Studies done on the subject show that parking availability and transit usage are in fact highly interrelated. If you think about it, this is intuitively obvious — as an example, why is it that so many people take the LRT to Oiler or Eskimo games? Because parking is ridiculous. Availability and price of parking is one of several factors that enter people’s calculations when they decide whether or not they’re going to take transit.

This isn’t to say that parking is the only (or even most important) factor affecting transit usage, but it certainly is an important one. As I mention in the post, it also has important land-use and economic implications, which, to me, makes it an issue worth considering — especially when you consider the fact that making changes in this area basically free, unlike building LRT lines, buying buses, etc.

Finally, you use as an example downtown surface parking lots, which are operated by parking companies on a for-profit basis. Although I can’t say I’m a huge fan of these lots, the policy I’m referring to would not directly affect them. The parking regulations I mention specify the amount of parking that must accompany any new development as part of that development (eg the number of stalls that have to be stuck underneath or adjacent to a new condo building). These regulations force landowners to provide parking that may or may not be needed, which is economically inefficient (in addition to frustrating transit and land use issues, as I mention above). The parking lots downtown are different, because they only exist insofar as the demand for them exists.

Looking from the 21st floor of the ING buiding downtown, I was horrified with the amount of single level gravel parking lots filled to maximum occupancy. At nearly $20 a day, these stalls nearly cost as much as my rent – and people are willing and able to pay.

Although I agree that outdated policies are counterproductive to municipality operations, I think our resources can be better used. People WANT these stalls.

Why not focus on giving them more effective transit? The money that you spent on lawyers, municipal committees and councilors time updating irrelevant policies could be better spent on adding another stop to the proposed west end LRT route.

What if the Community or residence do not see eye to eye with the one councillor.

What checks and balances will be put in place?

Every ward is going to be fighting for money. 12 instead of 6. This may create a lot of infighting.

It is very interesting because 400 people were polled to find out what they thought of the ward systems. Problem is : what political dealings have they had with different levels of government. It would have been much better for community advocates to be polled and citizens that deal with issues all the time. They have an understanding of how City Hall works. I would bet that maybe 2 percent of the people polled know anything about politics.

Why was the vote taken in the summer when citizens are on holidays?

A better solution to this ward system would have been to deligate certain issues to a ward councillor and keep the 6 ward system.

Just to be clear, though, CivicCamp is not our program. It really is an independent group of citizens who amaze me with their passion and ability to mobilize.

The Better Calgary Campaign was pleased to assist Sustainable Calgary (and its inspiration, Chris Turner) in helping sponsor the first CivicCamp gathering, but that was the extent of it. It’s just grown from there (in fact, I am hoping some of the incredible CivicCamp people will also come help us grow BCC)

And I would love to help you replicate CC in Edmonton, and I know there are many CC volunteers who will help as well.

How can one politician pretend to represent everyone and every interest ( answer :not honestly)?
Who represents all the folk, often
a majority, who do not vote for the winner — or who would vote if the incumbent were not a shoo-in?
A council that represents all voters and all interests fairly cannot be based on single-member districts.

Multi-member districts — the STV concept — allow for suitably diverse representation.

As for campaigning difficulties related to district size, the single transferable ballot mitigates the problem and so would some rational adaptation by politicians. Why, for example, wouldn’t councillors of similar outlook band together to help each other and paint voters a picture of their intentions, i.e. advertise, i.e. behave like a party. That would make them jointly accountable — as compared with a ward system in which noindividual councillor is responsible for anything beyond pretending to get potholes fixed and speed bumps installed.

This is something citizens have been trying to get back in our city for over 70 years.

Read http://www.thinkcity.ca/node/161 to get an update on how our new mayor is moving Vancouver up the democratic ladder.