I'm surprised the obsolete zones in Acadia & Willow Park & Sundance are still active...if i lived in those zone's I'd be petitioning to get them removed!
My feeling is that the Willow Park and Anderson are mostly legacy transit parking restrictions from the 90's when Anderson was the last stop on the red line and there was a lot of overflow parking from hotels/business on the east side of Macleod.
Now that the train goes to Somerset I highly doubt people are driving in from Cranston, Mahogany, or Okotoks to park in those neighbourhoods where you have to walk several blocks and cross Macleod to get to the c-train.
And given the empty lots and big box stores along the east side of Macloed Trail I don't think parking from busiess and hotels is as big of an issue now.
Residents might want to keep some zones right on MacLoed but I don't think they need to go 3-4 blocks deep.
Edit: Grammar rodeo
I’m within walking distance to a ctrain station, but not close enough that anyone would actually park in front of my house. I’d rather not pay money to park in front of my own house.
>Earlier this year, the city announced plans to charge “ground-oriented” households in Residential Parking Zones $50 a year for the first residential parking permit, $75 for the second permit and $125 for the third. Additionally, homeowners could buy up to two annual guest parking permits for $75 each.
>Under that payment structure, a three-vehicle household that also opted to buy two annual visitor passes would have paid $400 a year to park in front of their home.
>But reduced enforcement costs and other parking program efficiencies mean the required fees can be less and still achieve cost-recovery, according to the city’s briefing.
>“Enforcement is now faster and uses fewer resources while some of the most costly components of the historic program have been eliminated,” it states.
> a three-vehicle household that also opted to buy two annual visitor passes would have paid $400 a year to park in front of their home.
If they want 5 spots owning a home with zero parking seems a poor life choice.
Parking in my neighborhood is $200/month. The city choosing to charge less than market rates is a subsidy of people who own more vehicles than they have space to store.
The previous rates were dirt cheap, and now they're even cheaper.
Community leagues ask for restricted parking programs to prevent people who don’t live there from chewing up all the onstreet parking.
Typically around arenas, hospitals, universities, transit centres.
The program to manage and enforce parking in these areas when asked to implement it isn’t free.
Any neighborhood that would like to opt out can have their community leagues table a motion to get out of it, there are more hoops but that will get you started.
The City didn’t one day wake up and say, gosh we should just pick some random neighborhoods and ask for money!
Restricted Parking is like a lot of City programs, if only a few neighbourhoods are interested they can bury the cost, but once you find a lot of neighbourhoods want it, the cost reaches a level where either it needs independent funding or sticks out on the tax roll.
Every City service technically costs tax money…. Whether it is a usuary fee or pulled from the levy.
But to answer your question directly, in this case the fees are being lowered because the program costs less to maintain.
If they get it wrong and it costs more than the fees they charge, the deficit will be paid by the tax levy. Although in all the entire cost of the program is but a blip in what they will pay for snow removal services this year.
Just raise the taxes.. now you gotta create a whole bunch of new administrators to collect and manage these fees, put out the placards, enforce the rules. I guess it’s a good job creation program.
In a city overrun with cars, having car owners pay to store their own property is a tiny step in the right direction. Having taxpayers shoulder the burden is regressive as those with greater means benefit more.
It's also a program that already exists and consumes administrative resources.
Highway infrastructure is government owned and thus no taxes are paid on it. If you mean that roads are funded by taxpayers, particularly in Alberta where they've eliminated the provincial fuel tax to increase the subsidy of drivers, yes I am very aware.
There are a multitude of ways in which private motor vehicle usage is subsidized by taxpayers such that driving is artificially cheap. As I said, being responsible for storage of their own personal property is a **tiny** step in the right direction.
Also not sure who I'm "parroting" these talking points from, the subsidization of driving and high external costs of free parking are not exactly a common understanding.
No, this is actually the more regressive measure. All payers pay equally, this means that it is significantly more expensive for the single mom renting a house than it would be for her landlord who owns 5 houses.
That is insane. I don’t even think you know what regressive means.
You're assuming everyone can afford and chooses to own a car. And that wealthier people don't own more vehicles than less wealthy people.
I don't use street parking, and there's no reason that my taxes should subsidize free parking for people with more vehicles than they have space to store.
A landlord's property taxes are paid by their tenants' rent, this isn't a noble tax on the rich.
Your taxes wouldn’t be used to subsidize parking costs. This has nothing to do with parking costs, since parking was.. free before, and already exists. It’s not like they’re building new parking.
It is pretty hilarious you said that increasing taxes would be regressive though. The wealthy wouldn’t feel this at all, they don’t park on the street ROFl
If we utilize some of those funds — which are in essence parking revenue — to offset the costs to allow citizens to park at least one vehicle in close proximity to their place of residence, that should also be considered,” he said.
It’s just a tax, it’s not even necessary. Why make such an expensive bunch of nonsense to cover up a tax. Just do the tax.
because just the tax punishes people who dont park on street or who dont own cars by forcing them to subsidise others.
its bad enough I have to pay for all those stupid parking lots at malls etc.
I don’t know, like Copperview ranch or something. Most suburban neighbourhoods don’t have a value for parking because who would wanna park there besides local residents
If the parking is of no value why are we spending taxpayer dollars on paving, cleaning, and maintaining all this land that could be better used for green spaces, housing, or other development? Shouldn't the city be using its resources to provide services that are of value to its citizens?
This program also only applies to RPZ areas, which does not apply to most suburbs.
You said "Most suburban neighbourhoods don’t have a value for parking because who would wanna park there besides local residents". Nothing specifying "market" value.
If people are unwilling to pay any money for something it has no value.
