A few years ago, while sitting on the board of the university, a topic came up about whether or not to spend some money.
I said: "It's only half a million."
Then I paused, took stock, and added: "I can't believe that I just said that. It's more than my house is worth!"
It is one of the consequences of having conversations involving big numbers. At the time, the University budget was around $40 million and in that context, half a million dollars was not a lot of money.
But in our personal lives, it is a large sum.
I mention this story because I was talking with one of city councilors about parking downtown. I stated that I think that pay parking is regressive. It is going to damage the businesses downtown. I don't see what the city stands to gain.
I finished my opening salvo by saying that I wouldn't paying for parking.
His reply? "It's only a dollar. Are you saying you can't afford a dollar?"
Sure I can. But that is not the point.
It is not the amount but the principle that bothers me. And while I can afford a loonie, there are many people that use the downtown core on a regular for whom the total cost of parking over the course of a year would be significant.
Imagine if twice a week, you need to be downtown for two hours for medical reasons. That is four dollars per week and $208 per year. If you are a senior on a fixed income, that is a significant sum of money.
Furthermore, it doesn't include other times that you might want to head downtown to visit the Art Gallery or shop on Fourth Avenue or pop into Long and McQuade to peruse their music selection.
Decreased casual shopping will be a consequence of pay parking. Let's say, for arguments sake, that you have a child taking guitar lessons at Long and McQuade. Without pay parking, you might park on George Street and spend the hour they are getting their lesson wandering the shops or having coffee.
You might even stay around for a while afterwards selecting some appropriate music books so that they would have something to practice.
But with pay parking, you would likely be much more inclined to drop them off and pick them up without ever parking for longer than necessary. And if your child did want to look through the music section, you are either resigned to paying the meter or in that wonderful shopping frame of reference where it is buy-it-quick-so-I-don't-get-a-ticket.
No. Pay parking discourages participation in downtown, especially when you can park at the malls and big box stores for free. Why go downtown unless you have to? Why not go where you can park for free?
The only justification that my friend, the city councilor, had to offer is that employees of many downtown businesses abuse the present situation and park on the streets.
Personally, since I have never had any trouble finding street parking in front of the business that I want. Indeed, on any weekday, I would say that downtown street parking is pretty empty.
If the people that are using the spaces are employees, then the businesses downtown are in deeper trouble than I suspected: no shoppers. After all, our downtown streets are definitely not crowded.
That aside, there are other ways to handle individuals that abuse the system. It could even be done within the context of present personnel. No real need to hire many more parking officers.
Of course, that is the other factor in this discussion: the cost associated with not only re-establishing a pay parking system but also hiring staff to enforce it.
I heard rumour that we might go with the "one machine per block" approach - adding a whole new layer of inconvenience to parking.
Imagine a cold winter's day where you have to walk half a block to pay a machine and then walk back to your car so that you can put the ticket in the window, which is now covered in snow so no one can see it anyway, just so that you can then trudge another half a block to finally get to your destination. Who needs it?
But the real silliness is that the city is planning on spending $1.24 million on the new system. One that will be obsolete in 10 years but require five years before the capital costs will be recovered. What if people stay away? Has that been factored into the costs?
In any case, the revenue from the system will be spent covering the cost of buying it, of servicing it, and of the parking officer to enforce pay parking. How are we gaining anything in this equation?
Aren't we supposed to be trying to get ahead of the game?
