Frances Bula header image 2
← →

First big campaign day: NPA talks about free parking on Sundays, Vision talks housing, free swim lessons

October 10th, 2014 · 70 Comments

Suddenly, the energy level has ramped up in the campaign and lots to do and cover the last two days.

Things started off Wednesday with duelling newsers from Vision and the NPA, where Vision announced its “family-friendly” (you’d think in this province, they’d be wary of that phrase, but whatever) affordability platform, emphasizing their commitment to keep looking for ways to encourage new rental apartments, family-oriented units, and social housing, along with, yes, free swim lessons. Only for those under 14, so don’t get too excited, my blogsters, about getting a chance to finally learn to swim.

Kirk LaPointe of the NPA took to Kerrisdale to say that motorists have been treated with disdain by Vision Vancouver and, to help out struggling families who just want to park easily as they do their shopping and so on, an NPA government would get rid of parking charges outside the downtown for Sundays and holidays, as well as scaling back the hours for paid parking everywhere from 10 p.m. to 8 p.m. My story here.

That night, there was a council candidates’ debate at Killarney community centre where, predictably, the big issues were the funding for the seniors’ centre and the fight between the park board and six community centres. Vision council candidates Raymond Louie and Niki Sharma didn’t get booed or anything. Louie kept insisting the city’s $1.2 million is there if it’s needed, contrary to reports, and Sharma was very conciliatory, though vague (“we should talk”)  in her answers about how to de-escalate the situation between the park board and centres.

But certainly other candidates got big rounds of applause for saying the fight should end and Vision dithered for 12 years on the seniors centre. (Though they’ve only been in power for six, so that seemed off.)

Then, yesterday, a news conference by the Chernens from the Cedar Party in the morning, claiming that the city failed to get the best deal out of the Oakridge redevelopment, leaving hundreds of millions on the table. Apparently their team called the Vancouver police department, alleging actual fraud. The RCMP’s E Division apparently went to city planning to ask some questions and then declined to lay any charges. Lots of photocopied documents and allegations of this and that passed around.

And, in the evening, a big rally by Metro Vancouver Alliance, the coalition of churches, unions, advocacy groups and others pushing to create change in four areas: housing, a living wage, better transit, and measures to alleviate social isolation. The three major mayoral candidates, Gregor Robertson, Kirk LaPointe, Meena Wong, plus the Greens Adriane Carr were there. I tweeted madly on this. If I get a burst of energy, I’ll storify them and post.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Chris Keam

    You weren’t called frivolous. Your comment was characterized as unproductive and glib IMO. Also, you’re upvoting your own comments?

  • boohoo

    No garage, no driveway. My back yard is full of fruit trees and planter boxes. We park our one car on the street. If there were a fee or tax to do so I would pay it.

  • Kirk

    What does it explain? And, what’s with the snarky attitude anyway? If you think healthcare and education are functioning fine in BC, you must not have had to deal with loved ones on waiting lists and children during the school strike. That explains a lot.

    And now I feel bad for being so condescending. And, I apologize.

    Back on topic. The govt of the day will use all our collective tax dollars to benefit only their supporters. That, in a nut shell, is how democracy works.

    People who want free parking will vote NPA. People who want bike lanes will vote Vision. Neither parking nor bikes is a wedge issue for me, so my vote is still undecided. I ignore any claims purporting to solve homelessness, drug use, home affordability… They all say it, and none of them can deliver.

    The media transparency topic was a big item for me, so I was leaning NPA. But, now I’m rethinking that and no longer have it on my make it or break it list.

  • Kirk

    You live in a SFH?!? That’s the SUV of housing! Your eco footprint is killing the planet! Rub our noses in your garden! The rest of us have to buy food to feed our families! How many Oppenheimer campers could live in your yard, yet you selfishly use it for basil?!? You deem your street parking as priceless?!? How sprawled out our city would be if everyone was a selfish as you! I hope they put 30 minute max limit meters throughout your quaint little hamlet! Property taxes on SFHs should increase at least 10x to account for all the problems they cause!

    I’m just joking, boohoo. I’m hoping for a frivolous vote like jenables. Bring it people! Bring it! 🙂

  • Voice of Reason

    With the exception of a few restrictions on certain roadways like the freeway, cyclists are free to use the same roadways as cars and so have no shortage of public space to cycle.

  • Voice of Reason

    It is incorrect to suggest that only motorists benefit from street parking. One may live on a residential street and not own a car yet benefit from street parking in order to receive deliveries, trades people, visitors, handi dart, etc. This is clearly a public service that benefits many more people than just motorists.

  • jenables

    Accidentally, yes. But I’m standing by it. Besides, how could I not want to upvote when I see that adorable little midi face wearing the cub scouts uniform?

  • jenables

    Well, you could always petition your neighbours to make it permit parking. Then you can all pay, and everyone else can get towed. Of course, you *do* already pay taxes which should contribute to this cause, and I often wonder how money can be scarce when record amounts of property tax are being taken in. I guess we won’t know until 2025, when we can find out what the city really spent on the games.

  • jenables

    There ya go. You are on fire today!

