3 ms·
If it's walkable then the car drivers are paying more than they should because rent is bundled in to the prices. There's no free lunch either way here.
by throwaway55421 5y ago
If it's walkable then the car drivers are paying more than they should because rent is bundled in to the prices.
There's no free lunch either way here.
- Ma8ee 5y agoThat argument doesn't make sense. The car drivers choose themselves to drive to this particular store where you have to pay a premium for the store's location. If they feel punished by having to pay more for a centrally located store even though they have a car and could drive to a less centrally located store, then by all means, they should do that. It's somewhat amazing how entitled many car drivers feel to be able to use up space and not having to pay rent for it.
- throwaway55421 5y agoI agree that the better solution would be to just scrap the parking. I don't think urban parking makes sense (other than parking in/outside of homes).
- Eelongate 5y agoIf it's walkable, the car drivers have made their choice and can pay for it. If they don't like the price, they can walk instead. Or, use their cars to drive a few more miles to a grocery store with more agreeable parking. There are more than a dozen Trader Joe's in LA, surely one of them has agreeable parking terms. And that's not counting all the other grocery stores in town. You should look up the specific Trader Joe's the article is talking about on google maps. It's smack in the middle of Hollywood, within walking distance of numerous businesses and tourist attractions. Expecting free parking in that neighborhood is completely unreasonable.