Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Hawthorn Place Parking Woes

Parking for residents at UBC continues to be an issue.  Of course, UBC likes to sell the public on the idea of a green city on the point.  Our inability to park our cars, to have family and friends over, to find a clear space in front of our homes during the day, is used by UBC to show what a great green residential community we are.  

Truth is there's mud lying under all that green.

Way back when Hawthorn Place was still a parking lot UBC made  a deal with the GRVD (now Metro Vancouver) to limit daily car trips on and off campus.  One of their ways to do that was to ensure that parking in new developments be limited to few cars then is typically the case.  This is of course a great green idea.  However, the housing designed for empty nesters and 1/0 car residents became filled with child raising families often with more than the expected numbers of cars.  Of course, this is very bad and not green.  Thing is, as is well documented housing is high in Vancouver and even relatively well paid UBC faculty will often find it hard to buy housing within a reasonable distance to UBC.  So, buy a smaller place, save some money, and raise one's family.  This has resulted in problems with parking as housing developments are undersized in terms of parking for child raising families and those of us who's partners work off campus.

After many years of complaints the UNA created a residents' committee to develop a consensus plan.  This plan was what the UNA would then present to UBC.  But something has gone awry in the process.   

After asking community members to donate time, energy, and ideas to come to a reasonable solution for our hawthorn Place parking woes, it would appear that an interim measure is being applied that features none of the community based ideas, but rather favours the market principles of Village Gate Homes.  It’s a lot to try and boil down, but the essential idea is that at next week’s UNA meeting a proposal is to come forward that will restrict parking throughout Hawthorn Place 24/7 with a few exceptions for those people who will buy a $65/month parking pass.  It seems like the motivating issue is that Village Gate Homes charges $65/month for parking and that anything that might upset Village Gate Homes parking revenues is not going to be allowed.

The UNA Directors Meeting package has not yet been posted to the UNA website so it’s hard to say exactly what the new policy will be.  But the message seems to be that UBC/UNA Directors-Staff/Ministry of Highways have worked out a deal that does not take into account the longstanding community process that had been in place. 

UBC admin staffer, Nancy Knight (also a UNA Director), assures the committee that she appreciates our work.  She also reminds us that market mechanisms are very important in all of this:   
"Village Gate Homes has ‘unbundled’ parking costs for its renters – allowing people who do not own a car to not have to rent a parking space as part of their monthly tenancy.  If parking becomes available cheaper, that is also guaranteed / reserved, it is reasonable to assume that rational economic actors may choose quickly to reserve a cheaper on street parking place."  
Thus, UNA parking polices have to be, at the minimum, kept in line with UBC's private housing supplier, VIllage Gate Homes.

It's a shame that despite all the initial good intentions that yet again we seem to be in that UBC situation in which a market mechanism takes precedence over a process of community consultation.



Anonymous said...

Maybe, a review of events related to parking can help to clarify the issues involved:

1. Last September 2011, the Parking Committee in Hawthorn Place recommended to the UNA Board parking regulations for the community, the most important parts of which were: (a) no street parking will be allowed Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and (b) residents will be allowed to purchase parking permits for an additional car at the rate of $120 per year. The UNA Board of Directors approved the recommendations of the Parking Committee for possible inclusion in an interim solution or a UNA parking bylaw.

2. Subsequently, parking became a hot issue in other UNA communities like Chancellor Place and Wesbrook Place. A number of residents wrote to the Premier, the Minister of Community, Sport and Culture, and other top officials complaining about parking. The Premier responded and tasked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI still owns the streets in the UNA neighbourhoods) to deal with the problem.

3. The MOTI first dealt with the problem in Chancellor Place by putting up No Parking signs along Iona Drive, also indicating that ``Violators will be Towed``. This generated many more letters to the Premier and other top officials, especially from church goers going to St. Marks and St. Ignatius Catholic churches who asked to be exempted from the No Parking signs on Sundays, from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Implementation of the No Parking regulations on Iona Drive was put on hold and the MOTI decided to launch an information campaign first and did not tow any cars.

