Letters July 17: Parking minimums encourage cars; stop raising taxes

Readers’ letters to the editor, Victoria Times Colonist, July 17, 2026.

Users could pay operating, not capital Re: “Shorter-route ferries not administered fairly,” letter, July 15. An interesting letter, but some dollar figures would enable your readers to better understand what is going on with B.C. Ferries subsidies. For the year ending March 31, 2025, the four “major” routes, from the Swartz Bay and Nanaimo to the mainland, had operating profits (i.e., fares less operating expenses) of $84 million, while the “minor” routes (i.e., primarily to the Gulf Islands) had operating losses of $145 million.

The northern routes (Port Hardy-Prince Rupert and to Central Coast and Prince Rupert-Haida Gwaii) had operating losses of $54 million. In plain language, Vancouver Island residents are heavily subsidizing the lifestyle of Gulf Island residents, and all ferry users are subsidizing the northern routes. Quarterly information is not given, but one can surmise that the Port Hardy-Prince Rupert route is primarily vacationers, as is likely the Haida Gwaii route — which begs the question of whether the sales tax on those vacation activities plus additional income tax from any additional employment really covers the vast operating subsidy and capital costs.

I agree with the writer that we need to examine the fare structure. Surely, the only fair solution is to charge the true operating cost on all routes and have the province pay the capital costs — for the ferries and terminals, plus their maintenance costs. Perhaps the Gulf Islands should take over responsibility for their routes under such a scheme; then they would pay the full cost of living there, just as everyone else would.

Roger Love Saanich Parking minimums encourage more cars Re: “New rules proposed to allow reduced parking at Victoria developments,” July 14. I’m glad that Victoria is moving in the right direction in reducing parking minimums, but why such a timid approach? Dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities across Canada and the U.S. have eliminated parking minimums over the past several years, including Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Toronto.

With the lowest share of commutes by car drivers among all 41 metro areas in Canada, according to the 2021 census, Victoria is much less car-dependent than the large majority of cities, which have eliminated their parking minimums, so there is no reason why we couldn’t do the same here. Planners now widely agree that parking minimums were one of the worst and most destructive planning regulations implemented in the previous century. They ruined many urban areas by forcing businesses and owners to build more parking than the market demanded, creating low-density, unwalkable sprawl.

They can make many new developments or conversions financially impossible, especially for innovative small-scale projects. They also added a huge cost that gets passed on — not just to housing costs, but to everything we buy, whether or not we use the parking provided. One councillor was quoted in the article as saying that eliminating parking minimums wouldn’t magically make cars disappear.

In fact, there is now wide consensus among planners that this is exactly what happens. When we build more roads, parking and car infrastructure, more people choose to drive and traffic increases (induced demand); when we reduce parking and car infrastructure, people choose other modes of transportation and car use decreases (traffic evaporation). There are decades of evidence from cities across North America showing this to be the case, many of which are documented in two excellent books on the subject: Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking and Henry Grabar’s Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World.

Steven Murray Victoria Removing parking does not fix problems Re: “New rules proposed to allow reduced parking at Victoria developments,” July 14. Victoria city council is giving the green light to a new framework for developers to build residences with minimal or no parking if they wish. There will be very little, if any, oversight of what the developers want to build.

They will be allowed to go through the Express Lane of approval with well over 10 items or fewer, and will no longer have to consult experts on parking studies, density or public contribution. This should be very unsettling to Victorians. The two councillors (Stephen Hammond and Marg Gardiner) who voted against this new framework are the voices of reason, as they see how detrimental this will be in the future.

The majority of registered voters own a vehicle, which they choose to use during moments of Victoria’s inclement weather, among other valid reasons. Hammond drove it home, saying “parking demand doesn’t disappear because council changes a bylaw.” This article never mentions electric cars.

It would behoove developers to think about installing EV chargers in their new projects. Seriously! Forcing developers to have a stipulation of having to contribute to city hall initiatives for downtown residents to use anything but an automobile is a form of bullying.

Why doesn’t this attention go toward how to address the problems visitors have trying to navigate downtown streets? I hear the definition of frustration is using GPS in downtown Victoria. To parody a famous highway in Europe called the Autobahn, we in Victoria have The Auto-ban.

Mur Meadows Victoria Deferred taxes could help house homeless I am a resident of Vic West and live in close proximity to downtown Victoria. I remember when several thousands of dollars were needed to clean the destroyed soil and remove fecal waste plus garbage from behind the law courts.

I remember all the many times the Pandora tent city has been cleaned up. I remember when the Alix Goolden Hall was not behind a protective fence. I remember when business owners didn’t report people sleeping overnight and defecating in their entryways.

So, where do the unhoused go? A constant question for which I have a difficult suggestion. It’s a five-year plan and starts with our next civic election in October.

My plan demands that no one be allowed to live in parks or doorways anywhere within our city limits. Period. Vagrancy is outlawed.

Facilities to house the homeless would be built over the next five years to ensure this. And the money would come from all the deferred property taxes that have been allowed to accumulate in Victoria and Saanich and Oak Bay and Sidney and North Saanich and Langford and Vic West and Esquimalt and Millstream and Deep Cove for the past several decades. I know this is a wildly radical suggestion.

I know this involves our provincial government; I hear the hue and cry from homeowners and geriatrics. It will be deafening. After all, shouldn’t we all be allowed to stay in our home after it’s paid off?

Well, perhaps in a bygone era, yes. But gone are those days when we can live on properties free from paying property taxes to support infrastructure. As rents increase, so does the cost of homeownership.

Pay your taxes. Infrastructure is expensive, and housing the unhoused is our modern reality. Hazel Harris Victoria We need fiscal leaders, not higher taxes Victoria taxpayers are being asked to pay ever-higher property taxes while receiving little assurance that city hall is exercising the fiscal discipline expected of every household and business.

As British Columbia’s capital city, Victoria provides policing, emergency services, roads, parks, cultural attractions and public spaces that benefit not only its own residents but people from across the capital region and the province. Yet Victoria taxpayers bear a disproportionate share of those costs. The province should recognize Victoria’s unique role by contributing a much larger share toward capital-city services.

At the same time, city hall must better manage its own finances. Property taxes have exceeded the rate of inflation, while senior management compensation has risen significantly in recent years. Council also approved substantial increases to its own remuneration.

Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether spending priorities are aligned with their ability to pay. Before imposing further tax increases, council should demonstrate greater financial discipline and pursue alternative sources of revenue. Corporate sponsorship and naming rights for public facilities, greater regional cost-sharing, visitor levies, and increased provincial participation should all be on the table.

The solution is not simply higher taxes. It is responsible financial management, innovative thinking and leadership that recognizes taxpayers are not an unlimited