4 ms·

So in principle WaPo or anyone else willing except that it is immoral to create regulations about X where people who do not benefit from X end up paying for it

by tn13 10y ago

So in principle WaPo or anyone else willing except that it is immoral to create regulations about X where people who do not benefit from X end up paying for it ? Will WaPo argue the case to abolish things like college education subsidies where people who never even go to college end up subsidizing those who do ? While WaPo is absolutely right in stating the facts it may or may not be bad for the poor people. I live in Sunnyvale and prefer to work around Sunnyvale precisely because of the ample parking spaces everywhere. If the regulations don't exist for those spaces I might consider moving to some other place where they have more parking space. Poor people benefit by having well off people living around them for many number of reasons.

tn13 10y ago
*accept
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> So in principle WaPo or anyone else willing except that it is immoral to create regulations about X where people who do not benefit from X end up paying for it ? No, it's a given that subsidies happen all the time. But there needs to be (or should be, rather) a compelling public interest in doing so. For forcing businesses to build parking all over the place, there isn't one; to the extent that their customers desire parking, businesses will build it so that they can get those customers. Requiring parking just means that in cases where they don't need to build parking, they still do, which is a waste.