Vancouver council votes against fees for overnight parking on residential streets

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) — A plan to charge fees for overnight parking on Vancouver’s residential streets has been shot down by city council, with the mayor casting the deciding vote opposing the move Wednesday.

Staff’s Climate Emergency Parking Program proposed a permit for vehicles parked between 12 a.m. and 7 a.m., at a flat rate of $45.45 per year. Low-income households would have paid a reduced fee of $5 per year. In addition, an annual “pollution charge” of up to $1,000 would’ve been added for cars purchased after 2023 that do not meet certain targets for emissions.

These recommendations, according to city staff, are being made as part of an overall effort to reduce emissions, and to “help Vancouver contribute its fair share in the global effort to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.”

Mayor Kennedy Stewart voted against the plan, but did not explain why during the meeting. In a statement issued afterward, he said he made the decision after hearing from dozens of speakers and with “careful consideration” of the report.

“I believe in strong and urgent climate action, but I also believe these actions must be just. I think most of us living in Vancouver share these values,” he wrote,

“Unfortunately, the proposed permit parking system did not meet this test. It would have asked those renting basement suites or working in vehicle-dependent jobs to pay more while asking homeowners with private parking to pay nothing. An effective climate action plan must be just. I’ve asked staff to find a better way forward, and I am confident they will.”

Today we heard from staff and dozens of residents on the proposed city-wide permit parking system that would see new fees for overnight street parking and up to $1000 in special levies on all but the most efficient 2023 & newer vehicles.

I decided to vote against this proposal.

— Kennedy Stewart (@kennedystewart) October 7, 2021

The 6 – 5 vote saw Stewart vote along with NPA councillor Melissa De Genova, and four independent councillors — all who were with the NPA when elected — Colleen Hardwick, Lisa Dominato, Rebecca Bligh and Sarah Kirby-Yung. Green councillors Pete Fry, Adriane Carr and Michael Wiebe Supported the plan along with OneCity’s Christine Boyle and COPE’s Jean Swanson.

RELATED: Vancouver parking fee increase proposal splits council, frustrates expert

Members in favour of the plan cited the climate crisis, saying it is an emergency that requires an urgent response, and that it is incumbent upon the city to act within its limited jurisdiction.

Boyle urged her colleagues to support the plan even if they had questions about the details, saying concerns about where the revenue will go and how the fees will be rolled out are issues that can be resolved.

“Those are the conversations that we should be having in an informed way without inflammatory claims, without outright rejection without other solutions being proposed. I want to be very clear on this — doing nothing is not more equitable than this proposal, defending the status quo amid a climate emergency is indefensible and should be unacceptable,” she said.

“The status quo is unsafe roads and sidewalks, poor air quality, slow and crowded buses and missed climate targets. We face a code red for humanity. Upholding the status quo is a failure of leadership. This proposal isn’t perfect, because the tools that we have are limited, but to vote this down without suggesting anything to replace it is a failure of courage and of creativity.”

I’m just a City Councillor,

Sitting in a virtual meeting,

Asking my colleagues who vote down climate policy to constructively propose alternatives within our jurisdiction that align with the science, rather than simply defending the status quo.#ClimateEmergency #VanPoli pic.twitter.com/ny9OfvMyLd

— Christine Boyle (@christineeboyle) October 6, 2021

Concerns about this particular policy’s impact on overall equity and affordability in the city, Boyle said, are misplaced.

“The proposal is $45 a year, $3.75 a month, or $5 a year for those who can’t afford more. If we are truly so concerned about poverty and equity, there’s a lot more that we can do to address inequalities across our city, including better funding the public and community services that low and middle-income residents across our city rely on.”

Carr pointed to this summer’s deadly heat dome, and the devastating fire that destroyed Lytton as recent events that underscore the dangers of climate change.

“it’s our planet, it’s our future, it’s our children’s future that’s at stake. It’s not about choosing the best approach — it is about taking every possible action we can,” she said, making a final appeal to opponents.

“I implore you to reconsider your vote on this, and pass this plan because it is taking action that will concretely reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that will concretely raise money to enable other measures of our climate emergency action plan to go into effect — and we have run out of time, we have to do this now.”

Arguments opposing the plan focused on the fact that people who have garages, driveways, or parkades would not have to pay anything at all.

Dominato voiced her opposition, saying the approach was seen as “unfair taxation” by residents who gave their feedback.

“We all agree that climate mitigation and response is a priority across this country, across this province, and across the city. I think what we disagree on is the approach, in this instance, at a local level,” she said.

De Genova said she has never been in favour of this proposal, voting against the recommendation to ask staff to propose the plan in the first place. She even a small amount of money each year adds to the city’s unaffordability, and that she thinks incentives are a better way to lower emissions than fees.

“The kind of people that we will be charging are people who lost their jobs during the pandemic, who don’t know that we’re here discussing this right now — they’re childcare workers, they’re homecare workers, they’re trades..”

“We’re going to get a lot farther with carrots, than we are with sticks.”