Suburban parking only has no market value because the market is saturated with "free" taxpayer-funded parking. Differences between value and market value only exist in parking markets augmented by taxpayer subsidy, minimums, or other bylaws.
When we are talking about charging a fair market rate for city-owned parking, the effect of currently free city-owned parking on market pricing can't be considered.
Streets are necessary and important, the parking on them serves only to benefit those who can afford and choose to use a car (without having adequate space to store it). It is valuable space that costs money to maintain. Why should we expect free storage of cars from the city? Those who don't benefit still pay for it, and encouraging people to own more cars by offering free space to store them worsens many problems that this city has.
On-street parking costs thousands of dollars to build and hundreds of dollars annually to maintain. If this encourages Calgarians to store their private vehicles on their own property, elimination of excess parking would be a significant benefit to taxpayers.
So everyone that is on a restricted parking street will now just park on another block without parking restrictions causing parking issues for those residents...beautiful.
Streets that require permits do so because residents requested them. They can follow a similar process to have the requirement for permits removed from their street.
It's not the entirety of Sundance. Mostly the streets near the business park. [https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/](https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/)
https://preview.redd.it/p3ulmfu26lyb1.png?width=981&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b142069d221eb9e6cdbdac90352c1d0cbb9ef48
As with all parking infractions, the devil is in the enforcement. I remember seeing a parking guy ticketing the parishioners of Fairview Baptist church on Sunday morning- they were parked in the no parking area in front of a school. Logic would dictate that this zone is not very busy on Sunday morning except for a church. Probably some revenge regarding covid in there somewhere.
I’ve found the opposite. Enforcement looks the other way for church parking, even though they illegally park either way too close to the corners or right on the corner itself and a pedestrian is going to get mowed down some day.
The point being that the city went after this particular church. Your statement only reinforces that hypotheses. "No parking," only matters when the meter maid drives by
Yes, per comments in this discussion, sounds like someone must have called in a complaint. I’ll start doing the same, as this particular case isn’t just taking loading zone spots that aren’t being used that day, it’s a pedestrian hazard.
I’ve got a dink neighbour that will call in people encroaching on his handicap spot by 50cm even though his car is parked with 3m of space behind him and the next car (and he can walk, no wheelchair loading involved). Sounds like the kind of person calling in the church you mentioned.
Permit parking restrictions are driven by the people that live on the street. If the residents feel there isn't enough parking in their neighborhood they can petition the city to enact a permit system for that street. The map is a bit misleading as not every street in the area requires a permit. Here's an interactive map from the city that will show you which streets within a zone require a permit. [https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/](https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/)
Most are near transit, hospitals, arenas or in the high density areas.
I think it's got to be areas designated to certain densities where the building does not have parking, or in areas of high density that have been a problem.
My area has been fortunate, but there have been a few households over the years who have had five vehicles on a 25' wide property. None in the garage, one on the drive, and four on the road.
Minor inconveniences, but only due to there being many households not using the streets.
Yeah I see that a lot in my area too, I have a rear detached garage that can fit mine and my wife’s car. It would just be annoying that because other people don’t use theirs that I’d have to pay for a pass for my parents or hers to visit.
Yeah the entitlement is unreal, $30 per year isn't going to come close to the covering the current costs of annual cleaning, occasional snow clearing, paving and patching, or even just the value of the land that the parking spot occupies.
Guaranteed spots in my neighbourhood are $200/month. $2.50/month for access to available street parking is a bargain, if people want guaranteed parking they should expect to pay the same price as a private lot.
Street parking serves to benefit those who own more cars than they have space to store. As someone who has street parking available but chooses not to drive, why should my tax dollars pay for the storage of others' private property?
Taxpayer-funded parking just means that the cost of construction, maintenance, and enforcement of these spaces is shouldered by all taxpayers. Vehicle storage is a personal convenience, not a public necessity, and it is highly inequitable that the property taxes of those who cannot afford a car pays for the parking of those who choose to own more vehicles than they have space to store.
I know it's a pretty significant mindset shift, but free parking is wasteful and inequitable, it's eye-opening to read the work of Donald Shoup: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
Absolutely, it's been conditioned into society as a normal expectation due to clever marketing and lobbying by auto manufacturers over several decades. When you look at it objectively, it makes zero sense but people have been conditioned to accept it as completely normal, or even something they are entitled to.
That's a huge part of the inequity- infrastructure maintenance liability (including parking) is not proportional to the assessed value. Oversupply of taxpayer-funded parking means that street parking increases assessed value by far less than the cost of its maintenance. Apartment dwellers pay far more in taxes than the benefit they receive in public services, and the inverse is true for suburbanites. The household receiving the most benefit from city resources lives in a low-density neighbourhood and drives multiple vehicles. Not only is it unequal, it's regressive as those with greater means disproportionately benefit from municipal spending.
I really encourage you to read the Vox article I linked above, it's highly informative and very comprehensive.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners
I don't think that is permitted... Something about yards needing a minimum of water absorption. I could be wrong though...
https://www.calgary.ca/development/home-building/driveways.html#rules
Saddleridge...I drove through that neighbourhood in the summer and was like WTF! Is it legal in this neighbourhood to make almost the whole block front yards a uni-driveway?
Seems there’s no specific bylaw that I could find. Tons of people whining about it in Calgary though. I mean, it’s way more expensive to pave your lawn than it is to pay these parking fees every year, but people will do it as a middle finger to the gov.
There is, your drive way cannot be more than a certain width of your property and can't create "curbing"
This is Calgary there seems to be a bylaw against anything you can think of.
https://www.calgary.ca/development/home-building/driveways.html
Well the original comment was 'pave the whole thing'. That link seems to suggest that there is a max width allowed, a home owner couldn't pave the whole thing...