4. Subsequently, parking also became a highly controversial issue in Wesbrook Place when residents objected to the doubling of the population from 5,000 to 12.600. Again, many letters were sent to the Premier and top officials and the Premier instructed the MOTI to deal with the parking issue in UBC once and for all.

5. Last December 5, Jan Fialkowski and Glendon Scott from the UNA staff met with Brian Atkins, Regional Director of MOTI, Ashok Bhatti, District Operations Manager, MOTI, and Margaret Eckenfelder, Acting Director of Transport Planning, UBC Campus and Community Planning. According to Jan, MOTI proposed the following parking regulations for all the UNA neighbourhoods (not just Hawthorn Place). (a) MOTI will start the process of dealing with the parking problems in the UNA neighbourhoods starting in January 2012; (b) MOTI will pay for all the costs related to manufacture and installation of signage in all UNA neighbourhoods; (c) MOTI will pay for printing of decals , parking passes and warning notices; (d) MOTI will pay for all the costs of enforcement (without using the RCMP). All in all, MOTI is willing to spend perhaps $250,000 or more to deal with the parking problems in the UNA neighbourhoods. Because of instructions from the Premier, MOTI wants to implement the parking system ASAP, starting with Hawthorn Place where the parking issue has been most pressing from the very beginning.

6. It is clear that the MOTI solution does not coincide with the recommendations of the Hawthorn Place Parking Committee that was approved by the UNA Board. The key issues that need to be resolved are: (a) no parking on the streets 24 hours, seven days a week; and (b) purchase of a permit allowing a second car to be parked on the street at a cost of $65 per month or $780 per year (the Parking Committee recommended $10 per month for a second car or $120 per year).

7. The recommendations of MOTI were presented by Jan by email to the elected members of the UNA Board last December 6. Erica Frank, Thomas Beyer and I voted to accept the offer of MOTI. Mankee Mah objected and she said she will file a dissenting opinion at the UNA Board meeting on December 13.

Anonymous said...

8. Erica and Thomas can explain why they voted for the MOTI recommendations. Let me explain my reasons for voting for the recommendations. (a) I do not agree with the MOTi recommendation on the 24 hour enforcement seven days a week. However, I believe very strongly that the MOTI can be convinced to accept the recommendation of the Parking Committee that parking be restricted only on Monday to Friday, 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. My reason for this is based on the experience in Chancellor Place where the objections of church goers convinced MOTI that parking be allowed on one side of Iona Drive in front of the church from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. I am convinced that MOTI officials are not unreasonable people -- limiting parking on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM will, in fact, save the ministry a lot of money and will respond to the wishes of residents. (b) On the charge of $65 per month for a second car allowed to park on the street, I believe that this is reasonable because charging $10 a month is so much lower than the normal charges for parking on UNA neigbhrbourhood streets that setting this low rate will discourage people from using other parking facilities in the residential units and elsewhere. The low rates may, in fact, generate a market for second car permits that has proven to be a problem with the old guest parking permits in the past.

9. On the issue that the Hawthorn Place Parking Committee and the residents were not consulted on this issue, I must add that we the elected members of the UNA Board were also not initially consulted because time was of the essence and the MOTI officials were responding to urgent orders from the Premier. The initiative for presenting the parking recommendations came from MOTI, responding to the urgent order from the Premier to deal with this parking problem. I don`t think that UBC or the UNA staff members engaged in secret meetings to unilaterally make this decision and by so doing, showed lack of regard or respect for the work of the Parking Committee members. I believe that they were presented with a recommendation that they honestly believed was reasonable and decided to present this to the UNA Board.

