Ottawa mayoral candidate vows to remove paid on-street parking Alex Lawson says his plan to remove all on-street parking metres is unconventional, but for him, that's part of the appeal
By Natasha Baldin, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 06, 2026 | Last updated 4 hours ago
Mayoral candidate Alex Lawson is pledging to make paid on-street parking a thing of the past in Ottawa if he’s elected in the fall.
After watching local businesses lose out on revenue due to evolving street-parking regulations across the city over the past few years, Lawson said he was inspired to think outside the box.
“If you go to a small business on Wellington, Somerset, Bank Streets and you get a ticket, you’re probably going to avoid going to that business again,” Lawson told the Ottawa Citizen. “(Paid parking is) really a tax on shopping local.”
Ottawa currently has 4,337 paid on-street parking spaces mostly concentrated in the downtown area, and Lawson is promising to turn every one of them into free parking.
Paid parking brought in $19.62 million in 2025, but most of the revenue went to cover the $17.13 million cost of the parking program. The result was a $1.3 million profit margin, with the money going to a reserve fund to pay for future parking infrastructure.
The profits equate to the city getting just seven cents on every dollar, according to Lawson.
“We’re only getting seven cents for it, and then it’s not even going into general revenue – it’s going into a reserve fund to pay for more parking metres down the road,” he said.
Looking just at on-street parking, the city reported a $2.36 million surplus last year, bringing in $9.78 million in revenue amid $7.42 million in operating expenses, according to the city’s 2025 parking services annual report.
The city earned an average of $95 from each on-street parking space in 2025, each bringing in $1,986 in revenue on average, while costing an average of $1,891 to operate.
City-owned parking lots and garages will continue to charge for parking under Lawson’s plan.
No-stopping zones, rush-hour clearances, school zones, loading zones, accessible parking spaces and winter overnight parking bans will all stay the same.
Lawson acknowledges the plan is something that may be a new and innovative idea for any major Canadian city. But he said that’s part of the appeal.
“Maybe it’s just innovative. Maybe it’s newer. Maybe other jurisdictions just haven’t even thought about it. Maybe they haven’t dug into their books. Maybe we’re just operating it incredibly inefficiently,” he said.
Others also vying for Ottawa’s mayoral role voiced strong opposition to Lawson’s plan.
Mark Sutcliffe, who is seeking re-election as Ottawa’s mayor, said “it’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for business.”
Instead, Sutcliffe said he’s “taking a balanced approach to parking,” according to a statement from his campaign team.
“We charge for it where appropriate and it’s free in other areas,” Sutcliffe said. “That balanced approach needs to continue to protect taxpayers and business owners.”
Mayoral candidate and Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper acknowledges no one likes to pay to park, but said “paid parking manages demand,” adding he supports reviewing rates regularly so they are only in place where demand outpaces supply.
“It keeps spaces turning over so the person driving to the store at two o’clock can actually find a spot out front, and the fees fund the parking system, including garages, instead of putting that cost on everyone’s tax bill,” his campaign team wrote in a statement.
Meanwhile, according to mayoral candidate and economist Neil Saravanamuttoo, “Lawson is showing that he doesn’t understand basic economics.
“When something like a parking space is in high demand, the only way to make it available is to put a price on it,” Saravanamuttoo said in a statement. “No one likes to pay for parking, but this would prevent customers from finding parking anywhere near the business they are trying to reach.”
Instead, Saravanamuttoo suggests taking parking revenue and reinvesting the money directly back into improving the communities where paid parking is enforced.
As well as removing all on-street parking metres, Lawson is also promising to ensure all on-street parking has a posted time limit of at least two hours, effectively eliminating one-hour parking zones.
He said he’s heard from local churches whose congregation can’t park on nearby streets with a one-hour posted limit. Others worry their relatives can’t come over and use the on-street parking in front of their houses.
“My mother can’t come and visit (in an hour),” he said. “This is what we’re doing to people.”
Amid concerns that drivers may not follow the posted time limits and allow for proper turnover without paid enforcement, Lawson said he’s confident that behaviours won’t change.
“We’ve had signs for 100 years, right?” he said. “People understand if they go over the limit, that they’re risking getting a ticket … and I don’t think this is going to change habits in a negative direction.”
