Shoemaker’s motion to charge public employees for parking downtown fails

6

In a 7-4 vote city councilor Matthew Shoemaker lost in his bid to start charging public employees for parking downtown.

Although some city councilors were in favour of his motion, and voted against it, found it to be done in haste and inconsistent.

City staff brought forward a report for information about charging public employees in other cities of the North of Ontario like Thunder Bay, Sudbury and North Bay.

Shoemaker’s motion came late Friday after reading the report from city staff.

There was some issue brought forward by councilor Joe Krmpotich and Judy Hupponen about collective agreements with unionized employees. City staff said it may propose difficulty during a current collective agreement.

Shoemaker’s motion did not include summer students and part time employees.

Areas affected would be the Ermatinger Clerge Historic Site, the Civic Centre, the Essar Centre, the Transit Terminal and the Transit Centre.

His reasoning in a nutshell was that people already pay for parking downtown and why shouldn’t the public employee.

Councilor Sandra Hollingsworth said there were better ways to fix “leaks” in the city’s operations than focus on parking.

Krmpotich thought separating full time from students and part time employees would create a division in morale.

6 COMMENTS

  1. How about concentrating on the 35 million owed to the city by the crooks that now call themselves ‘Algoma’ to try and take the focus off of the badly tarnished name, Essar?

    • Having said what I said in my previous comment, I don’t agree with any paid parking, especially in the Downtown. It is one of the reasons that the downtown has gone down hill since Rauk was the manager. They discuss revitalizing the area every year and every election, but fail to do anything constructive to solve the problem. If you are going to have paid parking for some, you should have paid parking for all.
      Questions: Does the revenue from metered parking downtown cover the cost of employees/meter men, cost of meters and their ongoing maintenance. Do these men have quotas to meet to cover their salaries?

  2. Although I don’t disagree with paid parking, I find that Shoemaker left way too many holes in his motion. As usual he failed to do his own ground work. Will councillors be paying 365 days per year for their private parking spaces?

  3. Council keels over to Staff once again. When they had the chance to recover monies used for maintenance and repairs for the parking lots, they simply turned over and died. Tax payers have to pay for road maintenance, snow ploughing, and downtown parking, city staff apparently are too good to help cover the cost of a convenience they have enjoyed since the lots were made. Maybe Fata was right when he suggested that this issue be used as a negotiation tool. Insert it as a benefit cost in their new contract. If we, as tax payers, have to pay for parking, why do they get off scot free.

    Another fail for this present council and kudos for Shoemaker for trying to right some of the wrongs that are going on at city hall. I remind you once again, this is an election year, use the opportunity wisely.

    • I’d say all issues, especially ones that focus on revenue generation for the city, are important.

Comments are closed.