4 ms·

I don't understand why parking shouldn't also be left up to the market to decide? If you want a parking spot, pay the fair market price. I live in Japan where

I don't understand why parking shouldn't also be left up to the market to decide? If you want a parking spot, pay the fair market price. I live in Japan where minimum parking is not regulated and it means that people who don't need parking pay less rent. How is that not a good thing?

ajmurmann 7y ago
The problem is that we see parking as a negative externality because everyone ends up competing for street parking. As you pointed out, it's not a problem in Japan. I believe that is because there is pretty much no street parking in Japan. I love that! I think the Crux of the problem is that most US cities are built with super low density, targeting cars. The result is that it's super hard to put public transit in that is actually useful.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  That's easy to solve. Just charge the market rate for street parking too. No reason to give away the use of valuable land for free.
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
    I think that's a great solution, but not easy to implement. How do you establish the market rate? Is it the highest price that will still lead to all parking being filled? If so, how do you talk that price? Or more complicated: how do you account for the price / value associated with other forms of issue that are more unavailable? For example: what rent could be collected if the parking spot was outdoor seating for a cafe? What price would a developer pay to build more housing units? What m value is lost for society by not having a strip of green?
sp332 7y ago
It's because landlords have more power than renters. So if I as a renter need a car to get to work, but my landlord decided not to build parking, now I have to also rent a parking space. And if parking is not required to be built, it will probably be in short supply and now I'm either paying a huge amount for parking or I just can't park.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  All of this is already factored into market prices of real estate. If parking is valuable, and included in a property, then the property price is higher. Those who don't need a car can find nicer and/or cheaper places to live. If developers build parking structures, then the supply of housing is lowered. I'm not really sure how the landlord has more power here. These parking premiums (or lack thereof) are factored into every property I've ever shopped for.
  - sp332 7y ago
    If parking is valuable, and included in a property, then the property price is higher. That's not really true, because a landlord can charge almost as much money for a place with a parking space as for one without. Even if a parking space is valuable to the renter, they might not have the money to afford it. So it will usually be more profitable for a landlord to build more housing and less parking. I'm not really sure how the landlord has more power here. A landlord can survive for a while with an empty unit. It's a lot tougher for a renter to survive without a landlord. Democracy is one person = one vote not one dollar = one vote so sometimes it comes to a different equilibrium than "the market" would.

ajmurmann 7y ago

The problem is that we see parking as a negative externality because everyone ends up competing for street parking. As you pointed out, it's not a problem in Japan. I believe that is because there is pretty much no street parking in Japan. I love that! I think the Crux of the problem is that most US cities are built with super low density, targeting cars. The result is that it's super hard to put public transit in that is actually useful.

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
That's easy to solve. Just charge the market rate for street parking too. No reason to give away the use of valuable land for free.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  I think that's a great solution, but not easy to implement. How do you establish the market rate? Is it the highest price that will still lead to all parking being filled? If so, how do you talk that price? Or more complicated: how do you account for the price / value associated with other forms of issue that are more unavailable? For example: what rent could be collected if the parking spot was outdoor seating for a cafe? What price would a developer pay to build more housing units? What m value is lost for society by not having a strip of green?

sp332 7y ago

It's because landlords have more power than renters. So if I as a renter need a car to get to work, but my landlord decided not to build parking, now I have to also rent a parking space. And if parking is not required to be built, it will probably be in short supply and now I'm either paying a huge amount for parking or I just can't park.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
All of this is already factored into market prices of real estate. If parking is valuable, and included in a property, then the property price is higher. Those who don't need a car can find nicer and/or cheaper places to live. If developers build parking structures, then the supply of housing is lowered. I'm not really sure how the landlord has more power here. These parking premiums (or lack thereof) are factored into every property I've ever shopped for.
- sp332 7y ago
  If parking is valuable, and included in a property, then the property price is higher. That's not really true, because a landlord can charge almost as much money for a place with a parking space as for one without. Even if a parking space is valuable to the renter, they might not have the money to afford it. So it will usually be more profitable for a landlord to build more housing and less parking. I'm not really sure how the landlord has more power here. A landlord can survive for a while with an empty unit. It's a lot tougher for a renter to survive without a landlord. Democracy is one person = one vote not one dollar = one vote so sometimes it comes to a different equilibrium than "the market" would.