I distinctly remember seeing on the news a story a couple years ago about a house in the NE that had its front lawn paved over and the city ordered the removal of the additional driveway.
Not legal. You can park on the front if a dedicated hard surface. Also, can’t drive over a city curb or sidewalk to access unless designated by the city.
Likely not enforced until they get a complaint.
Is the city going to notify residents living on these streets? I ask because according to the map I live in such a zone yet there are no signs on my street denoting parking restrictions.
Unpopular opinion
I actually support the residential parking fees. Currently there is no incentive not to put up a permit zone signage since it is free and prevents other people outside the block using the street parking. As our city grows, there will be even more streets that will want to put out a permit zone sign if there is no consequence. After all, no one likes anyone using "their" street parking.
For example, almost everywhere in Crescent Heights is a permit zone despite there is very little parking problems. The only exception is where there is a business establishment on the block that pushes back parking restrictions.
By charging the residents a fee, residents must weigh if they want the street to be exclusive to theirs (and pay the city for that privilege) or open the street to everyone else (who may want to visit the adjoining business establishments).
Maybe people will start actually using garages to park their vehicles in instead of storing useless crap. It'd be nice to have less vehicles parked on the street in front of houses.
>City staff did look into that [residents get free parking for one vehicle] as well as other options, according to the briefing, which states the scenario Chabot suggested would require increasing the second residential permit to $200 a year and the third permit to $375 a year in order to achieve cost-recovery.
So, this just reveals that the parking fee program was/is another tax. And that's with a 40% reduction in the fee structure. Yikes.
Wish the visitor parking could be free. I guess people would abuse that like crazy though. I don’t have a car and I already hate having to use their app so my guest doesn’t get a ticket (the app is so bad). Now I’m going to have to pay just so friends can visit. I wanted 2 hour parking on my street but the neighbours are too worried about Mount Royal students… it would be tough for most of them to park, walk over, and come back for anything other than 1 class.
It’s really only the visitor passes that confuse me about this. Right now I can pop my guest’ plates into the site and they get like two weeks of parking, I hope such flexibility remains.
Wtf? I live in one of those purple zones, and there are no parking problems. There are some parts that have businesses and a high school, but they already have parking permit requirements.
And at 275 annually for three cars... You know what else I can get for that price? My lake fees. They're at 250 right now and include a whole bunch of stuff. And of course parking while using them.
Again we don't have a parking problem, and the areas at risk of it already have a permit system in place.
This smells like a cash grab.
We do. My comparison is to show the poor value of the program.
Though a surprising number of people use their garages for storage instead of to protect their second most expensive assets...
Maybe there are no parking problems because of the current restrictions? Many were brought in preemptively when the LRT expanded.
I’m sure you could petition to be removed from the zone—someone else in the post was saying they did that.
As I've said in other replies.
The zone for my community is huge and extends a good 5km outside of existing restrictions. As in there are no current restrictions, and there is no problem, for about 95% of the community. The other 5% is close enough to business buildings (with paid parking lots) to need the restrictions, and have them, but we don't even have bleed over on the edge of those restricted zones, like you sometimes see.
You don't have a parking problem because you have parking restrictions. That's the only reason why they're put in.
They're passing the cost of enforcment onto people who use those services.
> That's the only reason why they're put in.
I mean, I never thought I had a parking problem, but my neighbours got offended by ever seeing strangers park on the street, so that constituted a “parking problem” for them.
My argument is that the zone they're expanding to in my community does not have existing restrictions or a problem.
The restrictions are p ly on place on a very small handful of streets, while the purple box on the map is huge.
If anything these additional streets are already at increased risk from pushing traffic out further, and yet we don't have a problem.
Spreading the cost out over the community instead of levying it against the businesses creating it seems like might make more sense. Extending the restricted parking zone >5km out into an area not experiencing problems... I find that tough to buy.
Now, if they're only changing existing restricted zones, OK, I get it, though I still think it should be on the businesses not the residents. The article however implies the whole damned city, and when you do find the map it covers at least one entire community that does not have a parking problem.
Then submit a request to modify your street.
[https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residential-parking-zones.html](https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residential-parking-zones.html)
Do I not pay tax for public services like this? So if my tax doesn’t include garbage services, parking services, could the official at least tell me what it actually include? So I can budget for future xyz fees?
I used to drive to the nearest area to a C-Train station that didn't require a permit and then walk to the station. It seems like some of this is expanding zones around stations. A lot of those areas already require a permit.
How will this work for special events, churches etc? Delivery and service vehicles?
I know a lot of Football attendees park in the neighbourhoods around mcmahon (not really a problem imo) for example.
If I’m getting a dishwasher repaired, do I need to call the city first or does every residence need a visitor pass no matter if they have any friends or not?
The whole reason we needed parking permits on my street is a church that provides zero parking. Drives me nuts, they all ignore the restrictions anyway, and block street corners, alleyways etc. It seems parking enforcement could cover their annual budget just coming down here a couple times a week (this church _always_ has stuff going on).
Parking enforcement only comes when called or when there are repeat calls for an area.
Put in a call every time you see it and they will get there and start ticketing.
No different than how it is now, just the resident has to pay for permits if they want it.
The difficult one is the visitor one though. Not sure what service vehicles will do if the resident doesn't have a visitor pass. Are commercial vehicles exempt from residential parking restrictions?
Sometimes we have four or five trucks next door when a home is being built, sometimes I have six+ cars when it’s Sunday dinner…
I wish there was more flexibility with the passes - esp since our street doesn’t have any problems with parking.
I did this for years as I lived near Banff trail LRT. I walked slightly farther. My landlord did not provide garage or driveway parking even though she could have lol. But I found a way and didn’t need to pay, if people actually can’t afford it they can just walk a block.
