3 ms·
> No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one. The problem, and the reason why parking requirements exist, is because people externalize that "suff
by Kadin 10y ago
> No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one.
The problem, and the reason why parking requirements exist, is because people externalize that "suffering" on others. They decide they need a car anyway, and then they park that car on other streets, or they park overnight illegally on private property, etc.
It's not like parking requirement laws fell from the sky one day on a bunch of stone tablets. They didn't exist a hundred years ago, but were created and became ubiquitous across the U.S. as cars became more popular because there were such problems when parking is in short supply.
Now, maybe there are some alternative solutions -- maybe you could get people to sign some sort of blood oath that they'll never own a car while living at a particular address, or maybe we could pass laws that prohibit cars from being registered to addresses that lack parking...? (Maybe we could require that in order to register a car, you have to prove you have the right to a place to park it, and stop treating parking as a public good?) But until there's some better solution, the underlying problem that parking requirements were created to solve still exists.
People are very, very good at sharing their suffering with everyone else and society is typically worse off for it. It takes a lot of work to prevent that from happening.
- CaptSpify 10y ago> But until there's some better solution, the underlying problem that parking requirements were created to solve still exists. But that problem is still a luxury problem. It's not some fundamental right for people to own a car. If you want luxury benefits, you should have to pay luxury pricing. I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own a car, just that, like any luxury good, it shouldn't be cheap. In Seattle there are many public transportation options. Sure, it could be much better, but it's still available and quite feasible to use.
- akgerber 10y agoParking laws did, pretty much, fall from the sky one day on a bunch of stone tablets, usually reflecting terrible data. if you want to read 750 pages on the topic, read Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking. They usually are designed to produce neighborhoods where no one ever needs to spend any time searching for a free parking space— which leads to a great deal of suffering for anyone not in an automobile, since such neighborhoods have vast expanses of surface parking that are completely inhospitable to human beings, and are very difficult to serve with public transit. They also often require an amenity that is very expensive to produce (parking spaces, especially structured spaces) be provided for free, which incentivizes people to own cars and drive everywhere— exactly what we don't want in urban areas, since cars pollute a lot, are dangerous, and require huge amounts of scarce land to store and transport.
- cstejerean 10y agoWe are not talking about free surface parking lots. We are talking about assigned parking in a parking garage for any new high density construction. It isn't free, it's paid by the builder and included in the sale/rental of the units. And you can build it below your building so it doesn't take up any additional surface space.
- ghaff 10y agoAnd, often, such assigned parking spots can be sublet to others if you don't need them yourself.
- OrwellianChild 10y agoThis assumes all kinds of access to capital, good credit, business acumen, and other expectations of the owner/renter. For those affected by a shortage of affordable housing, buying/renting bigger and then subletting parking is most definitely not an option.