5 ms·

The argument isn't blaming rich people for parking that causes costs to rise for poor people. The argument is: * mandatory parking is imposed by urban planner

The argument isn't blaming rich people for parking that causes costs to rise for poor people. The argument is: * mandatory parking is imposed by urban planners * mandatory parking raises costs for all people * poor people are less able to absorb the increased costs Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking goes into a lot of detail and approaches it from the point of view of planning theory. It's a good read, I recommend it.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Also, traffic lights, fire stations, rural mail deliver.... everything makes society expensive to some degree.
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  The difference is that fire stations have some tangible benefit, like a form of mandatory insurance that pays out before your house and everything you own burns down.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    ...if you own a house.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  Sure, but what compelling public interest is there in forcing subsidized parking? Other countries get by just fine with far less parking.
  - overcyn 10y ago
    They aren't forcing subsidized parking. They're forcing the construction of parking lots and structures. As for public interest. The idea is that without regulation, new apartments and condos would choose not build parking pushing their residents to park on the street. This causes congestion (cars circling trying to find parking) and makes going to these areas less pleasant. And I'm sure some would say these regulations remove preexisting subsidies, since they prevent new developments from using city streets as their parking lot. How do these other countries deal with the lack of parking? I think simply suggesting better public transportation and redesigned cities does not solve problems that people are having right now.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      Then just enforce the existing rules against parking on the street! This is not difficult. Indeed, it's easier than trying to centrally plan out exactly how much parking each house and business needs.
      - overcyn 10y ago
        What rules against parking on the street? In many existing neighborhoods, houses don't have garages and rely exclusively on street parking. Should we disallow street parking and start making people rent garages? That would definitely affect the poor.
        snrplfth 10y ago
        Well, there's a number of solutions. You can tie the properties to particular street locations, like immediately in front of their house. You can give parking permits to local residents, and disallow visitor parking in some or all areas. You can turn it into metered parking, for which local residents are reimbursed some or all of their costs (or from which they receive a share of the local parking fees.) You could even turn it into neighbourhood-owned "parking co-ops" where neighbours in an area determine the price and can trade shares in the co-op. I mean, there's a large, obvious middle ground of solutions in between "nobody can park on the street ever" and "anybody can park on the street for free at any time". There are many options; you can ration it by price, by local ownership, or some other mechanism, quite easily. Indeed, almost everywhere in the city I live in where people rely on street parking, there's a resident-permit system. So, in effect, when people buy houses on that street, they're paying to buy a "share" of its parking too.
        overcyn 10y ago
        But these resident-permit systems are already in place in many cities, and we still have parking problems. And you want to remove minimum parking spot mandates on top of that, which will only reduce the supply of parking. I guess auctioning off street parking permits could work but it hardly seems any more fair than forcing new developments to provide their own parking.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Also, traffic lights, fire stations, rural mail deliver.... everything makes society expensive to some degree.

jschwartzi 10y ago
The difference is that fire stations have some tangible benefit, like a form of mandatory insurance that pays out before your house and everything you own burns down.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  ...if you own a house.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
Sure, but what compelling public interest is there in forcing subsidized parking? Other countries get by just fine with far less parking.
- overcyn 10y ago
  They aren't forcing subsidized parking. They're forcing the construction of parking lots and structures. As for public interest. The idea is that without regulation, new apartments and condos would choose not build parking pushing their residents to park on the street. This causes congestion (cars circling trying to find parking) and makes going to these areas less pleasant. And I'm sure some would say these regulations remove preexisting subsidies, since they prevent new developments from using city streets as their parking lot. How do these other countries deal with the lack of parking? I think simply suggesting better public transportation and redesigned cities does not solve problems that people are having right now.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    Then just enforce the existing rules against parking on the street! This is not difficult. Indeed, it's easier than trying to centrally plan out exactly how much parking each house and business needs.
    - overcyn 10y ago
      What rules against parking on the street? In many existing neighborhoods, houses don't have garages and rely exclusively on street parking. Should we disallow street parking and start making people rent garages? That would definitely affect the poor.
      - snrplfth 10y ago
        Well, there's a number of solutions. You can tie the properties to particular street locations, like immediately in front of their house. You can give parking permits to local residents, and disallow visitor parking in some or all areas. You can turn it into metered parking, for which local residents are reimbursed some or all of their costs (or from which they receive a share of the local parking fees.) You could even turn it into neighbourhood-owned "parking co-ops" where neighbours in an area determine the price and can trade shares in the co-op. I mean, there's a large, obvious middle ground of solutions in between "nobody can park on the street ever" and "anybody can park on the street for free at any time". There are many options; you can ration it by price, by local ownership, or some other mechanism, quite easily. Indeed, almost everywhere in the city I live in where people rely on street parking, there's a resident-permit system. So, in effect, when people buy houses on that street, they're paying to buy a "share" of its parking too.
        overcyn 10y ago
        But these resident-permit systems are already in place in many cities, and we still have parking problems. And you want to remove minimum parking spot mandates on top of that, which will only reduce the supply of parking. I guess auctioning off street parking permits could work but it hardly seems any more fair than forcing new developments to provide their own parking.