Ottawa mayoral candidate vows to remove paid on-street parking Alex Lawson says his plan to remove all on-street parking metres is unconventional, but for him, that's part of the appeal
By Natasha Baldin, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 06, 2026 | Last updated 4 hours ago
Mayoral candidate Alex Lawson is pledging to make paid on-street parking a thing of the past in Ottawa if he’s elected in the fall.
After watching local businesses lose out on revenue due to evolving street-parking regulations across the city over the past few years, Lawson said he was inspired to think outside the box.
“If you go to a small business on Wellington, Somerset, Bank Streets and you get a ticket, you’re probably going to avoid going to that business again,” Lawson told the Ottawa Citizen. “(Paid parking is) really a tax on shopping local.”
Ottawa currently has 4,337 paid on-street parking spaces mostly concentrated in the downtown area, and Lawson is promising to turn every one of them into free parking.
Paid parking brought in $19.62 million in 2025, but most of the revenue went to cover the $17.13 million cost of the parking program. The result was a $1.3 million profit margin, with the money going to a reserve fund to pay for future parking infrastructure.
The profits equate to the city getting just seven cents on every dollar, according to Lawson.
“We’re only getting seven cents for it, and then it’s not even going into general revenue – it’s going into a reserve fund to pay for more parking metres down the road,” he said.
Looking just at on-street parking, the city reported a $2.36 million surplus last year, bringing in $9.78 million in revenue amid $7.42 million in operating expenses, according to the city’s 2025 parking services annual report.
The city earned an average of $95 from each on-street parking space in 2025, each bringing in $1,986 in revenue on average, while costing an average of $1,891 to operate.
City-owned parking lots and garages will continue to charge for parking under Lawson’s plan.
No-stopping zones, rush-hour clearances, school zones, loading zones, accessible parking spaces and winter overnight parking bans will all stay the same.
Lawson acknowledges the plan is something that may be a new and innovative idea for any major Canadian city. But he said that’s part of the appeal.
“Maybe it’s just innovative. Maybe it’s newer. Maybe other jurisdictions just haven’t even thought about it. Maybe they haven’t dug into their books. Maybe we’re just operating it incredibly inefficiently,” he said.
Others also vying for Ottawa’s mayoral role voiced strong opposition to Lawson’s plan.
Mark Sutcliffe, who is seeking re-election as Ottawa’s mayor, said “it’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for business.”
Instead, Sutcliffe said he’s “taking a balanced approach to parking,” according to a statement from his campaign team.
“We charge for it where appropriate and it’s free in other areas,” Sutcliffe said. “That balanced approach needs to continue to protect taxpayers and business owners.”
Mayoral candidate and Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper acknowledges no one likes to pay to park, but said “paid parking manages demand,” adding he supports reviewing rates regularly so they are only in place where demand outpaces supply.
“It keeps spaces turning over so the person driving to the store at two o’clock can actually find a spot out front, and the fees fund the parking system, including garages, instead of putting that cost on everyone’s tax bill,” his campaign team wrote in a statement.
Meanwhile, according to mayoral candidate and economist Neil Saravanamuttoo, “Lawson is showing that he doesn’t understand basic economics.
“When something like a parking space is in high demand, the only way to make it available is to put a price on it,” Saravanamuttoo said in a statement. “No one likes to pay for parking, but this would prevent customers from finding parking anywhere near the business they are trying to reach.”
Instead, Saravanamuttoo suggests taking parking revenue and reinvesting the money directly back into improving the communities where paid parking is enforced.
As well as removing all on-street parking metres, Lawson is also promising to ensure all on-street parking has a posted time limit of at least two hours, effectively eliminating one-hour parking zones.
He said he’s heard from local churches whose congregation can’t park on nearby streets with a one-hour posted limit. Others worry their relatives can’t come over and use the on-street parking in front of their houses.
“My mother can’t come and visit (in an hour),” he said. “This is what we’re doing to people.”
Amid concerns that drivers may not follow the posted time limits and allow for proper turnover without paid enforcement, Lawson said he’s confident that behaviours won’t change.
“We’ve had signs for 100 years, right?” he said. “People understand if they go over the limit, that they’re risking getting a ticket … and I don’t think this is going to change habits in a negative direction.”
