BEST OF 2023: The parking wars continue, and they're getting ugly

Join the conversation
112
note left on car windscreen

Passive aggressive or just aggressive? With a side order of privilege? Photo: Supplied.

Year in Review: Region is revisiting some of the best Opinion articles of 2023. Here’s what got you talking, got you angry and got you thinking this year. Today, Zoya Patel shares her thoughts on parking in the suburbs.

Based on the comments, I clearly hit a nerve with my column a few weeks ago bemoaning the lack of residential parking in Canberra’s developments.

I cited my own street and townhouse complex as an example of everything that isn’t working – not enough space in garages to actually meet the realistic needs of residents, not enough unallocated spots to accommodate overflow, and spaces too small for larger vehicles resulting in our street being so crowded with parked cars that two cars can’t pass each other without someone pulling over.

Given my development has been built on previously undeveloped land where technically anything could have been possible in their design, it’s pretty frustrating to see the lack of planning and attention given to realistic transport needs.

Well, since then, things have escalated.

READ MORE What will it take to get urban planning that reflects how Canberrans actually live?

Last week, a fellow resident took to our Facebook group to, understandably, complain about a nasty note left on her windshield. She had parked her car overnight in a visitor’s spot (which was surrounded by other empty spots, for the record) and returned to it the next day to find a narky note reading: “Dear renter, this is not your personal parking spot. Park in your garage or on the street. Regards, residents at [complex name]”.

This is the second time she’s had one of these notes left.

As one of the ‘residents’ the zealous note-writer was claiming to represent, I was incensed. There is so much wrong with this kind of behaviour in a complex housing hundreds of people who have to share common spaces. Let’s start from the top. The addressing of the note to ‘renter’ smacks of homeowner elitism and a devaluing of renters’ rights to live comfortably in their homes.

We own our house in the complex, and I don’t think that makes our use of the parking or other amenities any more important or legitimate than the renters who live here also – obviously. I assume the note writer, who had no way of knowing if the car did belong to a renter, would have no issue making a pile of money off renting out their place if they had the opportunity, but the snobbery of the note suggests they place renters low on the hierarchy of residents.

Second, as I’ve already covered previously, there simply aren’t enough spaces for people to park their cars in the allocated spots.

If we rented our three-bedroom place out as a sharehouse, there could be three or more cars owned and used by up to six tenants who could ostensibly live here. Our garage only just fits our two cars, and that’s only possible because my partner is slim enough to squeeze into his driver’s seat every morning, navigating the narrow gap between our vehicles.

More to the point, the visitors’ spot wasn’t being used. There were many available spots around the complex. What’s the big deal if someone parks their car there overnight? What kind of psycho prints these notes out, watches to see if a car is there in the morning, and then scurries out to place it anonymously to make the person feel bad?

READ ALSO Did you do this? It’s time for Canberra’s ‘door dingers’ to ‘fess up

All this said (and I did say it in the Facebook group), others had different opinions, including that they were annoyed when their actual visitors couldn’t park in the spots when they visited. Frankly, if someone is coming for a few hours, versus someone who lives here not being able to park their car overnight, I prioritise the latter. If my mates have to park on the street and walk 50 metres to my door, so be it.

We rented in Canberra for over a decade before we got our place and we never had enough space for two cars. One of us was always parking on the street, moving their car to avoid different timed parking zones and sneaking into visitor spots where possible. It was tedious, and I don’t think that, just because we have the economic privilege to own our home, we would be justified in policing the behaviour of others in the complex who are now in that same position.

At the very least, the note writer should identify themselves. If you’re going to be rude, have the guts to own up to it, and don’t hide behind the facade of representing all homeowners in the complex.

Join the conversation

112
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

none of the comments acknowledge the need to decrease the traffic fleet and one way for a government to incentivise this is to permit denser housing options on public transport corridors to encourage people to cease car ownership.

astrojax, It’s not so much car ownership that clogs roads, as that people over use their car. Many trips are short trips that could be walked or cycled. I mostly have owned a car as an adult, but I didn’t use it for work. I cycled. On wet days I caught a bus and walked the extra two kms to work. I catch buses to the mall. I walk to my local shops. Even further to a larger supermarket. That’s a five km walk. Getting older, I now use a trolley (my own) to bring the shopping home in, rather than carry it. The car is mostly for use at night and weekends (when there are less buses), or long distance travel; not for every little trip. More people could do that now, but many people are just too lazy. Perhaps one of the reasons that almost 70% of Australians are overweight or obese.