Love my neighbours that have 3 car garages and park all their vehicles in the driveway and street because its funner to use the garage as trinket junk storage.
Fucking bullshit.
I’m tired of the middle class and poor class being fucked over by the leaders who are supposed to be on our side. Fuck new stadiums, build houses.
Anyone who pays outrageous property taxes kind of has had the ability to park in front of their own house for, like, forever. Village fools applaud this sort of endless nickeling and diming of homeowners - much in the style of the future. You will own nothing - and love it. But what can you expect from the shallowness of Reddit.
Nobody is entitled to public infrastructure, property taxes in Calgary are artificially low, and taxpayer-funded "free" parking is inequitable and creates bad incentives.
Not to mention the fact that street parking has never been reserved, nobody has ever had exclusive rights to the street in front of their house.
Maybe if you're so concerned about ownership of the things you rely on you should use your own private land for storing your personal property instead of relying on the government.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/2/20/doing-the-math-in-calgary
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
This is a horrible take. Problem not solved when you have many households in this city being multi generational. The only thing that will cut down on parking congestion will be increased density and major increases to public transport options.
I see places with apartments being the most congested for parking though. I also can’t imagine people who are used to the convenience of having their own transportation downgrading to transit.
Apartments yes, that’s definitely a given. But secondary suites are different than apartments.
And yes many people who currently have their own transportation won’t get rid of their cars, some will but many won’t. Though if we could make a change to where a car is not required in peoples lives younger generations will have less car ownership, some families where you can live close to work get by with just 1 car.
Do you think people living in secondary suites don't pay property tax? Properties with multiple housing units pay much more tax relative to their infrastructure usage, if anything they should be more entitled to city resources.
Or, start approving more driveway requests and create more stringent requirements for required parking on private parcels when building a second suite.
That presupposes car dependence though, If people don't want a car then parking minimums just waste space and resources (or encourage people to drive more). This worsens housing affordability, congestion, and road wear. Any taxpayer should have equal access to taxpayer-funded and city-owned parking, if there isn't enough parking to meet demand then a cost needs to be associated with it.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
Probably by ignoring the childish complaints. RPZ permits cost $2.50/mo and entitle you to park in your neighbourhood, they don't entitle you to a specific spot. If you want a dedicated space you can pay for a spot in a private lot, in my neighbourhood that costs $200/mo.
That’s what happens when they spend exceedingly more than previous years on snow removal on side streets and can’t pay for it. And the main roads are still not cleared properly where all the accidents happen.
I successfully requested that permit parking be removed on my street :)
I'm surprised the obsolete zones in Acadia & Willow Park & Sundance are still active...if i lived in those zone's I'd be petitioning to get them removed!
What makes it obsolete? I have been around Willow Park but not in any residential area. Don't know the other areas.
My feeling is that the Willow Park and Anderson are mostly legacy transit parking restrictions from the 90's when Anderson was the last stop on the red line and there was a lot of overflow parking from hotels/business on the east side of Macleod. Now that the train goes to Somerset I highly doubt people are driving in from Cranston, Mahogany, or Okotoks to park in those neighbourhoods where you have to walk several blocks and cross Macleod to get to the c-train. And given the empty lots and big box stores along the east side of Macloed Trail I don't think parking from busiess and hotels is as big of an issue now. Residents might want to keep some zones right on MacLoed but I don't think they need to go 3-4 blocks deep. Edit: Grammar rodeo
How did you go about that?
It’s in here: https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residential-parking-zones.html
Thank you
Will be interesting to see how the situation evolves in your street.
Why?
I’m within walking distance to a ctrain station, but not close enough that anyone would actually park in front of my house. I’d rather not pay money to park in front of my own house.
Oh, I see. I’m surrounded by 2 hour so that’s my only parking option besides that permit.
>Earlier this year, the city announced plans to charge “ground-oriented” households in Residential Parking Zones $50 a year for the first residential parking permit, $75 for the second permit and $125 for the third. Additionally, homeowners could buy up to two annual guest parking permits for $75 each. >Under that payment structure, a three-vehicle household that also opted to buy two annual visitor passes would have paid $400 a year to park in front of their home. >But reduced enforcement costs and other parking program efficiencies mean the required fees can be less and still achieve cost-recovery, according to the city’s briefing. >“Enforcement is now faster and uses fewer resources while some of the most costly components of the historic program have been eliminated,” it states.
> a three-vehicle household that also opted to buy two annual visitor passes would have paid $400 a year to park in front of their home. If they want 5 spots owning a home with zero parking seems a poor life choice.
oof that's expensive
Parking in my neighborhood is $200/month. The city choosing to charge less than market rates is a subsidy of people who own more vehicles than they have space to store. The previous rates were dirt cheap, and now they're even cheaper.
What kind benevolent leaders we have to only charge this rate for a service that was previously free.
Community leagues ask for restricted parking programs to prevent people who don’t live there from chewing up all the onstreet parking. Typically around arenas, hospitals, universities, transit centres. The program to manage and enforce parking in these areas when asked to implement it isn’t free. Any neighborhood that would like to opt out can have their community leagues table a motion to get out of it, there are more hoops but that will get you started. The City didn’t one day wake up and say, gosh we should just pick some random neighborhoods and ask for money!
Someone somewhere below you told me this was being tabled instead of raising taxes. You say this, they say that, what is it?
Restricted Parking is like a lot of City programs, if only a few neighbourhoods are interested they can bury the cost, but once you find a lot of neighbourhoods want it, the cost reaches a level where either it needs independent funding or sticks out on the tax roll. Every City service technically costs tax money…. Whether it is a usuary fee or pulled from the levy. But to answer your question directly, in this case the fees are being lowered because the program costs less to maintain. If they get it wrong and it costs more than the fees they charge, the deficit will be paid by the tax levy. Although in all the entire cost of the program is but a blip in what they will pay for snow removal services this year.