10. Three of the UNA Resident Directors supported the MOTI recommendation and one did not. Members of the community can agree or disagree with those decisions and I, for one, welcome expressions of agreement or disagreement. I have given my reasons for accepting the recommendations of MOTI in the strong belief that those recommendations are not carved in stone and that at least the 24-7 invigilation is still subject to further negotiations. I hope I am right. If I and the two other elected Resident Directors are wrong and enough members of the community believe that we made the wrong decision, the UNA Constitution has provisions for expelling us by a Special Resolution at an Annual General Meeting. That is the democratic way.


Anonymous said...

At the direction of UNA Chair, Sharon WU, an Ad-Hoc Hawthorn Parking Working Group was created in September 2011. . . .

The committee met on October 4. In attendance were: residents Charles Menzies, John Dickinson, Joan Coyne, and Mike Feeley; UNA Staff members Glendon Scott and Jan Fialkowski; and UNA Resident Directors Mankee Mah, and Prod Laquian. Regrets were received from residents Mel Rowles, Chris Finch, Gary Rupert, Joyce Lee, and Chin Lee. The committee carefully consider a written submission from Gary Rupert. Subsequently committee members engaged in an email discussion and reached consensus via email on a parking policy that he group advises the Board adopt.

The Working Group unanimously recommends that the UNA Board authorize its staff to work with MoHI and the RCMP to establish an interim parking policy for Hawthorn Place that conforms to the following guidelines.
1. Parking signs should be erected in Hawthorn Place that say something to the effect of "No Parking Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm Except Maintenance and Authorized Vehicles" and below that "Violators Will Be Towed".
2. The UNA should issue "Hawthorn Resident" decals for every resident vehicle in Hawthorn Place. Any vehicle displaying this decal should be authorized to park on the street at any time, but residents should be discouraged from using this decal to park long-term on the street during weekdays.
3. The UNA should sell for a cost of $120 per year a "Hawthorn Place Parking Permit" decal to any resident who wants to park long-term on the street during weekdays.
4. Current (or revised) "Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hangers" should continue be issue to every Hawthorn household that requests one and in addition every strata corporation should be issue two hangers for service vehicles attending their building. The UNA should make reasonable attempts to ensure that these passes are not used for unintended purposes and should have the ability to invalidate a permit if it is abused.
5. The Old Barn Community centre should issue, free of charge, to anyone while visiting the Barn or Bean Around the World, a "Temporary Hawthorn Parking Hanger". These hangers should be disposable and should be validated for a restricted time period. Vehicles displaying this hanger should be allowed to park anywhere in Hawthorn Place for that period of time.
6. Any vehicle in violation of these rules should be towed.

In a desire to explain our view as clearly as we can, the committee provides the these additional details.

First, the following assumptions under-pin our recommendation.
1. The regime applies only to Hawthorn Place initially, but may be extended to other areas once we see how things go in Hawthorn and subject to further consultation with affected residents, and in the case of the Wesbrook commercial district, UBC Campus Planning and UBC Properties Trust.
2. Enforcement is absolutely essential to success and we ought to do everything in our power to increase the chances that the RCMP will enforce our new rules.
3. The RCMP will likely only agree to enforce the regime if the same regulations applied to all of Hawthorn Place. In particular, they will object to a system in which some streets have parking enforced, for example, Monday to Friday and other streets Monday to Saturday.

Anonymous said...

4. That MoHI is willing and able to place the following types of signs (not verbatim) in the neighbourhood and that these regulations can and will be enforced by the RCMP:
1. "No Parking on A to B from Y to Z Except Maintenance and Authorized Vehicles" where UNA designated decals or mirror hangers can be used to distinguish authorized vehicles.
2. "Car Pool Parking Only" can be used for Modo car co-op parking.
3. "SPARC Parking Only" using traditional symbols and requiring both that vehicles are authorized by the UNA similar to sign (1) and also have the official, government SPARC-parking permit.
5. That East Mall, Thunderbird Blvd, and West Mall, are UBC Streets and thus UBC is willing and able to enforce parking regulations on these streets.
6. That UBC is willing and able to to enforce the same parking rules on the portions East Mall, Thunderbird Blvd, and West Mall that are included in the Hawthorn Place Neighourhood (as indicated in the Mid Campus Neighbourhood Plan) as exist on the interior roads under the control of MoHI and that these roads should thus be signed the same as those inside the neighbourhood.
7. That the only enforcement mechanism available to the RCMP is to tow vehicles.
8. That the only enforcement mechanism agreeable to UBC for neighourhood areas it can patrol is also to tow vehicles.
9. That the interim period could last up to two years.