Steven James Parker wrote, “The houses I grew up in and lived in as a young adult were bigger than what is considered entry level now.”

That would have been your parent’s house, not possibly (unless they came from rich parents) what they started off in. People can not expect their first home to be as good as their parents’ later home.
My parent’s first home together was a room in one of their parent’s house in a small country town, then a flat in a dingy neighbourhood over shops in an industrial city. Their last home was in a nice ACT inner south suburb. I would not have expected to start out with a house of the standard I had become accustomed to, and didn’t. Unfortunately many seem to think that is their right though.

Most visiting takes place outside of working hours, so it is a problem if residents park “overnight” in visitor spaces.

Having lived in a unit complex for nearly 30 years with both resident and visitor parking, my experience was, there was never any parking for my visitors, who had to find pay parking in the street. It made me reluctant to invite anyone over.

A realistic parking space rule in my area would be: one designated car space for each bedroom and let those, mostly families, who end up with more than they need sub let to others within the complex.

The general house rule in all developments that I have owned a property is, you must only park your car in a visitor spot if it is the main vehicle you use. That is, if you have more than one vehicle you must not park the vehicle that is least used in visitor spot. It’s foolish to think residents, owners or renters won’t park in such spots if they are available. I assume this may have happened Southside.

HiddenDragon8:12 pm 19 Oct 23

“Given my development has been built on previously undeveloped land where technically anything could have been possible in their design, it’s pretty frustrating to see the lack of planning and attention given to realistic transport needs.”

That observation sums up so much that is wrong about how this town, which still has somewhat more of a blank canvas to work with than larger, older Australian cities, is run – primarily, as others have pointed out, due to the revenue gouging instincts of developers aided and abetted by a green-washing government with similar instincts.

The other compounding/enabling problem at work here is the strong tendency of many Canberrans to say and vote for one thing, and then do the complete opposite in their everyday lives. Canberrans who are fond of proclaiming that they are “passionate about climate change”, and likewise would not dream of voting for politicians who were honest enough to propose planning and development policies which reflected the reality of car usage in this town will, nonetheless, expect to be able to use a private vehicle whenever it suits them.

The idiocy and frustration outlined in this article will roll on, and probably only get worse, when the inevitably re-elected Barr-Rattenbury government uses the next El Nino and related fires as a pretext to squawk even more loudly about climate change and thus, in turn, to make private vehicle usage ever more expensive and inconvenient.

GrumpyGrandpa4:06 pm 19 Oct 23

And here is the problem that Mr Barr and colleagues have created. With more dense planning and in particular the plus to construct apartments and townhouse terraces, with less and less parking, where do residents (and visitors) park?

Clearly, the government is encouraging people to ditch the 2nd car and ride a push-bike, catch public transport everywhere or walk, but there is a big gap between ideology and practicality.

As future downsizers, even though we only have one car, there is no way we’ll be buying something with only 1 car park. Firstly, of you ever need to resell the property, only having one car space limits the number of people who would buy your property and secondly, that extra car park will become very handy for visitors and family to use, given that general visitor parking is scarce.

We should all be pushing back and refusing to buy properties with inadequate parking and send a message to the government and developers.

It’s not only apartment buildings, walk around the suburbs and you see single and even double garage homes that aren’t sufficient for parents and a couple of young people, all with cars. Cars spill onto the street and park on the verge.

GrumpyGrandpa8:10 pm 20 Oct 23

Absolutely, there are plenty of houses with 4 or 5 cars. The house across the road from us rents out an upstairs portion of their home and the tenants park illegally on the nature strip.

We have an adult son living with us. (He is a low income earner and can’t afford a private rental or to buy something). If he had a car, it’d be on the nature strip too.

Parking in a visitor spot overnight has often been a point of contention. I reckon the issue is more related to the regularity of parking in a vistor spot. To be honest, residents should not be parking in visitor spots. It would be pretty annoying for the other residents – whether they are owners or renters should be irrelevant.