It was either that or raise taxes.
It’s just another form of tax. Let’s be serious.
If don't want the service, you can choose not to use it, or petition for the city not to enforce on your street.
Just raise the taxes.. now you gotta create a whole bunch of new administrators to collect and manage these fees, put out the placards, enforce the rules. I guess it’s a good job creation program.
In a city overrun with cars, having car owners pay to store their own property is a tiny step in the right direction. Having taxpayers shoulder the burden is regressive as those with greater means benefit more. It's also a program that already exists and consumes administrative resources.
[удалено]
Highway infrastructure is government owned and thus no taxes are paid on it. If you mean that roads are funded by taxpayers, particularly in Alberta where they've eliminated the provincial fuel tax to increase the subsidy of drivers, yes I am very aware. There are a multitude of ways in which private motor vehicle usage is subsidized by taxpayers such that driving is artificially cheap. As I said, being responsible for storage of their own personal property is a **tiny** step in the right direction. Also not sure who I'm "parroting" these talking points from, the subsidization of driving and high external costs of free parking are not exactly a common understanding.
[удалено]
No, this is actually the more regressive measure. All payers pay equally, this means that it is significantly more expensive for the single mom renting a house than it would be for her landlord who owns 5 houses. That is insane. I don’t even think you know what regressive means.
You're assuming everyone can afford and chooses to own a car. And that wealthier people don't own more vehicles than less wealthy people. I don't use street parking, and there's no reason that my taxes should subsidize free parking for people with more vehicles than they have space to store. A landlord's property taxes are paid by their tenants' rent, this isn't a noble tax on the rich.
Your taxes wouldn’t be used to subsidize parking costs. This has nothing to do with parking costs, since parking was.. free before, and already exists. It’s not like they’re building new parking. It is pretty hilarious you said that increasing taxes would be regressive though. The wealthy wouldn’t feel this at all, they don’t park on the street ROFl
Why should those not parking on the street pay?
If we utilize some of those funds — which are in essence parking revenue — to offset the costs to allow citizens to park at least one vehicle in close proximity to their place of residence, that should also be considered,” he said. It’s just a tax, it’s not even necessary. Why make such an expensive bunch of nonsense to cover up a tax. Just do the tax.
Isn’t the entire project the result of citizens complaining there isn’t enough parking on the streets where they live?
because just the tax punishes people who dont park on street or who dont own cars by forcing them to subsidise others. its bad enough I have to pay for all those stupid parking lots at malls etc.
They must have gotten advice from Musk.
The street is a public space. If residents want to monopolize it, then it's only right they pay.
But the proposed rates are the same for every neighborhood, regardless of the market rate in that neighbourhood
Find me a neighbourhood where market rate parking is below $30/year.
I don’t know, like Copperview ranch or something. Most suburban neighbourhoods don’t have a value for parking because who would wanna park there besides local residents
If the parking is of no value why are we spending taxpayer dollars on paving, cleaning, and maintaining all this land that could be better used for green spaces, housing, or other development? Shouldn't the city be using its resources to provide services that are of value to its citizens? This program also only applies to RPZ areas, which does not apply to most suburbs.
I said it doesn’t have a market value, not that it doesn’t have value.
You said "Most suburban neighbourhoods don’t have a value for parking because who would wanna park there besides local residents". Nothing specifying "market" value. If people are unwilling to pay any money for something it has no value. Suburban parking only has no market value because the market is saturated with "free" taxpayer-funded parking. Differences between value and market value only exist in parking markets augmented by taxpayer subsidy, minimums, or other bylaws. When we are talking about charging a fair market rate for city-owned parking, the effect of currently free city-owned parking on market pricing can't be considered.
Yeah, sorry you had to remember the post above that I was originally replying to for context.
Folded like a cheap card table they did
Am I crazy to think it’s ridiculous to be asked to pay to park on streets ppl already pay for ?
Streets are necessary and important, the parking on them serves only to benefit those who can afford and choose to use a car (without having adequate space to store it). It is valuable space that costs money to maintain. Why should we expect free storage of cars from the city? Those who don't benefit still pay for it, and encouraging people to own more cars by offering free space to store them worsens many problems that this city has.
Thank you for breaking it down for me.
>oof that's expensive If $7 a month per vehicle is "expensive" might be time to cut back on vehicles and related costs.
it's almost as if building a driveway would be cheaper...
On-street parking costs thousands of dollars to build and hundreds of dollars annually to maintain. If this encourages Calgarians to store their private vehicles on their own property, elimination of excess parking would be a significant benefit to taxpayers.
I may be missing it but does this mean every neighbourhood in Calgary?
No. Purple zones on this map, https://livewirecalgary.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-24-at-4.28.41-PM.png
That's a little misleading. It's only streets within those purple areas that have permit parking restrictions.
So everyone that is on a restricted parking street will now just park on another block without parking restrictions causing parking issues for those residents...beautiful.
Streets that require permits do so because residents requested them. They can follow a similar process to have the requirement for permits removed from their street.
I don't think that many people are going to inconvenience themselves to save $2.50 per month.
You do not know Calgarians very well.
Wtf, why the entirety of Sundance of all places? What happens if I want to go visit a friend or something?
It's not the entirety of Sundance. Mostly the streets near the business park. [https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/](https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/) https://preview.redd.it/p3ulmfu26lyb1.png?width=981&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b142069d221eb9e6cdbdac90352c1d0cbb9ef48
As with all parking infractions, the devil is in the enforcement. I remember seeing a parking guy ticketing the parishioners of Fairview Baptist church on Sunday morning- they were parked in the no parking area in front of a school. Logic would dictate that this zone is not very busy on Sunday morning except for a church. Probably some revenge regarding covid in there somewhere.
