3 ms·

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 privat

by 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.
    - danaris 8y ago
      Sure, they collect tax money to (among other things) build road infrastructure. That doesn't mean that a) they're going to build it in the smartest, most optimal way, or b) they're going to build it in whatever way you would most prefer. None of this is hypocritical or contradictory, it's merely annoying in case a, and something that sensible, non-narcissistic human beings who want a functional society accept and expect in case b.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Eh, not really. There are so many things that could've been done to a) prevent unfairness and b) prevent the situation altogether. This is like calling firefighters only after the whole building is on fire, and I'm not going to accept that as good, great nor even sufficient. The government is supposed to care about their citizens, all citizens are supposed to be equal, the government should be fair and money should not be thrown away - these principles are cut in stone for me.
PeterisP 8y ago
Needing that parking spot is an extra - you don't have to have a car in many cities, and the explicit intended goal of city designers is to ensure that having a car is inconvenient and expensive, so that more people would choose not to have a car, as that is the solution to "your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot". It does not have to go somewhere if it does not exist.
- varjag 8y ago
  The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to ensure that the vehicles don't bog down the city. Which means both reducing the through traffic and making homeowners arrange their parking on private property. The latter part apparently is very disturbing to many here.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)

by 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.
  - danaris 8y ago
    Sure, they collect tax money to (among other things) build road infrastructure. That doesn't mean that a) they're going to build it in the smartest, most optimal way, or b) they're going to build it in whatever way you would most prefer. None of this is hypocritical or contradictory, it's merely annoying in case a, and something that sensible, non-narcissistic human beings who want a functional society accept and expect in case b.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Eh, not really. There are so many things that could've been done to a) prevent unfairness and b) prevent the situation altogether. This is like calling firefighters only after the whole building is on fire, and I'm not going to accept that as good, great nor even sufficient. The government is supposed to care about their citizens, all citizens are supposed to be equal, the government should be fair and money should not be thrown away - these principles are cut in stone for me.

PeterisP 8y ago

Needing that parking spot is an extra - you don't have to have a car in many cities, and the explicit intended goal of city designers is to ensure that having a car is inconvenient and expensive, so that more people would choose not to have a car, as that is the solution to "your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot". It does not have to go somewhere if it does not exist.

varjag 8y ago
The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to ensure that the vehicles don't bog down the city. Which means both reducing the through traffic and making homeowners arrange their parking on private property. The latter part apparently is very disturbing to many here.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?
- bluGill 8y ago
  You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)