The Folly of parking fines geared to income
Editor, Glebe Report
To Shawn Menard, Capital Ward councillor, and Mayor Mark Sutcliffe:
Respectfully, my economic training tells me that your proposal to gear parking fines to income is hare-brained.
The parking bylaws are a way to control access to a public good that is a scarce resource. The rules are explicit and clear enough for anyone to adhere to. Anyone choosing not to adhere to the rules has full knowledge of the consequences, so risking a fine by not doing so is a choice.
It is also worth noting that the cost of administering the parking system is funded through property taxes that are already highly geared to income i.e., progressive. The transaction costs in the system are fixed – it costs the same to issue a ticket to a poor person as it does to a rich person.
So, what you propose is double dipping – charging people on the upper end of the income distribution more of the costs of administering our parking regime and reducing the cost of infractions for people of lesser means, when you have already charged richer folk most of the cost of administering the system through their property tax.
In economic terms, a measure like this is designed to increase poor folks’ consumption of parking fines because the city has subsidized the price, all for a cost that is explicitly in the individual’s control. I would be happy to show you supply/demand curves that illustrate this phenomenon.
In more general economic terms, what poor people have is an income shortage. I would encourage you and your colleagues to focus on measures that allow poor people to generate more income, or failing that, use the tax system to give them more income. I would suggest focusing on the potential of literacy and numeracy skill upgrading as a way to generate much more economic growth in the city at a low cost.
Parking is not a human right but a lifestyle choice. Parking fines can be avoided with little effort. Leave the choices for people to make themselves.
Scott Murray
Foundation advice
Editor, Glebe Report
Re: “They call it a rubble foundation for a reason,” Glebe Report, May 2024.
As a former Glebe resident, I read your paper regularly and was interested in the article on rubble foundations.
We owned an 1880 home with an aging rubble foundation in West Centretown and restored the foundation in 2014 with advice from Merkley Supply.
It is important not to use a regular mortar as it can be harder than the stone and damage the foundation over time. We used a Type O mortar which is the lowest in cement – 1 measure Portland to 3 measures lime to 9 measures of sand. We mixed it dry and then mixed it with some water to the consistency of cottage cheese. We let it stand for half an hour. Then we mixed it to mortar. This does an excellent job of filling the cracks without risking further damage to the stone.
Nelson Coyle
Tulip Festival a circus of commerce and junk food
Editor, Glebe Report
As I see the so-called Tulip Festival return, I wonder if it would be more aptly named “The Festival of Junk Food.” Every year for two weeks, Commissioner’s Park is turned from a place of beauty into an ugly circus, where people are encouraged to eat nothing but things that are bad for their health. And this is an event sponsored and, I assume, partly funded by government. It seems the public is deemed incapable of appreciating the pure glory of the tulip beds without distractions and entertainments that have nothing at all to do with tulips, gardening or nature. An excellent educational opportunity – both historic and environmental – is consistently lost in favour of crass commerce. I am wondering who actually profits from this event. I don’t think it’s the public.
Dorothy Speak