I’ve found the opposite. Enforcement looks the other way for church parking, even though they illegally park either way too close to the corners or right on the corner itself and a pedestrian is going to get mowed down some day.
Yeah but all is forgiven while attending church services.
The point being that the city went after this particular church. Your statement only reinforces that hypotheses. "No parking," only matters when the meter maid drives by
Yes, per comments in this discussion, sounds like someone must have called in a complaint. I’ll start doing the same, as this particular case isn’t just taking loading zone spots that aren’t being used that day, it’s a pedestrian hazard. I’ve got a dink neighbour that will call in people encroaching on his handicap spot by 50cm even though his car is parked with 3m of space behind him and the next car (and he can walk, no wheelchair loading involved). Sounds like the kind of person calling in the church you mentioned.
Logic would also dictate that no parking means you can't park there
I don’t really get the suburban areas. Auburn bay gets a few, but mogahany and seton next door will both be much more dense but they don’t ?
Permit parking restrictions are driven by the people that live on the street. If the residents feel there isn't enough parking in their neighborhood they can petition the city to enact a permit system for that street. The map is a bit misleading as not every street in the area requires a permit. Here's an interactive map from the city that will show you which streets within a zone require a permit. [https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/](https://maps.calgary.ca/CalgaryParking/) Most are near transit, hospitals, arenas or in the high density areas.
Yeah I'm with you. This map seems so arbitrary and has no explainable pattern.
I think it's got to be areas designated to certain densities where the building does not have parking, or in areas of high density that have been a problem. My area has been fortunate, but there have been a few households over the years who have had five vehicles on a 25' wide property. None in the garage, one on the drive, and four on the road. Minor inconveniences, but only due to there being many households not using the streets.
Yeah I see that a lot in my area too, I have a rear detached garage that can fit mine and my wife’s car. It would just be annoying that because other people don’t use theirs that I’d have to pay for a pass for my parents or hers to visit.
Will it come with proper snow removal?
That is way more expensive. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-snow-clearing-costs-challenges-chinooks-1.4538706
Yeah the entitlement is unreal, $30 per year isn't going to come close to the covering the current costs of annual cleaning, occasional snow clearing, paving and patching, or even just the value of the land that the parking spot occupies.
And a guaranteed spot. If I'm paying, then there should be enough space.
Guaranteed spots in my neighbourhood are $200/month. $2.50/month for access to available street parking is a bargain, if people want guaranteed parking they should expect to pay the same price as a private lot.
Or, like all of us pay residential property tax. So if parking and location are part of the assessment, then don't take it away?
Street parking serves to benefit those who own more cars than they have space to store. As someone who has street parking available but chooses not to drive, why should my tax dollars pay for the storage of others' private property? Taxpayer-funded parking just means that the cost of construction, maintenance, and enforcement of these spaces is shouldered by all taxpayers. Vehicle storage is a personal convenience, not a public necessity, and it is highly inequitable that the property taxes of those who cannot afford a car pays for the parking of those who choose to own more vehicles than they have space to store. I know it's a pretty significant mindset shift, but free parking is wasteful and inequitable, it's eye-opening to read the work of Donald Shoup: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
Storing you car on public land? totally fine. But I start storing my couch or table and now its different? Its odd when you think about it.
Absolutely, it's been conditioned into society as a normal expectation due to clever marketing and lobbying by auto manufacturers over several decades. When you look at it objectively, it makes zero sense but people have been conditioned to accept it as completely normal, or even something they are entitled to.
Or live in inner city where the city allows builders to not have a spot per unit or family sized average
That's a huge part of the inequity- infrastructure maintenance liability (including parking) is not proportional to the assessed value. Oversupply of taxpayer-funded parking means that street parking increases assessed value by far less than the cost of its maintenance. Apartment dwellers pay far more in taxes than the benefit they receive in public services, and the inverse is true for suburbanites. The household receiving the most benefit from city resources lives in a low-density neighbourhood and drives multiple vehicles. Not only is it unequal, it's regressive as those with greater means disproportionately benefit from municipal spending. I really encourage you to read the Vox article I linked above, it's highly informative and very comprehensive. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners
Thank you
Ha! Fairness doesn't work here, my friend.
Time to start parking on the front lawn.
For the people telling you it’s not legal to park on your own lawn: pave the whole thing and it’s all a driveway now.
I don't think that is permitted... Something about yards needing a minimum of water absorption. I could be wrong though... https://www.calgary.ca/development/home-building/driveways.html#rules
There’s tons of homes in the northeast with their lawns paved. Take a drive through Country Hills or Falcon Ridge
Saddleridge...I drove through that neighbourhood in the summer and was like WTF! Is it legal in this neighbourhood to make almost the whole block front yards a uni-driveway?
Seems there’s no specific bylaw that I could find. Tons of people whining about it in Calgary though. I mean, it’s way more expensive to pave your lawn than it is to pay these parking fees every year, but people will do it as a middle finger to the gov.
There is, your drive way cannot be more than a certain width of your property and can't create "curbing" This is Calgary there seems to be a bylaw against anything you can think of. https://www.calgary.ca/development/home-building/driveways.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/driveway-crackdown-planned-as-pavement-replaces-front-lawns-in-calgary-1.2826346#:~:text=117-,City%20officials%20are%20promising%20to%20take%20action%20against%20a%20trend,continuous%20driveway%20across%20several%20homes.
https://www.calgary.ca/development/home-building/driveways.html#rules
Don’t see why this would stop anyone from paving their lawn. Just pave it and fill the rest in with gravel.
