3 ms·

Pretty persuasive! Though also (I think) a pretty good illustration of why developers will almost always try to include some on-site parking even if it's not ma

Pretty persuasive! Though also (I think) a pretty good illustration of why developers will almost always try to include some on-site parking even if it's not mandatory. In this case it seems as if they decided that completing construction on an unpleasant apartment building would be more profitable than walking away from it mid-project, and then persuaded the city to let them complete it. Which city was this, if you don't mind saying? About how many units in your building? Was there any attempt by the city to manage the curbsides with permits etc? I'd think that'd be part of the solution in this case.

mywittyname 5y ago
> Which city was this, if you don't mind saying? About how many units in your building? Was there any attempt by the city to manage the curbsides with permits etc? I'd think that'd be part of the solution in this case. SW Ohio - outer suburbs, so township level governance, not town/village/city. Around 800 I think. No, there aren't actually any public streets suitable for parking. The complex was on a private drive right off of a minor highway and it connected to another private subdivision. So the only viable street parking was in a private, gated subdivision (the gate didn't stop people).