PDA

View Full Version : Parking Lot Expropriation



CW
13-11-2006, 04:50 PM
I haven't made it through all of the ideas, so I apologize if this has come up...

Downtown (especially East) looks like a bomb zone with all of these empty, unpaved or dilapidated parking lots. Plus, we have a "housing shortage".

I think the city should expropriate these empty parking lots throughout downtown from Impark or whoever runs them. The owners should be provided a fair market price for this land (I'm not a communist) and the city should turn around and put these ex-parking lots up for auction to developers. I would personally put other restrictions on the sale such as pending approval of the architecture, etc. so that the use and aesthetic could be somewhat controlled and we don't get more square concrete boxes, but that might not be necessary.

I think that this is a good idea because it will clean up the wasteland that is East Downtown, bring in some critical mass of population that is necessary to turn it around, hopefully in the end will cost the city very little as real estate is hot right now. Plus it will hopefully bring in more services in East Downtown and relieve some of the mounting pressure on the services West of 109 Ave., which is about to see a major increase in population becasue of 4-5 new condo buildings along 111-112. (It's going to be a nightmare).

Finally, to make up for the lost parking spaces, the city could finance the building of 4 or 5 (or however many are deemed necessary) parkades. They could even be provided to Impark in exchange for the expropriated lots. This would solve the parking problem and free up other lots for residential or commerical development (anything other than another empty lot). If this was done proactively, maybe some architects could come up with some unique designs for parkades, so that they weren't more concrete behemoths.

IanO
13-11-2006, 07:40 PM
good in theory, wont happen...sorry.

end of idea.

RichardS
13-11-2006, 08:00 PM
The unabridged version.

Expropriation is a lengthy and convoluted process whereupon the plaintiff has to prove why this specific land needs to be forcibly removed from its owner. These owners are NOT going to give this up for just fair market value. This usually involves lengthy hearings, huge lawyer bills, and paying the landowner more than market value for it in the end.

For parking lots, why go through the pain when you can legislate their cleanliness...that is a better approach.

LindseyT
13-11-2006, 08:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but impark doesn't even own their lots right?

In some cases what you are saying makes sense. Often you have a handful of owners sitting on single lots that are to small to develop and nobody wants to sell out. Or the cases, where somnebody is atempting to purchase up a large area but a property owner is holding out. Some sort of mechanism should be in place to deal with situations like that.

m0nkyman
13-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Expropriation, no. I would suggest however that the City ask one small little requirement of anyone who wants to run a parking lot. Two people employed whenever they are asking for money to park on a lot.

The more eyes on the street, the better....

LindseyT
13-11-2006, 10:12 PM
The problem I have with enforcing higher standards on parking lots is that many of those parking lots would not be profitable. So instead of having a parking lot as a land owner waits for his investment to pay off, we would have a fenced off lot that would look much worse.

Parking lots will take care of themselves. As we increase the number of people downtown we increase the number of people who are willing to pay for clean and secure parking. If Impark can charge 12 bucks a day for a space that now costs 5 by paving it and stepping up security they will do so.

IanO
13-11-2006, 11:41 PM
IMPARK is a management company, not an owner.

DanC
13-11-2006, 11:56 PM
I hate impark, but at least their tickets aren't City of Edmonton ones...hahaha suckers.

IanO
13-11-2006, 11:59 PM
I hate impark, but at least their tickets aren't City of Edmonton ones...hahaha suckers.

i used to as well until i realised that just like photo radar, dont speed and no ticket...ROCKET SCIENCE.

RichardS
14-11-2006, 12:03 AM
funny how that works...but no, it is a conspiracy and a money grab I tell you....not the most easily avoidable tax around.

DanC
14-11-2006, 12:07 AM
I hate impark, but at least their tickets aren't City of Edmonton ones...hahaha suckers.

i used to as well until i realised that just like photo radar, dont speed and no ticket...ROCKET SCIENCE.
I don't hate them because of their tickets, I hate them because their lots usually suck a**.

