Skip to content

Parking ban raises questions of two-tier access to waterfront

Is it equitable to give residents reserved parking on lakeside streets, while shutting out other Oakville residents?
no-parking-sign-oakville-news

Last week we brought you the news that town council has decided to ban public parking on roads near popular lakeside parks this summer.

As of May 15 or earlier, the town will establish no parking zones on streets surrounding Coronation Park, Tannery Park and Bronte Beach. Fines have been increased to $100, and it may add additional locations.

The measure is intended to “stop the spread of COVID-19 by limiting the number of vehicles parking, thereby limiting the number of patrons,” according to a staff report presented to council on April 26.

Our story led dozens of people to express outrage on local social media sites, with some raising concerns about two-tier access to Oakville’s waterfront.

“It is just selfishly keeping the lake for only the people who live within walking distance,” said one comment on our Oakville News Facebook page.

“Our parks are for everyone. We all pay taxes. Parking should not be banned and the parks limited to a lucky few who live nearby. My 2 cents,” added another on Oakville Talk.

“Good way to ensure the parks won't be used by anyone but the privileged few living in the area. What a shame” added another woman.

We share these worries and question the lack of dialogue around this ban. Here are a few of our concerns.

Loads of space, not much parking

Coronation Park is 9.6 hectares – or 96,000 square metres – in size. If we allocated a space the size of a small bedroom to every person, the park could hold more than 10,000 people.

It currently has 221 parking spots, which even with four to a car, amounts to fewer than 1,000 people.

Likewise, Bronte has 212 parking spots to service 77,800 square metres of parkland.

Naturally we wouldn’t want to see more asphalt added to our parks, so using nearby streets for additional parking – and increased access – makes sense.

Inconvenience is not illegality

A recent town press release muddles the issues of inconvenience with safety and legality.

“No Parking signs and increased fines will be implemented to help reduce overcrowding, traffic congestion and illegal parking in these areas which can impact neighbourhood safety and access for emergency service vehicles,” it reads.

Huh?

If people were parking illegally last year – and we hear that some were – then clearly they should be ticketed. And presumably we already plan our parking to ensure adequate access for emergency service vehicles.

Neither of those issues requires a new parking ban and increased fines.

So that leaves us with “overcrowding” and “traffic congestion.” No doubt the popularity of lakefront parks can be an inconvenience to people living on nearby streets, and undoubtedly that inconvenience spiked last summer.

But does that justify the significant inequity created by removing access for those who don’t have the luxury of living beside the lake?

This won’t lower park numbers, just rearrange who gets the parking spots

The town will be providing parking permits to people living on these nearby streets to “accommodate their temporary parking needs.”

Translation: There will be no inconvenience to local residents, who will be able to share their newfound parking passes with family, friends and visitors.

Does anyone think there will be fewer cars parked on those streets? More likely, they will just be vehicles connected to people already privileged enough to live alongside our taxpayer-funded lakefront parks.

And what are the odds that residents won’t lobby hard for this convenience again next year and the year after, until everyone just assumes that summertime bans are standard fare?

If parking bans are a necessity, they should be for everyone. If local residents are forced to share the pain, they will be less likely to clamour for shutting down their streets to the rest of the community.

This will only move the problem elsewhere

So far, the town has said it plans the parking ban – along with an increased fine of $100 – for “local roads adjacent to popular waterfront parks at Bronte Beach, Coronation Park and Tannery Park.”

It doesn’t take a genius to guess that people will now compete for spots at different parks and on streets a little beyond the banned areas.

And with even less supply of a scarce resource, the problems will be exacerbated, additional homeowners will complain, new parking restrictions will be imposed. Does anyone see where this might end?

As Oakville grows, so will this issue

We hope, as everyone does, that the worst of our pandemic restrictions will be gone as the summer progresses. Hopefully that will increase our choice of activities and reduce pressure on lakefront parks.

But this isn’t just a pandemic issue. Ward 2 councillor Ray Chisholm highlighted the challenge last summer.

“With the expansion and the development of north Oakville – there’s no waterfront up in north Oakville – a lot of people are migrating down to the parks,” he said, predicting the issue would “grow exponentially as years go on.”

Those comments led Oakville MP and former town councillor Pam Damoff to fire back on Facebook, describing his comments as “offensive” and “divisive.”

“Councillor Chisholm’s sentiments that it is somehow wrong or a problem for North Oakville residents to visit Coronation Park goes against the very reason we have waterfront parks like Coronation Park,” she wrote. “This park isn’t just for residents of South Oakville, this park is open to all residents of Oakville.”

We asked several ward councillors that represent wards in northern areas of Oakville to comment on equity issues related to this parking decision. No one did.

But with thousands of new residents moving into Oakville every year, and no new lakefront being manufactured, we need to find a way to get this right.

Equity demands it.