News   Jul 26, 2024
 811     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 2K     2 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.8K     3 

Miller Eyes Parking Lot Tax

That's the gist of the Soberman report. Our leaders are asleep at the wheel. We know the population is growing by 100,000+ year in year out. This is expected to continue for the next 25 years. A greenbelt has been drawn around the city meaning growth will be upwards rather than outwards meaning major density growth. A major congestion issue is around the corner. Yet nothing is being done. Toronto's version of An Inconvenient Truth needs to be filmed.
 
I don't necessarily disagree with parking taxes on all pay lots. Have it structured like NYC where taxes are upwards in the high teens % wise, but then residents with proof and with a certificate from city hall get a discount on monthly parking. Likewise though, I also favor increasing TTC and GO fares but thats a different story. I don't by the entire 'green' argument, more of a $$$ grab, which I think you gotta do what you gotta do.

It was simply just a suggestion and not even a proposal by the newly elected Mayor.

Not to draw a 905 vs 416 division, but he really should be taxing those who commutte into the city from 905, you don't face the wrath of those who can't vote.
 
the danger with taxing 905ers is that it might be yet another incentive for businesses who are moving/consolidating offices to do so in 905 if that's where the majority of their employees live.

This is the kind of thing GTTA should co-ordinate, but there's no chance the GTA municipalities are going to harmonise taxes if it means sucking more offices out of Toronto.
 
Maybe the province should impose a "parking lot" tax on all lots if they are zoned for eventual development - even shopping centre parking.

That would even things out a little, and generate revenue that could go to transit.
 
^ that would be very popular in an election year for a Premier that promised not to raise taxes.
 
True, and reduced services will always impress people even more.
 
True, and reduced services will always impress people even more.

Increasing taxes when he explicitly stated he wouldn't would be a terrible move...a lot worse than cutting services in the minds of constituency.
 
McGuinty reduced services and raised taxes in Health - and I bet he's going to get away with it. The only threat to him is the leakage of his "underpaid" caucus to federal politics if Dion looks like a winner in 2007 (no likelihood for defectors to municipalities for four years now).

I'd like to see a general land usage tax so that undesirable usages like parking or non-usages/derelictions cost money and drive developers to build shopping centres with less car dependence and release brownfield sites or derelicts they are hoarding. Turning land from green to brown should attract serious capital gains and other taxes which could go to remediating orphaned brownfield sites for sustainable development.

If McGuinty was serious about development he would institute a strong mayor system in Durham - I see Steve Parish can't even get on development committees these days.
 
McGuinty certainly didn't reduce service in Health. He has poured money into the department. We've seen everything from hospital expansions to soaring doctors' salaries.
 
I'd like to see a general land usage tax so that undesirable usages like parking or non-usages/derelictions cost money

I tend to agree with this idea.
 
Council approves tax on 'gas-guzzling' 4x4s
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:04am GMT 30/01/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ars130.xml

Plans to triple the cost of a parking permit for the drivers of 4x4s, many large family cars and some sports models were approved last night by Richmond-upon-Thames in south west London.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
The move, which is likely to be followed by a number of other London boroughs and councils outside the capital, was rubber stamped by the Liberal Democrat controlled authority, despite a torrent of opposition from motoring groups.

Last night’s decision will see the cost of cars with the highest CO2 emissions facing a £300 bill for their annual resident’s parking permit, compared to £100 currently.

It came despite a poll in the borough showing fewer than half (49 per cent) of residents were in favour.

At the same time Ken Livingstone, London’s mayor, proposes to charge owners of cars in Band G — those with carbon dioxide emissions above 225g per kilometre — £25 a day to drive in the capital’s congestion zone.

However other models could also be hit by this charge including two-litre VW beetles and some Ford Mondeos.

Those already living inside the zone which covers much of central London will also lose the 90 per cent discount on the congestion charge available to drivers of cars regarded as less environmentally damaging.

Other boroughs looking at following Richmond’s example include Lambeth. Outside London, the Labour party in Brighton has included in its election manifesto plans to increase the cost of parking permits for cars with higher CO2 emissions.

Richmond’s move was welcomed by Stephen Joseph, director of the environmental group, Transport 2000.

"This is a practical step. It doesn’t stop people from owning cars, but it does send them some signals.

"You can still own quite large vehicles, but they don’t have to be gas guzzlers," he added. "This is an example of local government doing something, while national government just talks about it."

But the proposals were condemned by AA Public Affairs.

"There are so many holes in the scheme. You could have the largest gas guzzler in the world and park it in your driveway without being penalised, where as someone without off street parking will be hit.

"There is also a problem with the whole issue of Band G, which is so all-encompassing that it is sweeping up larger family cars and people carriers, which will hit people with a lot of children.

"It also goes against the whole idea of parking controls which were designed to protect residents from commuters and people from outside hogging up the spaces. It really is a betrayal of residents."
-----------------------
Reducing pollution from exhaust is a good thing but punitive charges like this will hurt small businesses and families, which have to use larger vehicles.
 
Reducing pollution from exhaust is a good thing but punitive charges like this will hurt small businesses and families, which have to use larger vehicles.

Wasn't aware that anyone *had* to use larger vehicles.
 
If you have four kids or need to transport a lot of heavy equipment, you do have to have a larger vehicle, unless you use two vehicles at a time, which is a lot less environmentally friendly than one larger van.
 
"unless you use two vehicles at a time, which is a lot less environmentally friendly than one larger van."

I don't recommend using two vehicles at once. You'd need really long arms and legs.
 
you have noticed in the absence of major infrastructure improvements the city-region has slowly been organically optimizing its existing infrastructure through the millions of decision of individual people to change jobs, move businesses or homes, change their consumer habits etc. This can only go on for so long until the point where if we want to keep growing for real we need more rapid public transit.

I think you nailed it. I'm growing less concerned with the lack of transit capital investment, because people have made individual choices as to where they live to make up for our continued transit deficit. Thus, I think we will be able to accommodate up to a million more people within the city through our present condo boom without so much as adding a bus until congestion becomes a real issue. You may think I'm crazy for saying that when you have to cram yourself into a sardine can of a Yonge subway car at rush hour, or sit in what seems like perpetual gridlock on the 401, but compared to other world cities of 6 million +, Toronto's congestion problems are rather tame.
 

Back
Top