If buses are slowed because of current in street parking, this will make it worse…. In addition, paid parking adds revenue to the city
It actually adds very litle revenue. It’ll probably be costly to rip up contracts but overall it’s a huge money 🞵🞵🞵🞵 from Ottawa residents to companies outside the region.
Making 1 hour but free parking might bring as much ticket revenue as meters alone do which is the real loss of revenue.
It actually adds very litle revenue. It’ll probably be costly to rip up contracts but overall it’s a huge money 🞵🞵🞵🞵 from Ottawa residents to companies outside the region.
Making 1 hour but free parking might bring as much ticket revenue as meters alone do which is the real loss of revenue.
One hour free parking is difficult to enforce, as you need proof when someone started parking.It means double patrolling and keeping track how long people are there. Paid parking also allows the purchase of additional time.
Absolutely idiotic promise from Lawson. Paid parking is not a tax grab, it's to manage supply and demand and encourage other ways to travel. This guy has zero understanding of how the City works.
Paywalled, but the Ottawa Citizen asked all candidates from Bay, College and Knoxdale-Merivale Wards about the July 1 floods, if infrastructure upgrade was a priority and if they are willing to raise taxes or place a infrastructure levy.
The three incumbents, Kavanaugh, Johnson and Devine all say it's a priority and they would be willing to raise taxes or place a levy. All of them seem to live in reality.
All the others say it's a priority but refuse to raise taxes or place a levy. It's all a combination of "finding efficiencies" or someone else will pay for it. On guy wants to differ maintenance on other things, which just creates a feedback loop of failing infrastructure.
The dumbest of the responses is a guy who says we can get money from cancelling Lansdowne 2.0 (which is well underway), cutting OC's budget (worsening our carbon emissions) and building the largest garden in the world to attract tourism.
Quote:
Councillor candidates weigh in on how Ottawa can upgrade, finance stormwater infrastructure
Here's where each councillor candidate in wards 7, 8 and 9 stand on whether they'd consider tax increases or levies to support infrastructure upgrades after Ottawa's wettest summer on record.
By Natasha Baldin, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 01, 2026
On my Open NCC tour Saturday, the entire day was a "wow Sutcliffe did nothing yet somehow made everything worse".
- Past the Flora Bridge roughly, the Queen Elizabeth is no longer closed to traffic, so bikes have to get back on the very narrow Canal pathway. I sweat cyclists and pedestrians on that tiny path outnumber cars 10 to 1.
- Bunch of clutter added on Watson's plaza in front of the Market building, including some cordoned off little area with a few seats for some reason.
- The idea that they will evict all shot owners in the Market building for a glorified food court is infuriating. As if we don't have enough food options in the Market.
- The worst is the half trains every 10 minutes on Line 1 on weekends. packed trains. Station elevators (often one down) have to be called multiple times before getting through all of the passengers. Tough to have the bikes on the trains without being in the way.
Paywalled, but the Ottawa Citizen asked all candidates from Bay, College and Knoxdale-Merivale Wards about the July 1 floods, if infrastructure upgrade was a priority and if they are willing to raise taxes or place a infrastructure levy.
The three incumbents, Kavanaugh, Johnson and Devine all say it's a priority and they would be willing to raise taxes or place a levy. All of them seem to live in reality.
All the others say it's a priority but refuse to raise taxes or place a levy. It's all a combination of "finding efficiencies" or someone else will pay for it. On guy wants to differ maintenance on other things, which just creates a feedback loop of failing infrastructure.
The dumbest of the responses is a guy who says we can get money from cancelling Lansdowne 2.0 (which is well underway), cutting OC's budget (worsening our carbon emissions) and building the largest garden in the world to attract tourism.
It should be a levy on the affected areas to build the storm sewer capacity to the same standards that the city puts on new developments, to make up for the fact that Nepean never built the proper infrastructure (as Leiper stated growth pays for growth) . With the feds/province only funding to build capacity required to match that required for new dev, as per Sutcliffe deal with the feds.
That's great! We can defer maintenance 4 more years. Won't bite us in the 🞵🞵🞵 ever.
Meanwhile, Leiper promising a 1% infrastructure levy.