Anonymous said...

Here is a detailed description of the recommendation outlined above:
1. All signs in the neighbourhood should indicate that parking restrictions are in place Monday to Friday, 8 am to 5 pm (the inclusion period).
2. Co-op car and SPARC signage should be used as determined necessary by UNA staff based on their current location, input from residents, and other considerations.
3. Co-op spaces should be reserved at all times for co-op vehicles.
4. SPARC spaces should be reserved at all times for vehicles that display SPARC BC sanction identifying signage or decals and that are also authorized to park by other provisions of these regulations.
5. Only certain types of vehicles should be permissible to receive authorization to park in Hawthorn as described in our long-standing parking policy. This new policy need not change this definition. For example RVs and boats are currently not permissible vehicle types.
6. No vehicle should be authorized to park in Hawthorn Place unless explicitly granted permission by one or more of the provisions listed in this regulation.
7. Every resident of Hawthorn Place by presenting proof of residency and proof of vehicle registration should be entitled to a Hawthorn Resident Parking Decal for every vehicle of permissible type registered to them (provide also that there is at most one decal per vehicle). The decal should be designed to attach to the windshield (or perhaps elsewhere) of the vehicle and not be transferrable.
8. Any vehicle displaying the Hawthorn Resident parking decal should be deemed to be an authorized vehicle under these regulations and could thus park on Hawthorn Place streets at any time. Nevertheless, residents should be informed that they should not abuse this privilege by parking on the street for extended periods during the inclusion period.
9. A resident who wants long-term parking privileges for the inclusion period should be able to purchase a Hawthorn Place Parking Permit for a vehicle of permissible type from the UNA for a cost of $120 per year by providing proof of residency and vehicle registration. Permits should take the form a decal that is clearly distinguishable from the Hawthorn Resident decal, but that is also attached to the vehicle and not transferrable. Decals should be able to be refunded on per-month, pro-rata basis.
10. Every household in the UNA (as distinguished by Canada Post mailing address) should be entitled to one Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hanger. This hanger will be the same as (or similar to) those in use today: designed to hang from a vehicle mirror. Any vehicle displaying a Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hanger should be deemed to be an authorized vehicle under these regulations and could thus park on Hawthorn Place streets at any time.
11. Every strata corporation in Hawthorn Place should be entitled to two Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hangers to use for service vehicles attending their property as they see fit.
12. As described above, the intended use of Visitor Parking Hangers is either (a) to permit people to park a vehicle of permissible type while they are visiting a resident of Hawthorn Place or (b) to permit service vehicles to park while engaged in service business in Hawthorn Place. All other uses of these permits should be prohibited.

Anonymous said...

13. The UNA staff should be able to, at any time, invalidate a Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hanger if they determine that the permit is being used for unauthorized parking. A household that has their permit revoked for these reasons should not necessarily be guaranteed the ability to get a replacement permit.
14. A vehicle displaying an invalidated Hawthorn Place Visitor Parking Hanger should be not an authorized vehicle under these regulations and should thus be subject to being towed if it parks in Hawthorn Place during the inclusion period.
15. The Old Barn Community Centre should issue Temporary Hawthorn Parking Hangers upon request to anyone while they visit the Old Barn Community Centre or Bean Around the World Coffee and Bistro at the Barn. These permits will be disposable, difficult to reproduce, and will be validated by UNA staff for a specified time period. Any vehicle properly displaying a valid Temporary Hawthorn Parking Permit will be permitted to park anywhere in Hawthorn Place during the period of time indicated on the Permit.

