5 ms·

So, what? What business is it of the local government? Why can't we just let consenting adults make their own personal decisions about the details of the housin

So, what? What business is it of the local government? Why can't we just let consenting adults make their own personal decisions about the details of the housing and parking they choose to live in? Some people may only need limited parking. Some people may not need any parking. Maybe they're making a mistake and will regret it. Maybe not. Maybe nobody wants that, in which case the developer will pay the cost. Who cares! This is how freedom works. Can we please just stop ramming regulations down people's throats. "Well, no trust me. I'm from the zoning board and I know you're really gonna need two parking spots." Imagine if we had a clothing board, and anytime a company came out with a new apparel style they had to get approval. "I just don't think anybody wants shorts that far above the knee. Permission denied". Just let the market decide, for God's sakes.

ivalm 5y ago
Because there are external costs. The “consenting adults” narrative is false. Not enough parking means people living there will use street parking in nearby areas affecting the residents of those communities. This happens all the time.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  This line of dialogue is a very strong demonstration of how car-centric transportation model leads to a perverse anti-social urban development mindset. Unused parking is quite literally the least productive and least attractive use of land, I simply can't fathom seeing it as attractive.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    If the discussion was about high density living then sure. It's not, it's about 10 houses per acre, that's decidedly low density - lower than the tipping point where people don't own cars.
    - helen___keller 5y ago
      Sure, I'm saying it's a mistake for governments to have planned to support such districts in the first place (by building wide roads with on-street parking, the highways to connect the district to the productive parts of the city, presumably lots of car-oriented policy in other parts of the city to keep density low for the sake of traffic, keep parking high for the sake of those in low-density districts, etc).
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  This problem only exists because street parking is heavily subsidized at below market rates. In urban cores, street parking is often 90% cheaper than garage parking.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    True, but again, if there exist people who currently rely on street parking and your solution is to raise prices so that new residents could compete for street parking then this still affects old residents. Gentrification is an externality too. I am not saying we should stop doing everything that has externalities -- clearly we can't do that. It's just important to know that these transactions are not "between consenting adults" that dont affect others. Just because an owner of some land, some developers, and some perspective tenants agree on something doesn't mean it wont negatively affect a bunch of other people. And ignoring a bunch of other people entirely is not the correct choice.
iso1210 5y ago
The market doesn't decide, and everyone suffers. Ban people from storing their vehicles on public property and you're fine, but until that happens you're stuck with the externalities. Oh and stop low density housing like this being built in cities.

ivalm 5y ago

Because there are external costs. The “consenting adults” narrative is false. Not enough parking means people living there will use street parking in nearby areas affecting the residents of those communities. This happens all the time.

helen___keller 5y ago
This line of dialogue is a very strong demonstration of how car-centric transportation model leads to a perverse anti-social urban development mindset. Unused parking is quite literally the least productive and least attractive use of land, I simply can't fathom seeing it as attractive.
- iso1210 5y ago
  If the discussion was about high density living then sure. It's not, it's about 10 houses per acre, that's decidedly low density - lower than the tipping point where people don't own cars.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    Sure, I'm saying it's a mistake for governments to have planned to support such districts in the first place (by building wide roads with on-street parking, the highways to connect the district to the productive parts of the city, presumably lots of car-oriented policy in other parts of the city to keep density low for the sake of traffic, keep parking high for the sake of those in low-density districts, etc).
dcolkitt 5y ago
This problem only exists because street parking is heavily subsidized at below market rates. In urban cores, street parking is often 90% cheaper than garage parking.
- ivalm 5y ago
  True, but again, if there exist people who currently rely on street parking and your solution is to raise prices so that new residents could compete for street parking then this still affects old residents. Gentrification is an externality too. I am not saying we should stop doing everything that has externalities -- clearly we can't do that. It's just important to know that these transactions are not "between consenting adults" that dont affect others. Just because an owner of some land, some developers, and some perspective tenants agree on something doesn't mean it wont negatively affect a bunch of other people. And ignoring a bunch of other people entirely is not the correct choice.

iso1210 5y ago

The market doesn't decide, and everyone suffers. Ban people from storing their vehicles on public property and you're fine, but until that happens you're stuck with the externalities. Oh and stop low density housing like this being built in cities.