RichardS
14-11-2006, 12:22 AM
Which is where regulation comes into play. Sure, they pass the costs onto the patrons, but I'd rather pay for and park in something that looks safe rather than losing my car in the next crater.

DanC
14-11-2006, 12:25 AM
Right, some of those lots could steal the muffler right off a small car. 5$ a day or whatever is cheap, but I still don't want to park there because the lots are full of puddles, mud and holes.

murman
14-11-2006, 07:53 AM
I think the city should expropriate these empty parking lots throughout downtown from Impark or whoever runs them. The owners should be provided a fair market price for this land (I'm not a communist) and the city should turn around and put these ex-parking lots up for auction to developers.

<snip>



"not a communist" ? :lol:

Pal, your whole rant has a slight tad of "redistribution of wealth" thing going, don't you think?

RichardS
14-11-2006, 10:20 AM
communist = we'll take your land, give you nothing, and then throw you to Siberia for being so silly as to have a parking lot....

Edmcowboy11
14-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Hey Richard we'll have no talk of Siberia here, we're a canadian site. We'll send them to one of Bill Matheson's (rest in peace) favorite northern places in Canada, Baker Lake. According to him probably just as cold as Siberia.

RichardS
14-11-2006, 10:58 AM
LOL


We do have that dreaded of all meteorological phenomenon, THE SIBERIAN HIGH

mick
14-11-2006, 12:18 PM
This idea is about as far away from communism as you can get. Expropriating land to sell to private developers, who then can claim a profit??? Interestingly, the US Supreme Court approved this type of expropriation in a ruling (5-4) last year. It basically lowered the burden for what could be considered 'in the public interest'. It used to be that expropriation could only be done with public projects in the public interest (e.g. highways etc.). However, the court agreed that any project that may have positive economic spin-offs can be considered in the public interest. This basically means that public interest means any private development...there has been a rather large public outcry about this in the states. To the point that it was an election issue in many places. Interestingly, the more 'liberal' judges (if such a thing exists) were against it, while the 'conservative' judges won the day. Not hard to see why. This ruling is a boon for private developers wanting to get their hands on the property of hold-out land owners.

CW
14-11-2006, 01:47 PM
Ok, let me remove the offending semantics and cut to the chase: we have sh$%ty looking parking lots in the center of our city and it looks terrible with little housing and no amenities. Cleaning up the parking lots isn't a solution - what do we do?

IanO
14-11-2006, 01:51 PM
Ok, let me remove the offending semantics and cut to the chase: we have sh$%ty looking parking lots in the center of our city and it looks terrible with little housing and no amenities. Cleaning up the parking lots isn't a solution - what do we do?


BUILD MORE

onishenko
14-11-2006, 03:15 PM
so with the whole Jasper East plan, what will this mean? change the zoning so they have to leave? Or that they know they can get some nice coin for it from a developer, so they'll want to sell?

IanO
14-11-2006, 03:30 PM
so with the whole Jasper East plan, what will this mean? change the zoning so they have to leave? Or that they know they can get some nice coin for it from a developer, so they'll want to sell?

guys...lots like this are in vancouver, in toronto, in calgary...yes we might have more, but it is a matter of development, not expropriation.

Supply and demand.

CW
14-11-2006, 04:04 PM
Sorry, but I don't understand your point.

Build more of what and where? I'm saying it looks terrible and derelict and slummy and you're saying supply and demand? How about if we take back some parking lots and supply them to some developers to fill some of the housing demand?

IanO
14-11-2006, 04:10 PM
Sorry, but I don't understand your point.

Build more of what and where? I'm saying it looks terrible and derelict and slummy and you're saying supply and demand? How about if we take back some parking lots and supply them to some developers to fill some of the housing demand?

the reason those lots exist is more than one reason, but we have A LOT OF LAND...so it will take time to build out those lots. Sure they dont look pretty and yes they should have minimum standards for aesthetics/drainage but they are a reality of downtowns all over this world.

We need more projects to get rid of these yes, but they are not unique to edmonton.