  • Internet made me obsolete

    In my neighbourhood I pay $8K/yr for street parking.

  • Chris Keam

    My understanding is that we are largely discussing metered street parking in the downtown area, not residential streets. Nonetheless, deliveries, visitors et al could most likely be handled with a few spots on every block rather than the domination of road space for the storage of personal vehicles that is the norm. Further, those parking spots benefit the vehicle operator or owner. I don’t care if the delivery person would have to walk a block to deliver a package to my home. Which is something I can’t remember happening in recent memory, so not really of much benefit to me or anyone else who isn’t in the habit of getting home delivery of stuff. Again however, it’s the comparison of parking with fire protection and education that seems inaccurate IMO.

  • Chris Keam

    Again, we seem to be straying quite a way from the topic of metered street parking in the downtown core. How does the ‘technically true but liable to get you killed if you tried to live by it’ freedom of cyclists to use almost any roadway relate to the topic of parking for cars (or bikes)?

  • TessaGarnet

    Car traffic lanes are not an issue – nobody is asking you to pay for those (yet, though they will, and congestion charges have a lot of pros to them that are unrelated to biking), but we’re talking about car parking. I think it’s harder to make a case for the need for government in this area, and I’m hardly a big free market type. Car parking takes up tons of public space for relatively little public good. I don’t see a comparison to bike lanes at all.

    As for being open to all residents: there is a financial barrier to owning a car that doesn’t apply to bikes that much. That’s what I meant by saying it’s not open to everyone. Owning a car is a luxury.

  • Voice of Reason

    The relatively trivial issue of free parking illustrates why it is hard to have a discussion on the issues. The bicycle lobby and car bashers scream subsidy motorists and the class war farers yell subsidy to the upper classes and wealthy motorists (I’m not sure many would agree that only the elite can afford cars). The issue itself is just a proxy for their favourite hobby horse.

    Actually dealing with the issue of parking requires information that we do not have. If the utilization of the parking during the period it is proposed to be free is 100%, then it makes no sense to discontinue charging for it since nothing will be
    accomplished – it can’t be utilized more than 100%. If the current utilization is 0%, then it is a no brainer to discontinue charging since there is no cost to the city and it might encourage more people into the area to spend their money or at least get them off any nearby residential streets. Of course the actual utilization will be somewhere in between and where it falls should provide some guidance to the policy.

    Let’s remember the reason we have time limits on parking whether it is metered or not. It is a method of rationing a public service where demand is likely to exceed the ability to supply and the objective for street parking is for transient stays and not long term parking. Metering the parking provides revenue to pay for the costs of enforcing the time limits in high demand areas but it should not be seen as a means to generate revenue. Framing the issue with this objective would lead to creative solutions like having a very low rate for the first 30 minutes and escalating that rate for longer stays rather than charging the same rate per minute. As well, rates could vary depending on the time of day. These
    determinations should be based on maximizing the utilization of the parking
    space with low duration stays.

  • Chris Keam

    You brought up bicycles. No lobbyists that I can see even commenting. Typical attempt to deflect from the issue. Instead of mansplaining the issue to us you might consider apologizing for the mischaracterization of other’s comments. Sheesh.

  • Voice of Reason

    Thank you for your contribution as it nicely illustrates the point I am making.

  • Chris Keam

    Is your point that your comments don’t relate to the issue and you prefer to misrepresent the remarks of others? Happy to assist.

  • jenables

    Ok, I’ve tried to reply to this twice, but i don’t know what happened so i will keep it brief. They just reconfigured main and terminal to add bike parking,i don’t know who paid for it but it couldn’t have been cheap. However even though cycling is not open to those who are disabled or elderly people or people who would commute by bike but don’t have a shower at work, i still support it.

    Relatively little public good is for many the difference between being able leave their homes or not. Not the vast majority, of course, but i don’t feel like you are taking those people into account. If i did not have a car i would not be able to take my disabled friend to her appts. I wouldn’t have been able to take my dog to my parents, where she loved going, or the vet where she didn’t. It would take me an hour and a half instead of twenty minutes to get to my parents.

    When i took the bus the chances that I’d get off the bus and go to a store or grab some food on my way home were pretty much nil. If I’m driving i often think if i can park close, I’ll go in, if i can’t, just keep going. I think more people do this than they are willing to admit.

    Lastly, this is not a class issue, though it quickly becomes one when you start talking user pay. It is indeed possible to own and drive a car if you buy a used one that is in decent shape. My costs are probably only a little higher than a three zone bus pass but i don’t have to worry about getting mugged or missing the last bus. While i am loathe to define myself by my income level let’s just say I’m the opposite of wealthy and leave it at that. besides, the last time i took the number 20 iT was packed to the gills. If they want to make transit more appealing it probably shouldn’t leave you with the feeling that there is no more capacity there.

  • jenables

    How is VOR’s comment off topic or irrelevant to the rest of the conversation, or a deflection?

  • Jeff Leigh

    Both the secure bicycle parking Translink has installed at the Main St station, and the bike lockers at other locations, have user fees. And they don’t become free at 10 pm. They are not a justification for free street parking for motor vehicles.

←  Older Comments
 →