The committee feels that there remains one parking problem that we were unable to adequately address under current enforcement assumptions. Portions of East Mall and Eagles drive should probably have resident-only parking restrictions that extent to Saturdays to prevent Thunderbird Field patrons from parking on these streets as they now do. But, since we were advised that this rule must apply uniformly to the neighbourhood, and since the committee felt that a Saturday restriction on other streets was unwise, we elected to go with Monday to Friday everywhere. This probably means that East Mall and Eagles residents will continue to have difficulty finding a place to park on some Saturdays. We thus request that this issue be revisited as soon as the jurisdictional changes allow for a more flexibly policy, as we anticipate.

On behalf of the working group,

Mike Feeley

Anonymous said...

As stated John, new facts and time sensitive $s have emerged from BC ministry .. We will try to implement residents issues in each neighborhood IF it doesn't derail the whole offer !

Since roads in UBC area are NOT in a municipality but a part of the province, ministry of transportation has more rights than in a normal city !

The right to withdraw funds is included in this. Details forthcoming as we speak.

Unlike the previous consultation process for Hawthorn area only based on RCMP enforcing based on UNA set rules !

We have heard the concerns and are aware of the recommendation of the Hawthorn parking sub committee and will try to address as many nuances per neighborhood as possible, but some sacrifices are to be expected in light of this new and time sensitive proposal.

Yours Sincerely
Thomas Beyer

Anonymous said...

Public input is noted .. And some tweaking will happen over time.

However, some upset Hawthorne residents may hijack the ( quite time sensitive and BC budget related ) entire proposal and everyone loses !!

Tweaking / amendments will happen .. In time !!

Yours Sincerely
Thomas Beyer

Anonymous said...


While the work you did is laudable and some compensation may be in order, new facts have emerged, namely: The Ministry of Transport has proposed to pay for all signage AND for enforcement. This is an investment of several hundred thousand $s.

It also implements a long standing issue many residents complained about, and I campaigned on, namely a legal and effective way to enforce parking in ALL neighborhoods !

Do we want to honestly forego this money for all the new signage and ongoing, provincially paid enforcement and not have a solution elsewhere in UNA neighborhoods ?

For only $65 a month, roughly $2.10 a day, most residents in all UNA neighborhoods will be able to get a guaranteed AND SUBSIDIZED parking spot .. and violators ticketed or towed. A market rate at UBC, counting all land, construction and capital cost, would easily exceed $250 a month per parking spot, be it in a UBC parkade or on the street. Thus, if UBC wanted they could charge more for parking but it would negatively affect students, staff and residents. Therefore, the ministry followed UBC's price, which is subsidized by UBC, not the other way around !!

Also, please consider that condo owners with one stall underground paid less for their condo than an equivalent one with 2 stalls, to the tune of around $35,000 or $40,000.

Thus it is both fair and reasonable to ask for a modest monthly fee for on-street or in-parkade parking.

Can you reasonably expect to pay the same for a 2 BR condo vs a one BR condo ? Some folks would surely prefer a 2 BR over a 1 BR. Parking is no different than a second bedroom. If you want one, buy one or rent one ! One cannot expect society to supply free bedrooms ( or parking spots ) to most citizens except the most needy/handicapped.

This solution is VERY good social, environmental and public policy ! It is fair and balanced !

3 of the 4 elected UNA directors support this in principle. Sounds pretty democratic to me.

A happy day for all UBC residents, the environment and your pocket book. BC tax $s well spent for a long standing problem. In time we will tweak the enforcement and rules, and perhaps it is there where some of your work will be implemented, Charles. Let's get started .. Then tweak later! Even God took seven days to create this world, and surely this parking issue is less complex.

Yours Sincerely
Thomas Beyer

Anonymous said...

I have asked Margaret to provide further information on the points you raise in your note, but also want to make a couple of comments. But first let me say that I’m sure we all appreciate your involvement and voluntary work around this matter as it affects Hawthorn Place.

