3 ms·

> Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. Yes. If you own a limited resource it's your right to make money

by pc86 3y ago

> Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. Yes. If you own a limited resource it's your right to make money from that. I know we like to pretend people making money from things they own is somehow evil but it's how all of civilization has been built and is an objectively good thing. > If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200 cars can park simultaneously. No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability.

close04 3y ago
Both points you made are valid but neither fixes or even touches on the problem being discussed: there are more cars than parking spots and this causes problems. The economic theory is an interesting, albeit completely parallel discussion. Price is just about who gets to have one. Effectively you'll still have 150 cars that cannot be parked next to the owners' residence, that get dumped on the street elsewhere probably in the next lower cost neighborhood, and with the additional issues OP mentioned. Put it another way, if you want to solve the housing crisis and I tell you "owners can set whatever price they want for the house to extract maximum value and nobody who can afford that will be denied the house" am I wrong? But did I solve the problem?
autoexec 3y ago
> No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability. That sucks for the people who are denied the ability to park there because they can't afford it though. Telling people that they need to walk miles to get to a doctor or a grocery store and that only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city There parking minimums drive up housing costs. They’re why that person has to drive longer to get to that place. Perhaps why they need to make a car payment at all.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Not true, at least not for most people anyway. People need cars to get to where they need to go. When the developer of an apartment complex has to provide parking for its residents everyone has a place to put the cars they need. When those developers don't have to provide parking space anymore, people will still need cars, but will now have no place to put them at night. This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars. You can't solve the problem of "I need a car" just by taking away the places people put them at night. The problem we have is built into the design of our cities from the ground up and it impacts every aspect of how they are structured and used. Eliminating parking spaces while the absolute need for cars continues to exist doesn't solve the problem at all. This is the kind of move that should be done selectively, and only after alternative options are created, if it's done at all.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars There is zero evidence for this. There is evidence for parking minimums raising housing prices. I’m curious about the overlap between off-street parking minimum requirement advocates and anti-development NIMBYs who don’t believe in supply and demand.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. That's basically self-evident. If you have evidence that shows otherwise please feel free to provide it. I suspect that if examples showing otherwise exist at all they won't be remotely representative of the situation these cities will face.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing Yes. We have rising, elastic house and stable, inelastic paid parking prices [1[2]]. Due to these regulations, we cannot substitute limited space away from off-street parking towards e.g. housing. [1] http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-price-elasticity-of-parking-volume-EPV-against-sample-size-for-SP_fig2_331443775 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-pric...
- tuna74 3y ago
  Yeah it sucks that you might have to pay for parking to do free activities like shopping or visiting medical services.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Leaving aside that neither groceries or medical services are free, the problem isn't that parking will now cost something. There won't be enough parking to go around and many people will be entirely priced out. People will be unable to park near the services they need and many will have no place to park/charge the cars they still require at the end of the day when they're at home. That's not a good situation for anyone except for a very small number of people who will make more money than they have been, and small number of already wealthy people who will find lots of available parking they can easily afford now that they don't have to compete with the poors. Everyone else gets screwed and the problem of people needing cars doesn't change at all.
jjav 3y ago
> and can afford to Right, so now only the most rich can go visit the area (shops, friends). I know a lot of people have the opinion that only the rich should get to do things but I don't subscribe to that. At least with public street parking the misery is egalitarian, both the Yugo and the Ferrari can circle for hours looking for parking. Although having enough parking for everyone would be even better.

by pc86 3y ago

close04 3y ago

Both points you made are valid but neither fixes or even touches on the problem being discussed: there are more cars than parking spots and this causes problems. The economic theory is an interesting, albeit completely parallel discussion. Price is just about who gets to have one. Effectively you'll still have 150 cars that cannot be parked next to the owners' residence, that get dumped on the street elsewhere probably in the next lower cost neighborhood, and with the additional issues OP mentioned. Put it another way, if you want to solve the housing crisis and I tell you "owners can set whatever price they want for the house to extract maximum value and nobody who can afford that will be denied the house" am I wrong? But did I solve the problem?

autoexec 3y ago

> No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability. That sucks for the people who are denied the ability to park there because they can't afford it though. Telling people that they need to walk miles to get to a doctor or a grocery store and that only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city There parking minimums drive up housing costs. They’re why that person has to drive longer to get to that place. Perhaps why they need to make a car payment at all.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Not true, at least not for most people anyway. People need cars to get to where they need to go. When the developer of an apartment complex has to provide parking for its residents everyone has a place to put the cars they need. When those developers don't have to provide parking space anymore, people will still need cars, but will now have no place to put them at night. This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars. You can't solve the problem of "I need a car" just by taking away the places people put them at night. The problem we have is built into the design of our cities from the ground up and it impacts every aspect of how they are structured and used. Eliminating parking spaces while the absolute need for cars continues to exist doesn't solve the problem at all. This is the kind of move that should be done selectively, and only after alternative options are created, if it's done at all.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars There is zero evidence for this. There is evidence for parking minimums raising housing prices. I’m curious about the overlap between off-street parking minimum requirement advocates and anti-development NIMBYs who don’t believe in supply and demand.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. That's basically self-evident. If you have evidence that shows otherwise please feel free to provide it. I suspect that if examples showing otherwise exist at all they won't be remotely representative of the situation these cities will face.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing Yes. We have rising, elastic house and stable, inelastic paid parking prices [1[2]]. Due to these regulations, we cannot substitute limited space away from off-street parking towards e.g. housing. [1] http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-price-elasticity-of-parking-volume-EPV-against-sample-size-for-SP_fig2_331443775 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-pric...
tuna74 3y ago
Yeah it sucks that you might have to pay for parking to do free activities like shopping or visiting medical services.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Leaving aside that neither groceries or medical services are free, the problem isn't that parking will now cost something. There won't be enough parking to go around and many people will be entirely priced out. People will be unable to park near the services they need and many will have no place to park/charge the cars they still require at the end of the day when they're at home. That's not a good situation for anyone except for a very small number of people who will make more money than they have been, and small number of already wealthy people who will find lots of available parking they can easily afford now that they don't have to compete with the poors. Everyone else gets screwed and the problem of people needing cars doesn't change at all.

jjav 3y ago

> and can afford to Right, so now only the most rich can go visit the area (shops, friends). I know a lot of people have the opinion that only the rich should get to do things but I don't subscribe to that. At least with public street parking the misery is egalitarian, both the Yugo and the Ferrari can circle for hours looking for parking. Although having enough parking for everyone would be even better.