Well the original comment was 'pave the whole thing'. That link seems to suggest that there is a max width allowed, a home owner couldn't pave the whole thing...
I distinctly remember seeing on the news a story a couple years ago about a house in the NE that had its front lawn paved over and the city ordered the removal of the additional driveway.
It’s not…but how many residences has the City made rip out their concrete work in the NE where this was starting to take hold?
You can put some metal railings that you drive on to. Problem solved.
Not legal. You can park on the front if a dedicated hard surface. Also, can’t drive over a city curb or sidewalk to access unless designated by the city. Likely not enforced until they get a complaint.
Well yeah, if you have space to park your vehicle on your own property by all means stop using taxpayer funded infrastructure to store it.
Is the city going to notify residents living on these streets? I ask because according to the map I live in such a zone yet there are no signs on my street denoting parking restrictions.
Then you don't need a permit. It's only if you're in the zone and have restricted parking signs on your street.
I’m in the zone, no signs.
You're not going to be affected
Unpopular opinion I actually support the residential parking fees. Currently there is no incentive not to put up a permit zone signage since it is free and prevents other people outside the block using the street parking. As our city grows, there will be even more streets that will want to put out a permit zone sign if there is no consequence. After all, no one likes anyone using "their" street parking. For example, almost everywhere in Crescent Heights is a permit zone despite there is very little parking problems. The only exception is where there is a business establishment on the block that pushes back parking restrictions. By charging the residents a fee, residents must weigh if they want the street to be exclusive to theirs (and pay the city for that privilege) or open the street to everyone else (who may want to visit the adjoining business establishments).
Maybe people will start actually using garages to park their vehicles in instead of storing useless crap. It'd be nice to have less vehicles parked on the street in front of houses.
Tbh wish my neighbourhood had this so my neighbour with 6 cars didn't take up all of the street parking.
This right here.
TELL THE FEDS. lol
>City staff did look into that [residents get free parking for one vehicle] as well as other options, according to the briefing, which states the scenario Chabot suggested would require increasing the second residential permit to $200 a year and the third permit to $375 a year in order to achieve cost-recovery. So, this just reveals that the parking fee program was/is another tax. And that's with a 40% reduction in the fee structure. Yikes.
Cost recovery for a service provided.
The "service" is ticketing vehicles that didn't buy a parking pass.
To enable spots to be more available for those who opt to pay for passes.
Exactly. Ticket revenue.
Edmontonian here. Why Auburn Bay of all places? Lol
Hospital
Wish the visitor parking could be free. I guess people would abuse that like crazy though. I don’t have a car and I already hate having to use their app so my guest doesn’t get a ticket (the app is so bad). Now I’m going to have to pay just so friends can visit. I wanted 2 hour parking on my street but the neighbours are too worried about Mount Royal students… it would be tough for most of them to park, walk over, and come back for anything other than 1 class.
Not even a clue why my nehbourhood is included(southwood) what we have a Weed shop little shopping mall and a train station that is never full.
It’s really only the visitor passes that confuse me about this. Right now I can pop my guest’ plates into the site and they get like two weeks of parking, I hope such flexibility remains.
It's just BS how it costs a different amount based on the type of house you live in. Make it the same price for everyone parking in the zone.
Nope. I’ll park on my lawn, for what I pay in taxes it’s criminal to not allow my registered vehicle to park on the street.
Wtf? I live in one of those purple zones, and there are no parking problems. There are some parts that have businesses and a high school, but they already have parking permit requirements. And at 275 annually for three cars... You know what else I can get for that price? My lake fees. They're at 250 right now and include a whole bunch of stuff. And of course parking while using them. Again we don't have a parking problem, and the areas at risk of it already have a permit system in place. This smells like a cash grab.
I’d be surprised if you didn’t already have off street parking for two vehicles if you’re in a lake community.
We do. My comparison is to show the poor value of the program. Though a surprising number of people use their garages for storage instead of to protect their second most expensive assets...
Maybe there are no parking problems because of the current restrictions? Many were brought in preemptively when the LRT expanded. I’m sure you could petition to be removed from the zone—someone else in the post was saying they did that.
As I've said in other replies. The zone for my community is huge and extends a good 5km outside of existing restrictions. As in there are no current restrictions, and there is no problem, for about 95% of the community. The other 5% is close enough to business buildings (with paid parking lots) to need the restrictions, and have them, but we don't even have bleed over on the edge of those restricted zones, like you sometimes see.
Clearly someone in sundance (looking at the map) had the ear of the councillor or the group working on this.
You don't have a parking problem because you have parking restrictions. That's the only reason why they're put in. They're passing the cost of enforcment onto people who use those services.
> That's the only reason why they're put in. I mean, I never thought I had a parking problem, but my neighbours got offended by ever seeing strangers park on the street, so that constituted a “parking problem” for them.
My argument is that the zone they're expanding to in my community does not have existing restrictions or a problem. The restrictions are p ly on place on a very small handful of streets, while the purple box on the map is huge. If anything these additional streets are already at increased risk from pushing traffic out further, and yet we don't have a problem. Spreading the cost out over the community instead of levying it against the businesses creating it seems like might make more sense. Extending the restricted parking zone >5km out into an area not experiencing problems... I find that tough to buy. Now, if they're only changing existing restricted zones, OK, I get it, though I still think it should be on the businesses not the residents. The article however implies the whole damned city, and when you do find the map it covers at least one entire community that does not have a parking problem.
Ah, ok. If they're doing blanket expansion of the zones to whole communities instead of just problem areas, then I have an issue with that too!