First, the Ministry has decided to move to a ‘neighbourhood by neighbourhood’ approach to parking to having a community wide solution in place by the end of December. This is in response to the numerous requests they have received directly and through the MLA’s office to get the issue of parking regulation addressed quickly. There are a wide diversity of interests to be accommodated and this is, I believe, reflected in the commentary being received. The interests of visitors, residents, businesses, service providers and others need to be carefully considered and accommodated.

Second, UBC has not ‘imposed’ anything here. UBC has worked very hard with the provincial government and UNA to develop an interim solution to parking regulation in neighbourhoods on campus. This interim solution has to blend the legislative capability of the Ministry with community objectives. A big part of those community objectives are a sustainable community that encourages and priorizes sustainable transportation choices. Village Gate Homes has ‘unbundled’ parking costs for its renters – allowing people who do not own a car to not have to rent a parking space as part of their monthly tenancy. If parking becomes available cheaper, that is also guaranteed / reserved, it is reasonable to assume that rational economic actors may choose quickly to reserve a cheaper on street parking place. This would then put pressure on the supply of parking in the neighbourhoods (recognizing that we now have about 700 rental units on campus), which would then leave little parking for other uses such as community centre visitors, general visitors, service vehicles. Street parking is critical for accommodating these uses.

Third, no one has been meeting in secret. UNA staff have been meeting, quite appropriately, with Ministry representatives and UBC staff to discuss the approach to be taken, to provide the considerable amount of data required to support the implementation of a parking regime and to work out the implementation details. It has been moved up in timing to respond to community requests.

Regards, Nancy

Anonymous said...

If I might add my comments to Nancy's.

The UNA and UBC have both expended enormous amounts of time and social and political capital on this issue. As some of you know, finding a temporary solution to improve parking in Hawthorne Place has never struck me as an item on which we should spend so much time or social and political capital , but a lot of my neighbors/constituents/colleagues/friends felt otherwise, so I spent accordingly.

Jan Fialkowski and Glendon Scott (ccd here) met with MOT as UNA staff, and have a very sophisticated understanding of the issues and conflicts. Since time is of the essence here, I have told the UNA Board that I will vote to support any solution that is close to what we've already negotiated (as what we've negotiated is quite close to what the Parking Committee suggested), and that Jan and Mankee believe to be the greatest improvement over the status quo and over the "no parking ever" alternative we may be left with if we do not act immediately.

Like Nancy, I'm grateful for everyone's time investment on this temporary solution and I believe that it's great that we've finally got this oppy for a substantial improvement to the situation from the UNA members' perspective with MOT.


Erica Frank, MD, MPH

Charles Menzies said...

After asking community members to donate time, energy, and ideas to come to a reasonable solution for our hawthorn Place parking woes, it would appear that an interim measure is being applied that features none of the community based ideas, but rather favours the market principles of Village Gate Homes. It’s a lot to try and boil down, but the essential idea is that at next week’s UNA meeting a proposal is to come forward that will restrict parking throughout Hawthorn Place 24/7 with a few exceptions for those people who will buy a $65/month parking pass. It seems like the motivating issue is that Village Gate Homes charges $65/month for parking and that anything that might upset VGH parking revenues is not going to be allowed.

The UNA Directors Meeting package has not yet been posted to the UNA website so it’s hard to say exactly what the new policy will be. But the message seems to be that UBC/UNA Directors-Staff/Ministry of Highways have worked out a deal that does not take into account the longstanding community process that had been in place.


Anonymous said...

Mike’s comments should be considered as they are reasoned and practical. I am delighted that a higher authority is going to step up and cover the costs. Since parking enforcement is a municipal responsibility, it is obvious that the authority controlling the UNA should fund this action. However, that doesn’t mean that we should blindly accept stupid policy. The parking issue is about students and staff parking in the neighbourhoods and enforcement from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. is sufficient. [Although I will personally be very pleased if this includes weekends.].

