One Newspaper, One Letter, One Article

The letter 'Meters probably costing more than any change collected' in this week's edition is a solid representation of a viewpoint regarding the effects of paid parking on Downtown Stoney Creek streets. It voices the frustration regarding the issue while fostering a less-than-stellar comprehension of the particulars. To wit, while "revenues from the paid parking meters netted less than $30,000 since July 1 of last year. For this meagre amount, which does not even reach 25 per cent of council's projected target," may indeed be true, it's also declared that "the city is now responsible for tripling the vacancy rate of our downtown storefronts in less than a year."

And herein lies the problem. 

First off, Downtown Stoney Creek, as noted on numerous occasions on this site (found by searching on The 'Downtown' Issue) has for the longest time been in fairly precarious straits in terms of its robustness. If you look here you will see that we had numerous business opportunities laying fallow before the paid-parking effort was initiated. 

Secondly, people seem to (selectively?) 'misremember' that we had major construction going on last summer on Lake Avenue that undoubtedly had enormous impact on the amount of traffic Downtown Stoney Creek experienced. I  haven't seen anyone bringing up this point in any article I've come across. I'm assuming it's more convenient...and satisfying...to aim all salvos at 'The Big, Bad, Amalgamated City of Hamilton'.

Finally, as I'd noted ad nauseam, the primary problem with the vibrancy and resiliency of Downtown Stoney Creek is not predicated on whether or not the street parking is free. To believe so reveals either wilful head-in-the-sanditis, or a complete lack of understanding of the real contributing factors. (All of this was referenced here, a post that contains further on-site links.)

While I appreciate how the Rob Hardy's passion for Stoney Creek is manifest in his Letter to The Editor, I can't help but feeling a little sad at how the crux of the matter is being missed by so many lookers-on. Entirely. 

The article 'Old firehall a hot place for parking' notes an ironic development very much connected to all this. (And I must say, it's intriguing to see that the News' editorial slant showing itself in how information is relayed.)

(And before I go any further, here's a photo album

to peruse.)

Some believed that the Old Fire Hall...as I implied in this post last year...was an ideal candidate for a community theatre-type endeavour, such as they have in Ancaster. And if Downtown Stoney Creek wasn't in the state it's in, there may have been a valid argument to not tearing the building down. But to me, this would have required that the profile of the BIA be entirely different. That there would have to be elements in place whose existence would have made the idea of a community theatre-type affair seem less a shot in the dark than it was. (These elements are not in place, and once again, I'm having to ask what those people attending The Battle of Stoney Creek Bicentennial in two years' time will be doing when they're not attending the festivities; as it stands now, there's really nothing to do downtown, nothing to see and very little to purchase.)

For the record, these arguable points are presented as fact  in the News piece: 

-"Downtown Stoney Creek businesses have suffered financially since the city established metered parking on King Street last July." There may be somewhat-correlation here, but causation...? 

-"The parking lot behind the Royal Canadian Legion branch has about 125 spaces and offers two-hour free parking. Businesses and politicians point to the parking meters as the reason for the area’s high vacancy rate." I'm sure they do...but only those who are being discriminatory with the truth. 

And of course, I have to comment on this insight from City employees: "Parking staff agreed the on-street parking is “under performing” because the community refuses to pay for parking. Staff also argued motorists are using the parking lot rather than paying for on street parking."

Yes, the Downtown Stoney Creek community refuses to pay for parking. And yet I would bet a kajillion dollars that, were there actual anchor tenants in the downtown, bonafide 'key draws', this issue would be moot. Visit any neighbourhood where there are genuine reasons to visit, where commerce is the raison d'etre for the effort, and you'll see that people will pay for the convenience of parking. (Here's a hint: Stoney Creekers aren't of another breed entirely from their cousins who frequent the BIAs I'm referring to. It's more that there's no rationale reason for them to be coming downtown anyway...so why should they feel inclined to pay for this non-experience?)

This 'paid-parking' issue is much more complicated than these observations would suggest, and I would point the reader to this post as well as this one for some insight. 

Finally, once again I entreat The Stoney Creek News to actually do a series on Downtown Stoney Creek, examining its history, its time-honoured importance to the community, and why it's in the condition it is today. It's long overdue.