Jump to content

      



























Photo

Micro Housing Victoria


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:29 PM

From CFAX:

Once again the city will be able to side-step any input from neighbours in order to push ahead with one of Council's pet projects. Meanwhile, an extra few metres on the Northern Junk project is scrutinized to death for fear of sparking Armageddon.

Well the micro housing proposal may be questionable, but using a lot to provide free parking to residents in perpetuity is still absurd.  Why do people expect free asset storage?



#22 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:42 PM

Well the micro housing proposal may be questionable, but using a lot to provide free parking to residents in perpetuity is still absurd.  Why do people expect free asset storage?

Why does the public expect free on street parking?   I personally would get rid of all on street parking because we do not need to make the roads larger to store cars


  • Nparker, lanforod and nagel like this

#23 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 11:41 PM

^ Ya on-street parking just grew from somewhere or another.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#24 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 21,008 posts

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:42 AM

Well the micro housing proposal may be questionable, but using a lot to provide free parking to residents in perpetuity is still absurd.  Why do people expect free asset storage?

 

The release from the City was pretty careful to state that there were no formal or legal requirements to provide parking to the residents in exchange for losing on street parking. Clearly there was some sort of informal agreement however or else the City would not have paved the lot and allowed cars to park on it for free all of these years.



#25 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 23 June 2016 - 06:11 AM

The release from the City was pretty careful to state that there were no formal or legal requirements to provide parking to the residents in exchange for losing on street parking. Clearly there was some sort of informal agreement however or else the City would not have paved the lot and allowed cars to park on it for free all of these years.


"Sure, we can pave that so you can park there." Sort of like paving a boulevard. They can still change the street design at any time, e.g., by putting in a horrid bike lane, and then you're SOL. Time to actually pay for your own bit of space to store your own vehicle.

#26 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,736 posts

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:45 PM

I guess a similar situation is occurring in Vancouver with the Point Grey Road "improvements". They are widening the sidewalks by using the 4 meters of city property each house along the street has purloined for their own gates, hedges etc. Sort of like the Arbutus corridor.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users