The opportunity for UNA residents to have more than one guest on any given night is more than reasonable and in the absence of any sensible suggestion about how evening guests might be accommodated is evidence of a lack of thought and lack of concern by your group and the Ministry group involved. It might be a surprise to you, but as a director you are supposed to consider the needs and desires of the residents.

I will confess that I don’t think the $65 is a major concern [It is $2/day and $2 at a Vancouver meter buys 30-60 minutes], but the argument that Village Gate Homes has a charge and the UNA one should be the same not logical. People who invest in the community by purchasing a residence and who pay “taxes” in this area should be given more consideration than those who do not in my view.

Additionally, another missing element is misuse of existing permits. It seems to me that we all need to be responsible for these and misuse [lending/selling to students, etc.] should result in a substantial fine to the owner in whose care the permit was placed. This might be an issue for action at a later date.

Anonymous said...

I have been quietly steaming since I first read Mike’s email earlier, trying to decide whether to cool down first and remain rational or express how strongly I feel. As a Hawthorn resident who has been involved in this consultation process (and on other issues) I am still trying to comprehend why a) we need 24 hr enforcement and b) how $65/month can be rammed down our throats.

Why is Ministry funding tied to these two provisions? What is wrong with asking them to pay for the signage and contributing to enforcement of the rules WE came up with?

Thomas, I don’t know where your numbers come from but nobody in my building paid $35-40k more for a suite with two versus one parking spots. And if anyone is guilty of hijacking it is whoever is driving this decision process. May I remind you that a lot of people have contributed a lot of time and energy to this subject. And it is beyond disrespectful to completely discard and ignore their input.

Why is it so hard for everyone to understand that people who live in an area should be the ones making decisions about their neighbourhood?

Anonymous said...

The recommendations from the Parking Committee in Sept 2011 was for no restrictions from 8:00am to 5:00pm Mondays to Fridays. This is not an insignicant detail and is consistent with the reasons residents have already given for no restrictions past 5:00pm.

As Mike Feeley has pointed out, the enforcement hours must be printed on the signs in accordance with the province's signage catalog. I do not see opportunities to change this without replacing the signs. As the reason for today's deadline was for MoT to order those signs to ensure implementation for the end of January, I fail to see the window in which you hope to change MoT's mind on the 24/7 enforcement.

I fail to see how letter writing complaining about parking in Chancellor Place and Wesbrook Place relate to what the residents of Hawthorn Place have always demanded: a parking solution to keep non-residents, specifically students and staff who do not live in Hawthorn Place, out of Hawthorn Place during the daytime, Mondays to Fridays. Instead of helping Hawthorn Place residents, we are punishing Hawthorn residents with over the top parking regulations that the MoT wants to implement.

The recommendations from the parking committee are not in violation of the province's parking regulations. As you have said, it would be a solution that would be cheaper for the province to invigilate. The natural conclusion is that a 24/7 enforcement policy will increase the number of monthly parking permits. At $65/month, the UNA stands to gain $100,000/yr by selling just 129 annual parking permits. $100,000 is 3% of our current operating budget. Financials aside, my objections to the $65/month fee that it is a fee UBC insisted on to be en par with Village Gate's parking stall rental fees. If Village Gate fears a lost in revenue and the UNA fears an overwhelming demand for on-street parking from these rental units due to the recommended $10/month parking rate, then a compromise would be to meet in between.

I have made no secret of my objections to this latest interim parking solution. It is embarrassing to say that the incentive money the province is giving us to accept this solution is more important than the wishes of our residents. Wishes that have remained constant in the 8 years I have lived in Hawthorn Place. It is disrespectful to our Hawthorn residents and we have not demonstrated that we have heard them. We have ignored our residents in favor of easy money. Most importantly, this solution is not ours. It belongs to MoT's.

In addition, it was through the efforts and persistence of Sharon Wu, our last UNA Chair, who dared to said 'No' to the MoT when they responded with 'No Parking 24/7' as our interim solution that forced MoT to rethink of a more creative solution that would allow residents to park on the street. That was progress. This is not.