/residential permits or even paid/residential areas that allow for some public use but in a limited role.  Residents would purchase a permit for the ability to park in the timed or paid spaces. 

 

I'm still a fan of the current model...  Be careful what you ask for.

[Victoria Watcher]

No most residential streets would never be busy, especially during the day, unless there has been poor zoning to the street.  

 

 

 

Like new fourplexes and sixplexes with no parking required?  

[Mike K.]

There actually could be an open market in most residential areas that might be close to work.

Yes I did address that. But that’s the minority of parking spaces, overall.

Will residents who live on streets where the public wants to park receive a tax deduction because the city is charging for street parking through no fault of the residents of a street, that happens to be desirable because of development or changes to other parking restrictions?

This happened on my mom’s street. Nobody wanted to/needed to park on her block other than residents, until the city made several blocks closer to town no-parking zones and pushed those drivers to residential streets some blocks further from town. Eventually I did raise this issue, and the CoV implemented no non-resident parking until 5PM restriction. 75% or more of the people who park on the street are renters in secondary suites. Some of the older stock of homes also don’t have driveways, or driveways conducive to safely parking a vehicle. Many are also very small and could not fit a sedan without it sticking out into the sidewalk. Should we address this through $150,000 conversions and driveway expansions, to improve affordability (so the city can then charge for parking)?

[G-Man]

The problem is that as a tax paying citizen you should have equal access to all public property. As it is now, some people get exclusive use of some space for no extra cost. As an alternative I would be in favour of raising property tax by 10% along all streets that have residential exclusive parking. You should not get a public benefit for free. You guys are sounding like a bunch of commie / lefties with all this free public parking. I would also support leasing parking along streets to private enterprise to resell as it would have the same positive impact. 

[Victoria Watcher]

The problem is that as a tax paying citizen you should have equal access to all public property. As it is now, some people get exclusive use of some space for no extra cost. 

 

How do you feel about homes that get free use of lawn/land at the street?

 

[Barrrister]

Cars in the city are a luxury so overnight parking on the street should come with a high permit fee to really encourage people to use the bus or bike to were they are going. I can see an exception for doctors and elected city officials.

[G-Man]

How do you feel about homes that get free use of lawn/land at the street?

 

screenshot-maps.victoria.ca-2022.07.05-12_35_01.png

 

Well in that picture I would suggest a sidewalk would be better but yeah I don't like it. They should have to purchase it or be taxed for its use.

[Ismo07]

Yes I did address that. But that’s the minority of parking spaces, overall.

Will residents who live on streets where the public wants to park receive a tax deduction because the city is charging for street parking through no fault of the residents of a street, that happens to be desirable because of development or changes to other parking restrictions?

This happened on my mom’s street. Nobody wanted to/needed to park on her block other than residents, until the city made several blocks closer to town no-parking zones and pushed those drivers to residential streets some blocks further from town. Eventually I did raise this issue, and the CoV implemented no non-resident parking until 5PM restriction. 75% or more of the people who park on the street are renters in secondary suites. Some of the older stock of homes also don’t have driveways, or driveways conducive to safely parking a vehicle. Many are also very small and could not fit a sedan without it sticking out into the sidewalk. Should we address this through $150,000 conversions and driveway expansions, to improve affordability (so the city can then charge for parking)?

 

Most of those streets went to residential as well..  That is how this rush happens, it's a leap frog effect.  This residential model has been discussed for about 15 years.  There are good and bad things with a permit system.  I haven't heard anything about moving forward on that, even whispers at this point.  There would have to be a very in depth look at the impacts of a change like that would have.  Usually we might have 3-5,000 annual interactions with residents and guests regarding tickets.  A permit system we might see that climb to 25,000.  Again Mike these programs are not much of a money maker.  The residents do not own the street parking so there would not be any compensation if the street restriction changes.  Any permit model should have pricing based on capacity similar to how residents in higher capacity areas would.  I mean if there has to be something.  I'm still not a fan of it at this point.

[Ismo07]

How do you feel about homes that get free use of lawn/land at the street?

 

There are boulevards everywhere in all cities.  No one builds to the road line and the City shouldn't build road right to the property line.  There are many businesses that benefit from this as well.

Edited by Ismo07, 05 July 2022 - 08:50 AM.

