3 ms·

You're on to something with Chesterton's fence, but don't mention a few key reasons for these rules. Safety is a major driver in the changes I see being reporte

You're on to something with Chesterton's fence, but don't mention a few key reasons for these rules. Safety is a major driver in the changes I see being reported. Some parklets go to the corner, which can make it be hard to see oncoming cars when you're trying to cross the street. The wall height thing is about accessibility for emergency responders, as is the roof height thing. The max parking spot coverage thing is probably about parking capacity. Ultimately, it's a bad situation. It's not being handled well, but I don't really think there's a good outcome that doesn't compromise on either safety, parking or screwing over the restaurant operators.

wolverine876 5y ago
> The wall height thing is about accessibility for emergency responders, as is the roof height thing. Good points. Imagine that we allowed other businesses to build extra structures on the public sidewalk. Does the hardware store just build more retail space? It's a bit absurd from that perspective. > The max parking spot coverage thing is probably about parking capacity. Many see reducing parking capacity as a benefit: Parking capcity consumes limited real estate (imagine a dense downtown), driving up all other real estate prices. It's a public subsidy for greenhouse gas producing cars. However, the solution is probably not random takeover of parking spots.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Imagine that we allowed other businesses to build extra structures on the public sidewalk. Does the hardware store just build more retail space? It's a bit absurd from that perspective. If we, the public, decide that dining facilities on public sidewalks are something we want, then so shall it be. We, the public, are not likely to decide that Home Depot should expand their shelving onto the sidewalk.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I agree we can (afaik), but I mean to address the main question, should we? I'm not saying Home Depot has a case for equal protection, but using the analogy to point out the absurd aspects of giving free public real estate to a private business (while there are other aspects that are not absurd). I thought we, Hacker News commenters, decided? ;)
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      We would not be giving free public real estate to a private business. We would be giving a permit to use public real estate for a publically-endorsed purpose, a public good. It's no different than allowing private bus companies to drive on public roads, or ice cream vendors to sell from their carts in a city park. We think those are good things, so we allow private businesses to do them.
  - verall 5y ago
    Home Depot doesn't put their shelving on the sidewalk because people will take stuff. They do frequently put a gardening section in their parking lot, as well as rental trucks and equipment. Really if this stuff was allowed there would be no big problem, even if home depot put a couple planters on the sidewalk for sale. The outside of their business reflects on them, so they probably at least try to make it sort of pretty. I never really minded street hawkers though, or all of the window/street advertising you typically see in a large Asian city.

wolverine876 5y ago

> The wall height thing is about accessibility for emergency responders, as is the roof height thing. Good points. Imagine that we allowed other businesses to build extra structures on the public sidewalk. Does the hardware store just build more retail space? It's a bit absurd from that perspective. > The max parking spot coverage thing is probably about parking capacity. Many see reducing parking capacity as a benefit: Parking capcity consumes limited real estate (imagine a dense downtown), driving up all other real estate prices. It's a public subsidy for greenhouse gas producing cars. However, the solution is probably not random takeover of parking spots.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Imagine that we allowed other businesses to build extra structures on the public sidewalk. Does the hardware store just build more retail space? It's a bit absurd from that perspective. If we, the public, decide that dining facilities on public sidewalks are something we want, then so shall it be. We, the public, are not likely to decide that Home Depot should expand their shelving onto the sidewalk.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I agree we can (afaik), but I mean to address the main question, should we? I'm not saying Home Depot has a case for equal protection, but using the analogy to point out the absurd aspects of giving free public real estate to a private business (while there are other aspects that are not absurd). I thought we, Hacker News commenters, decided? ;)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    We would not be giving free public real estate to a private business. We would be giving a permit to use public real estate for a publically-endorsed purpose, a public good. It's no different than allowing private bus companies to drive on public roads, or ice cream vendors to sell from their carts in a city park. We think those are good things, so we allow private businesses to do them.
- verall 5y ago
  Home Depot doesn't put their shelving on the sidewalk because people will take stuff. They do frequently put a gardening section in their parking lot, as well as rental trucks and equipment. Really if this stuff was allowed there would be no big problem, even if home depot put a couple planters on the sidewalk for sale. The outside of their business reflects on them, so they probably at least try to make it sort of pretty. I never really minded street hawkers though, or all of the window/street advertising you typically see in a large Asian city.