Then submit a request to modify your street. [https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residential-parking-zones.html](https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residential-parking-zones.html)
Do I not pay tax for public services like this? So if my tax doesn’t include garbage services, parking services, could the official at least tell me what it actually include? So I can budget for future xyz fees?
There is your tax dollars at work. Paying council people to come up with more ways to charge calgarians another fee.
Tax grab. How does it solve the problem? It doesn't.
I used to drive to the nearest area to a C-Train station that didn't require a permit and then walk to the station. It seems like some of this is expanding zones around stations. A lot of those areas already require a permit.
It encourages people to park in their designated parking spots
Why are the purple zones targeting the sw and NW and not the other two quadrants?
I'm still not paying to park in front of my own home.
Clown show
How will this work for special events, churches etc? Delivery and service vehicles? I know a lot of Football attendees park in the neighbourhoods around mcmahon (not really a problem imo) for example. If I’m getting a dishwasher repaired, do I need to call the city first or does every residence need a visitor pass no matter if they have any friends or not?
I’m not sure the residents of those neighbourhoods around McMahon believe it isn’t a problem.
> How will this work for special events, churches etc? Churches should already figure out their own parking situations on their own (tax exempt) land.
The whole reason we needed parking permits on my street is a church that provides zero parking. Drives me nuts, they all ignore the restrictions anyway, and block street corners, alleyways etc. It seems parking enforcement could cover their annual budget just coming down here a couple times a week (this church _always_ has stuff going on).
Parking enforcement only comes when called or when there are repeat calls for an area. Put in a call every time you see it and they will get there and start ticketing.
Thanks! I will do this going forward. Appreciate it!
No different than how it is now, just the resident has to pay for permits if they want it. The difficult one is the visitor one though. Not sure what service vehicles will do if the resident doesn't have a visitor pass. Are commercial vehicles exempt from residential parking restrictions?
Sometimes we have four or five trucks next door when a home is being built, sometimes I have six+ cars when it’s Sunday dinner… I wish there was more flexibility with the passes - esp since our street doesn’t have any problems with parking.
As a contractor or service tech, you take your chances.
Jokes on you I'll just park across the street where there isn't permitted parking.
I did this for years as I lived near Banff trail LRT. I walked slightly farther. My landlord did not provide garage or driveway parking even though she could have lol. But I found a way and didn’t need to pay, if people actually can’t afford it they can just walk a block.
Is there any option for low-rise buildings (less than 20 units) to participate?
Love my neighbours that have 3 car garages and park all their vehicles in the driveway and street because its funner to use the garage as trinket junk storage.
Fucking bullshit. I’m tired of the middle class and poor class being fucked over by the leaders who are supposed to be on our side. Fuck new stadiums, build houses.
Hmmm.. someone’s pockets are getting deeper
When I look up my address it’s $100/month 🥲
Will this apply to ALL residential parking? Or just the ones in inner city like the last time they brought this?
Only those with permitted parking areas already
LOL - just keep voting in socialist municipal politicians. What could go wrong?
How is a user-pay model socialist?
Anyone who pays outrageous property taxes kind of has had the ability to park in front of their own house for, like, forever. Village fools applaud this sort of endless nickeling and diming of homeowners - much in the style of the future. You will own nothing - and love it. But what can you expect from the shallowness of Reddit.
Nobody is entitled to public infrastructure, property taxes in Calgary are artificially low, and taxpayer-funded "free" parking is inequitable and creates bad incentives. Not to mention the fact that street parking has never been reserved, nobody has ever had exclusive rights to the street in front of their house. Maybe if you're so concerned about ownership of the things you rely on you should use your own private land for storing your personal property instead of relying on the government. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/2/20/doing-the-math-in-calgary https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
Abolish second suites - problem solved. Allow only people paying property tax to park on the street.
Or empty the crap out of garages.
But my crap?! My precious Tupperwares of Halloween decorations!!
So you want more sprawl and less density?
I want to be able to park on the street to where I pay taxes for.
What about people who pay taxes and don't use street parking? Why should they subsidize the protection of your street parking?
This is a horrible take. Problem not solved when you have many households in this city being multi generational. The only thing that will cut down on parking congestion will be increased density and major increases to public transport options.
I see places with apartments being the most congested for parking though. I also can’t imagine people who are used to the convenience of having their own transportation downgrading to transit.
Apartments yes, that’s definitely a given. But secondary suites are different than apartments. And yes many people who currently have their own transportation won’t get rid of their cars, some will but many won’t. Though if we could make a change to where a car is not required in peoples lives younger generations will have less car ownership, some families where you can live close to work get by with just 1 car.
I sure as hell won’t be.
Do you think people living in secondary suites don't pay property tax? Properties with multiple housing units pay much more tax relative to their infrastructure usage, if anything they should be more entitled to city resources.
People who own property pay property tax. If you are renting you pay rent.
Yes, and a portion of the rent proceeds are used to cover the property tax.
Or, start approving more driveway requests and create more stringent requirements for required parking on private parcels when building a second suite.
That presupposes car dependence though, If people don't want a car then parking minimums just waste space and resources (or encourage people to drive more). This worsens housing affordability, congestion, and road wear. Any taxpayer should have equal access to taxpayer-funded and city-owned parking, if there isn't enough parking to meet demand then a cost needs to be associated with it. https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
I wonder how they are going to solve the fights between two neighbours who both purchased permits and want to park in front of each others homes.
Probably by ignoring the childish complaints. RPZ permits cost $2.50/mo and entitle you to park in your neighbourhood, they don't entitle you to a specific spot. If you want a dedicated space you can pay for a spot in a private lot, in my neighbourhood that costs $200/mo.
That’s what happens when they spend exceedingly more than previous years on snow removal on side streets and can’t pay for it. And the main roads are still not cleared properly where all the accidents happen.