Should the levy be city-wide or specific to those wards that now need the extra maintenance after having benefitted from deferring their infrastructure upgrades and maintenance pre-amalgamation (i.e. Nepean's lack of stormwater infrastructure) ...
Should the levy be city-wide or specific to those wards that now need the extra maintenance after having benefitted from deferring their infrastructure upgrades and maintenance pre-amalgamation (i.e. Nepean's lack of stormwater infrastructure) ...
The levy should be area specific and my guess is that's what councilors would fight for.
While very late, I find it funny that "growth pays for growth" Leiper wants to charge the city at large for growth infrastructure of over area.... Mind you this is the same 12 year councilor that's fought to increase dev fees consistently for the young, & defendimg that the young should pay directly for affordable housing as part of "growth pays for growth" through dev fees on top of general tax revenue.
Sutcliffe promising 2.5% property tax cap if elected
If I ever had any thought of voting for him, that killed it. His caps virtually guaranty that there will be no real improvement in transit for another four years.
If I ever had any thought of voting for him, that killed it. His caps virtually guaranty that there will be no real improvement in transit for another four years.
Or in anything else.
Ottawans are cheap.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Yes, I agree. Capping the property tax increase to 2.5%/y for the next two years is completely ignoring the needs of the city. But the good of the city is not where Sutcliffe’s priorities lay. He is, and has always been, in it to get himself elected. For him, what benefits himself outweighs what benefits the city. And promising to limit people’s growing expense is what he believes will get him elected. It worked last time – and it will likely work again.
I doubt that Sutcliffe is as strict with his personal budgeting. For instance, if, four years ago, he had limited his food budget increase to only 1%/y, what would his diet look like today?
[I chose 1%/y because I think it is about 1/3 of the rise in food prices – which about matches 2.5%/y being about a third of the City’s increased cost. (I seem to remember hearing that the Municipality’s inflation rate was about 7.5%/y.)]
As for Leiper; he will need 2.5%, or more, for his infrastructure surtax, just to maintain the current state of disrepair. I’m afraid that a 1% levy is only a drop in the bucket. It is certainly not nothing, and is MUCH better than Sutcliffe’s total denial, but we are already way too far back for 1% to be the answer. Also, Leiper has not announced a preferred rate for a property tax increase. If he tries to match Sutcliffe, or even go lower, then the 1% would be even less meaningful.
Ottawa, truthfully, needs a one-time property tax increase of about 10% PLUS a 2.5%/y infrastructure surtax for at least 4 years.
Would I like having such a large jump in my property taxes? Of course not. But I believe that it would be worth it to start to get this city back up to a State of Good Repair. I’m tired of feeling like I’m ‘Off-Roading’ any time I try to drive somewhere. And I’m driving because the public transit system is so unreliable because dedicated transit infrastructure has been deferred due to a lack of money.
It's also why the city and its inhabitants need to make peace with intensification and changing land uses. Where more people can fit in a given space, it needs to be allowed. It means that personal life is more affordable, and it also makes public life more affordable - same amount of land, minor increases in cost of administering municipal services, major increase in municipal revenue relative to the increase in costs.
We have known this math forever. We have to make peace with it. (And not just big cities, either; it's true of any populated place with an organized local government funded by property taxes.)
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Average household income – after income taxes – for Ottawa = $102,500
Average mortgage payment $3,291/m x 12 = $39,492
Average property tax bill = $4,593 (1% of this is $46)
Extra city revenue from a 1% property tax sur-charge = $25.5M
Current backlog of PRIORITY asset renewal = $3.8B (which is predicted to grow to $10.8B within 10 years)
Yes, there are many families who fall below the average for income, and there are those that have a mortgage payment greater than the average. But, overall, Ottawa is a fairly well-off place, and it should not be falling into ruin.
Again, according to Google AI, the City is short $229M, on an annualized basis, to simply MAINTAIN its current infrastructure in its current dilapidated state. That doesn’t account for renewing anything that reaches end of life, or can no longer provide useful service.
Even bumping property taxes by 10% would only bring in an extra $255M per year. That would cover the bare minimum maintenance requirement, with a remainder of $26M to begin chipping away at the $3.8B deficit.
Even ‘Zero-Means-Zero’ O’Brien recognized that an infrastructure levy was desperately needed and implemented a 2% sur-tax.
Prev
Linear Mode