Excellent points. This is Barr govt and Greens policy to NOT provide sufficient residential parking in the belief they will drive residents to give up cars and take public transport. This is in the belief it will get petrol guzzlers off the road, however Canberra has been quick to take up electric vehicles. Can we please have sufficient car parking across the ACT – residential and public. The current situation is becoming impossible for the disabled, seniors, people with prams, straggling toddlers and heavy shopping etc, not to mention the cost of parking around shopping centres is completely prohibiting for anyone going it tough. Can we put aside idealistic claptrap to meet the needs of all our residents.

It is too simplistic to blame Barr & the Greens. The problem predates them. I have some friends in a complex that was approved & built during Kate Carnell’s tenure. It has eight visitor spots in a complex of more than 100 units and no capacity for overflow in nearby streets. The problem is developers are allowed to get away with too much and no government stands up to them.

ChrisinTurner3:02 pm 19 Oct 23

If the ACT government continues the movement of social housing away from public transport this problem will get worse.

This is the Barr government kowtowing to developers in the guise of “environmental responsibility”. Parking spaces are very expensive and difficult to incorporate, particularly into small developments. Developers hate providing them.

Fellow travellers with developers are the YIMBY brigade (Greater Canberra etc) who campaign for the removal of obligations on developers to provide parking.

Notwithstanding that developments and adequate parking seem to be mutually exclusive these days, the fact is, your fellow resident was using a visitor space to park her car. Noting that it was only overnight, however she has clearly done it before, as evidenced by your comment acknowledging this.

You don’t mention anything about the rules around your particular Body Corporate. This is important, as I’d guess it would say something along the lines of spaces not being for resident parking or long term parking of guests or residents. Rules are rules when it comes to these things and they are made for reasons. If the rules are a bit overbearing, then suggest via your representative on the Body Corp, that they be amended.

It is petty of the other resident to leave the note, especially as all they have to actually do is let the Body Corporate know formally and have it reiterated to all residents that visitor parking is not a free for all.

It’s very difficult often to find parking at Bunnings in Tuggeranong and I thought at first it was because of all the customers but then an employee explained that the problem was due to apartment owners across the road parking in Bunnings parking spaces.

Developers tend not to care about overflow of cars into surrounding areas cause the cost of providing parking falls on them (and ultimately the buyer), whereas the impact of parking on surrounding streets and in other car parks fall onto others.

Agree. I took my elderly mother down to Tuggeranong Bunnings and got one of the only available car parks at the edge of the Lot. Walked into Bunnings to only see a handful of people.

Census data shows living in an apartment in Canberra hasn’t reduced people’s desire or need to own a car. Some areas near Light Rail have actually increased their cars per dwelling. Which actually surprised me. The most likely reason someone in Canberra doesn’t own a car is because they don’t have a license, are a foreign student or have been retired 15 plus years.

Inadequate provision of parking spaces (to encourage active transport and public transport use) appears to be ideological and impractical. Some developers like it too – less cost and more profit. Does ‘affordable’ housing necessarily include inadequate parking?

Totally a government made problem they let apartments be built with not enough parking and also let apartments be built with no visitor parking, they live in la la land

I agree that leaving notes like this is unhelpful, but I am concerned with the argument that visitors are lower importance and can walk a distance. “Visitors” could include health care workers making visits to elderly, disabled or unwell people. It isn’t as simple as mates being able to drop over.

So there’s apparently not enough car parks for people that live there but there’s currently a few visitor car parks available for um, visitors.

I don’t know if I’m being Nostradamus but I wonder what would happen if it suddenly becomes OK for the residents who don’t have enough car parks to constantly park in the visitors spaces….

If you don’t want them to be spaces for actual visitors, why not lobby the body corporate to get them changed and make it a free for all. See what happens.

Not sure it’s easy to change visitor parking. There is a requirement in some zones for a specified number of visitor parking spaces. I’m in a complex in a town centre and as such, there is no visitor parking as there are any number of spaces in parking areas around the building. There is the issue that it is paid parking during business hours and no one wants to pay for parking.

The issue is the greed of developers who cram as many units/sky towers on to one space then say Oh everyone will ride bikes and use the tram. Total BS. Whomever is approving these monstrosities that are causing traffic issues needs to actually think like the rest of us do, use our brains. Two bed apartment = on average 4 people each with a car and build parking to accommodate that. Canberra is built for cars.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.