5 ms·

That's not extras, that's paying for the externalities you otherwise incur upon others.

• Arnt 8y ago
  About half the residents in such apartments have no car.
  • varjag 8y ago
    Interesting, because here nearly everyone wealthy enough to buy a central, newly commissioned apartment (ballpark of million dollars) does own a car.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      Not in Europe. Cars aren't really practical anywhere near city centres.
      • varjag 8y ago
        I am in Norway, not even in the capital.
        • TomMarius 8y ago
          Owning a car in city such as Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt, Prague, Brno... is significant pain, and it costs you a lot to even keep that car on the street (if you can find a place - you can't). As a result, people in many historical cities with compact greater city centres (where there simply is not enough land to even theoretically accommodate 1 car per household) simply don't own a car, because why. Probably more than half of the people living in the building where I do don't have a car, many of my coworkers don't...
          • varjag 8y ago
            All of the European cities I've been to are full of parked vehicles. Someone got to own all them. Anyway we were talking about parking norms for newly commissioned buildings, and "you can't find parking place on the street" isn't really an argument against it.
            • TomMarius 8y ago
              We are not saying that there are no cars. We are saying that a significant portion of the people in these cities don't have a car. You saw cars of the other half. I'm saying that it's weird to require parking spaces in cities where there is a problem with housing prices when a lot of people don't have a car and thus prove that it's possible. It even completely goes agains the goal of reducing cars in cities.
              • varjag 8y ago
                A lot of things are possible. I can live for months on potato and lard alone, and people buying apartments in new high rises of central Oslo could eschew their Teslas and bike instead. That's just not happening however, and build code deals with realities on the ground. There is little reason not to enforce parking norms, and "I personally would never own a car" is a poor justification. Maybe the guy you'd sublet it to would, or you decide to start a family and the only kindergarten spot you get is 12km away, or you sell your apartment and move elsewhere but the new owner needs a car. If you genuinely need no parking spot, there's typically no shortage of nice apartments in the older buildings of nearly every European city out there. Costs less, too.
                • Arnt 8y ago
                  The only European city I know well is Munich, and here there definitely is a shortage of apartments, particularly for rent. People tell stories about having searched for years. The reason why the current parking norms are bad is that they require many more off-street parking spots than residents need. Building those costs €25-45k each at current Munich construction costs, and roughly half of that's wasted money (details vary widely). The streets are packed with parked cars, but we're not talking about public parking here.
          • xte 8y ago
            I've lived for most of my life in a big northern Italian city, I ever have had a car. Of course I tend to use public transportation for moving around the center but I still need a car to buy food, to go outside the city etc. I know very few people who buy only pre-made foods, on daily basis instead a weekly "big" shopping and very few that only use public transportation for anything. Essentially if I count they are well... only one in few hundreds...
    • Arnt 8y ago
      Most people here rent, and the cars tend to be in the outer parts of the city. There are certainly wealthly people in the city, but the kind of building I live in is not unusual: Sixteen apartments, more than half car-free, some who have a car elsewhere, and about four cars here. Some have bought or rented centrally instead of in a cheaper area where they could also afford a car, some could afford both living here and a car, but consider a car to be a net nuisance.
  • kaybe 8y ago
    That just means you can rent out your spot. In some places they go for 50-100€ per month.
• TomMarius 8y ago
  What externalities? I pay carbon tax, ecological tax, consumption tax on fuel, income tax, VAT, municipal tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, property tax, property transfer tax, and many other taxes - solely because the system says "you pay and we will maintain the infrastructure, clean the environment etc". There are no unexpected externalities that I would incur on anyone and most definitely no externalities that I did not pay my fair share for, since I pay much more in taxes than most people do (meaning larger percentage of my income as well as in absolute units). Now the government is trying to pull out of this social contract but isn't giving any of the tax money back.
  • varjag 8y ago
    If you need the parking spot, that's not an "extra", period. Your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      And I'm paying taxes because the government has promised to solve the infrastructure problem for me - and that definitely includes parking, not only at home, but also at all possible destinations. What's the point of a government-ran infrastructure otherwise? I could've built my own parking space by myself without any laws if I needed it, the point of having a government monopoly in this business is that we have roads and parking spaces that everyone can use. If I'm forced to pay for something then I should be able to use it. I shouldn't be told to suck it just because I came too late.
      • varjag 8y ago
        Because physical space of the public property is constrained by the laws of the Universe with blatant disregard for our libertarian ideals.
        • TomMarius 8y ago
          They took our money to build road infrastructure - they should provide the infrastructure or return the money, instead now they demand citizens should do their job and they don't even offer any money back, instead taxes are rising. I don't care much about any constraints the government (not citizens) is facing, if it's impossible they shouldn't have promised it to the voters (and get voted because of it) and definitely shouldn't have taken money for that purpose (from state budget). Yeah, I know, there is not infinite space on Earth. That doesn't mean the government has any right to shift their responsibilities to the citizens and keep demanding money for the service they've ceased to provide.
• CalRobert 8y ago
  Forcing that spot to be parking instead of a home means we're all paying for the externalities your car imposes. It would have been a home for humans but your government insisted it be a home for cars instead. Where I live there's no free parking. People who own cars use the private car park around the corner. It works fine.
  • varjag 8y ago
    So they pay for garage around the corner instead of the garage in the basement. Good for them!
    • CalRobert 8y ago
      Yeah exactly. And I don't pay for a spot I don't need (I don't have a car). We have gocar which is handy for people who need a car for the odd day trip or Ikea run, but not on a daily basis.
      • varjag 8y ago
        That parking garage around the corner still has some degree of vacancy and still occupies the estate that "could been home for humans", so in this way it's no difference.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • CalRobert 8y ago
          It's very different, because now if I say "hey, I could get a better return on that land than the company that runs the garage" I can * buy the land. * turn it in to homes. It also means that as the area grows and more people come here and wish to park and live here, they can price according to the market, meaning we can determine if more people want to live on that land or park on it. Also, for me at least the most expensive part of car ownership would be paying for parking. If I had a space with my flat, I'd probably own a car because it's a sunk cost (I would be bitter about it though). As it stands now I have the choice of not paying for a parking space, and I prefer not to.