Parking in Waterloo Region

[Canard]

No, when we bought our unit, we had bought three things:

-Unit
-Storage locker
-Parking spot

Those were three distinct line items of "things" that we owned. No rental.

[Viewfromthe42]

Things I can live without: parking. Things I can't live without: storage. A few roller-racks from Solutions (pricey) and fixed racks (not pricey), and I can fill every cubic foot of space in my locker, and wheel out inaccessible things as needed.

I suppose there might be some rule regarding parking being rented out though. You can't alter the door of your unit, or windows, or some systems within walls (especially shared walls) without approval, typically, due to the "shared amenity" nature of those elements of the unit that you own. Similarly, given the shared nature of the storage locker area, I'd expect certain condo rules governing even those private assets, and that would also make me think some might apply to parking spaces, not least of which is the ability to tell everyone to get out of the lot for when they reseal or repaint it.

[tomh009]

Check the condo declaration, bylaws, and rules. I am by no means an expert in condominium law (or any law), but those might have something to say about the matter. Reading the Condominium Act might also be helpful — I don’t know what the condo corporation can and cannot do. Also keep in mind there could be a disconnect between what the owners at large, the Board, and Management want. Ultimately Management is hired by the Board who are elected by the ownership, and all must abide by the Act, Declaration, Bylaws, and rules (although all but the Act can be modified by the ownership and/or Board, with various procedures and voting thresholds required for changing different elements.

Yes, a condo corporation can definitely restrict the owners' ability to rent out the parking spots.

That said, it doesn't really make a lot of sense in this scenario.  An enclosed parking garage with access control, though, would be a different scenario and could potentially make sense to restrict.

[panamaniac]

I don't understand the rationale for management company involvement in this (beyond information sharing).  I wonder if the condo board was concerned about potential liability or increased insurance premiums?  That seems often to be the rationale for tightened condo rules.

In this case, it would seem to me that you/the condo owner should be "grandfathered", simply by providing them with the details of the space renters.  Are you certain that the management company is looking to charge a service fee of some sort?  That seems very odd, and unjustifiable in the case of any spaces already rented out to non-owners.

[panamaniac]

It's my understanding that parking spaces at Kaufman aren't owned by the unit owners, rather by the corporation and rented by the unit at a nominal fee ($3-5 per month). This must allow the condo easier ability to maintain, resurface, plough snow, etc, without seeking approval from each separate owner. This is likely the legal reason why parking spaces can't be further sublet by the owner/tenant.

I fully support the idea of subletting the space when not in use by the primary owner. Perhaps the simple work-around would be to register the 2nd vehicle and require a simple agreement document of some sort to register the vehicle to the space. Or perhaps that would just be an administrative nightmare.

I did not know that.  That can't be very common.

[tomh009]

I don't understand the rationale for management company involvement in this (beyond information sharing). 

If the board has decided to implement such a restriction, they would have then likely delegated the enforcement to the property manager.  It's the usual scenario.

[plam]

Parking spaces are designed as "exclusive use common spaces" at my townhouse condo. Not sure why. But they're immediately adjacent to the unit and it would be a bit odd to sublet them.

[tomh009]

Parking spaces are designed as "exclusive use common spaces" at my townhouse condo. Not sure why. But they're immediately adjacent to the unit and it would be a bit odd to sublet them.

This is the normal thing at highrise condos as well, if there are assigned parking spaces.

[Pheidippides]

I wish the Kitchener would make the minimum parking rates equal to the minimum GRT cash fare (and go up from there for premium spots) and then keep them in step with GRT increases.

$1.05 for 2.5hrs @ Civic Garage = $0.007 / minute = $0.42 / hr
$3.20 for 2.0hrs @ Kitchener City Hall/Duke Garage/Benton Garage/Kitchener Market = $0.0267 / minute = $1.60 / hr
$3.25 for 1.5hrs on GRT = $0.0361 / minute = $2.17 / hr

[Canard]

I don't understand what you're getting at - why?

[MidTowner]

I wish the Kitchener would make the minimum parking rates equal to the minimum GRT cash fare (and go up from there for premium spots) and then keep them in step with GRT increases.

$1.05 for 2.5hrs @ Civic Garage = $0.007 / minute = $0.42 / hr
$3.20 for 2.0hrs @ Kitchener City Hall/Duke Garage/Benton Garage/Kitchener Market = $0.0267 / minute = $1.60 / hr
$3.25 for 1.5hrs on GRT = $0.0361 / minute = $2.17 / hr

Setting the minimum parking fee at City-owned lots equal to the GRT fare would definitely be the thing to do if the municipal government were serious about promoting transit.

At $0.42 per hour (downtown!), and parking being one of the few variable costs, and the most visible variable cost, transit just can't compete with driving. I bet if you set the "First 30 minutes" charge at downtown City-owned parking at $3.25, there would be a big uptick in transit use heading downtown. This would be good for all sorts of reasons, not least that we would not have to spend huge sums of public money in the future on new parking facilities.

Of course, it's politically probably impossible right now, as good an idea as it is.

[Canard]

You'd have to make it $7.50.

And it assumes that everyone downtown has the option to use GRT but just chooses not to, which isn't correct.

[MidTowner]

Why $7.50? Pheidippides suggested making it equal to the GRT's cash fare, which is $3.25, or $6.50 for a two-way trip. I guess a two-way cash fare could be the level used, though even I think that's a little high.

It doesn't presume that everyone has the option to use GRT downtown. But it does presume that, in general, that's the way we want people to get downtown. Parking revenue could even be used to improve service to make it more useful for more people. Of course, diverting parking revenue to pay for transit is also politically probably impossible here.

[Canard]

Sorry, derp. $6.50.

...because you have to get home...?

[MidTowner]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare very short-term parking rates with two-way transit fares. The minimum (first 30 minutes) parking rate should be at least equal to a one-way fare (which gives you 90 minutes' total service on GRT), but you should be parking for a longer period before it exceeds the level of a two-way fare.