[G-Man]

Most of those streets went to residential as well..  That is how this rush happens, it's a leap frog effect.  This residential model has been discussed for about 15 years.  There are good and bad things with a permit system.  I haven't heard anything about moving forward on that, even whispers at this point.  There would have to be a very in depth look at the impacts of a change like that would have.  Usually we might have 3-5,000 annual interactions with residents and guests regarding tickets.  A permit system we might see that climb to 25,000.  Again Mike these programs are not much of a money maker.  The residents do not own the street parking so there would not be any compensation if the street restriction changes.  Any permit model should have pricing based on capacity similar to how residents in higher capacity areas would.  I mean if there has to be something.  I'm still not a fan of it at this point.

Why not outsource the enforcement to a private company. Lease them the rights to all residential parking space for a lumpsum which can go into further road and bike lane improvements and have them manage the permit system and enforcement? I am sure that the cost of the permit could be set into the agreement. Have a 1 year trial and then move into 3 year contracts. 

[sebberry]

Why not outsource the enforcement to a private company.

 

Oh god no, thanks.  Do we really want Robbins taking this on?

[Mike K.]

There would have to be a very in depth look at the impacts of a change like that would have.

Hopefully a little more in depth than the biggest zoning change in the city’s history.

[Mike K.]

The problem is that as a tax paying citizen you should have equal access to all public property. As it is now, some people get exclusive use of some space for no extra cost.

What about government offices? Taxpayers pay for them, but they can’t access them. Should government workers benefiting from those paid-for offices pay a rental rate for the use of the desk and resources, and accept that anyone can use that asset?

There’s a lot we pay for that we don’t get to access, or access isn’t guaranteed or equal. If we want to equalize access to all public assets, the outcome might not be quite as attractive as it would first appear.

Now how about the reverse. Homeowners have to clean sidewalks in front of their property and either pay the city to
maintain the boulevard or maintain it themselves. Where’s the equality there, when the boulevard is public space, as is the sidewalk?

[Nparker]

... Homeowners have to clean sidewalks in front of their property and either pay the city to maintain the boulevard or maintain it themselves...

And in the case of sidewalk snow removal, property owners must do the work themselves or potentially face a fine from the city.

[G-Man]

What about government offices? Taxpayers pay for them, but they can’t access them. Should government workers benefiting from those paid-for offices pay a rental rate for the use of the desk and resources, and accept that anyone can use that asset?

There’s a lot we pay for that we don’t get to access, or access isn’t guaranteed or equal. If we want to equalize access to all public assets, the outcome might not be quite as attractive as it would first appear.

Now how about the reverse. Homeowners have to clean sidewalks in front of their property and either pay the city to
maintain the boulevard or maintain it themselves. Where’s the equality there, when the boulevard is public space, as is the sidewalk?

 

This is not the same thing and you know it. This would be more akin to having some offices open to the public and then having some only open to an elite.

 

Why can't downtown condo owners ask for View Street to be made into Residential Parking Only streets? It is such a clear theft of a public good that should either be open to all or closed to all for a fee.

 

Why is everyone so opposed to a fee? I mean you can't park on that residential only street now and this would mean you could if you had a city wide permit. I would suggest something reasonable like between 100 - 150 a year per car. That is less than parking for one month downtown. 

 

How is the current system a good one?

 

Also you do not pay to have your boulevard serviced by the city, it is the reverse, if the block agrees to do it, then there is a reduction in your quarterly bill if the block maintains it. 

[Mike K.]

It’s pretty comparable. You may not like people having proverbial taxpayer subsidized private parking, and others may not like having proverbial taxpayer funded private offices. Both are elitist, depending on how you view them, and both should not be free to the benefactor, if we are to believe that a public asset should have either equal access or generate revenue from its benefactor (having a government job with a taxpayer supplied office could be viewed as a potentially taxable benefit, or an expense of having that job).

Why can't downtown condo owners ask for View Street to be made into Residential Parking Only streets? It is such a clear theft of a public good that should either be open to all or closed to all for a fee.

Primarily because there are competing interests for the space. On a residential side street, there are no competing interests. The City has also provided parkades for the residents (plus there are private lots and garages) if they don’t want to pay to park on the street or don’t have space in their building, so the residents are provided with multiple options. The renter on Pine Street parking on the street has no other option.

Why is everyone so opposed to a fee? I mean you can't park on that residential only street now and this would mean you could if you had a city wide permit.

It generally means that there is paid parking nearby, or commercial services should be providing the parking that may be competing with the residents of a neighbourhood. It’s an issue for businesses or municipalities (parks, attractions) to address, not the residents to have to deal with.

Also you do not pay to have your boulevard serviced by the city, it is the reverse, if the block agrees to do it, then there is a reduction in your quarterly bill if the block maintains it.

Either you pay the city, or you expend money to do it yourself.