5 ms·

It’s not being given away. They pay taxes to live in the city and at 3% it’s not cheap. I live in the city and think having a car is ridiculous in many parts b

It’s not being given away. They pay taxes to live in the city and at 3% it’s not cheap. I live in the city and think having a car is ridiculous in many parts but let’s remember that the citizens are paying a lot of tax. Forcing everyone to use a garage is elitist as they run over $600/month.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely being given away. You pay those taxes regardless of whether or not you have a car. And it's not unreasonable to expect that if people want to have a car they should pay the actual cost of doing so. Why should the rest of us subsidize those people?
- jshaqaw 7y ago
  That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.
  - bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
    Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
    - jshaqaw 7y ago
      Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  I don’t use bike lanes or a bunch of other things but yet I pay for them. This is how taxes work.
jcranmer 7y ago
That $600/month is roughly the land value of of the parking space. Were the parking free, you would be paying that money implicitly through higher rents. A car in Manhattan is definitely a luxury item: space is at a premium, and single-occupant vehicles are the least efficient use of that space. If you want to use that space so wastefully, I see no reason why you shouldn't be charged the full cost of that decision.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  Should we then charge money for entrance to the bike lane? I don’t own a car but I have friends with children, others who drive ride share, and many other reasons why they need a car. They can’t afford to pay for a garage (many people live in subsidized or rent controlled places) and don’t need a bike. What should they do?
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    You haven't given any actual reasons why someone needs a car so badly that the government ought to subsidize their ownership of one. Having small kids is not enough--and yes, I am well acquainted with the logistics of traveling with infants and toddlers. Even needing to drive for your job isn't enough: if a car is a requisite part of the job, it's the employer's responsibility to provide materials or sufficient compensation for the employee to do it. (This is where I note that ride-sharing firms are basically relying on drivers not realizing they're insufficiently compensated for the costs of actually driving).
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      Why do we need bike lanes? Why should the government subsidize them? Use public transit. Bike lanes are absolutely not subsidized by the bike riding tax base. It’s a hand out. It’s the exact same thing. People with cars need to park them. Many people can’t afford a garage. You don’t own the street spot and have to move it daily. Many street parkers have to walk many blocks to their cars. Regardless of why people have cars, they do. They pay sales tax on them, registration tax, and fuel tax. Not to mention parking tickets from time to time. Why should the government only allow the wealthy to have cars? It’s thinking like this that gave way to the ridiculous EV lanes. Let the wealthy cruise through traffic to their high paying job in their 100k Tesla. Meanwhile the person in the old fuel inefficient beater has to idle in traffic, burning fuel, as they worry about being late to their second job and get fired. Maybe we should next ban factory farming so only the wealthy can eat meat.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely being given away. You pay those taxes regardless of whether or not you have a car. And it's not unreasonable to expect that if people want to have a car they should pay the actual cost of doing so. Why should the rest of us subsidize those people?

jshaqaw 7y ago
That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
  - jshaqaw 7y ago
    Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.
nemo44x 7y ago
I don’t use bike lanes or a bunch of other things but yet I pay for them. This is how taxes work.

jcranmer 7y ago

That $600/month is roughly the land value of of the parking space. Were the parking free, you would be paying that money implicitly through higher rents. A car in Manhattan is definitely a luxury item: space is at a premium, and single-occupant vehicles are the least efficient use of that space. If you want to use that space so wastefully, I see no reason why you shouldn't be charged the full cost of that decision.

nemo44x 7y ago
Should we then charge money for entrance to the bike lane? I don’t own a car but I have friends with children, others who drive ride share, and many other reasons why they need a car. They can’t afford to pay for a garage (many people live in subsidized or rent controlled places) and don’t need a bike. What should they do?
- jcranmer 7y ago
  You haven't given any actual reasons why someone needs a car so badly that the government ought to subsidize their ownership of one. Having small kids is not enough--and yes, I am well acquainted with the logistics of traveling with infants and toddlers. Even needing to drive for your job isn't enough: if a car is a requisite part of the job, it's the employer's responsibility to provide materials or sufficient compensation for the employee to do it. (This is where I note that ride-sharing firms are basically relying on drivers not realizing they're insufficiently compensated for the costs of actually driving).
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    Why do we need bike lanes? Why should the government subsidize them? Use public transit. Bike lanes are absolutely not subsidized by the bike riding tax base. It’s a hand out. It’s the exact same thing. People with cars need to park them. Many people can’t afford a garage. You don’t own the street spot and have to move it daily. Many street parkers have to walk many blocks to their cars. Regardless of why people have cars, they do. They pay sales tax on them, registration tax, and fuel tax. Not to mention parking tickets from time to time. Why should the government only allow the wealthy to have cars? It’s thinking like this that gave way to the ridiculous EV lanes. Let the wealthy cruise through traffic to their high paying job in their 100k Tesla. Meanwhile the person in the old fuel inefficient beater has to idle in traffic, burning fuel, as they worry about being late to their second job and get fired. Maybe we should next ban factory farming so only the wealthy can eat meat.