3 ms·

> artificially induced scarcity How is not requiring parking to be provided inducing scarcity artificially?

> artificially induced scarcity How is *not requiring* parking to be provided inducing scarcity artificially?

autoexec 3y ago
Because before developers were required to ensure that when they built something adding parking spaces to handle the demand they were introducing to an area was their responsibility. Now developers can (and will) push that externality onto the public at zero cost to them. The city has a very limited amount of parking spaces it can provide at any cost which means that removing that requirement will suddenly make parking much more expensive and harder to obtain.
- kilotaras 3y ago
  But that's not what artificially inducing means. London for example have buildings which are prohibited of having parking (or getting street permit). Providing an option not pay for parking space when buying an apartment is not that.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The externality is already accounted for there.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    IDK, pure speculation, but maybe 'autoexec' isn't arguing in good faith here and may have a conflict of interest
    - autoexec 3y ago
      I really don't. I'm not even sure what kind of person would have a conflict of interest while supporting that we keep the requirement until actual alternatives are available to everyone. While I have a car, and enjoy having one, and have a nice parking space in a heated underground garage, I also work remotely and don't drive all that much. I'm in a privileged position and could afford to uber (within the city anyway). This is just a bad/non-solution to a very real problem that will do more harm than good.
      - brewdad 3y ago
        Do you pay for that spot? Would you keep the car if it was costing you $150/mo to park it there? If not, then removing parking minimums accomplishes exactly what it is intended to do.
        autoexec 3y ago
        The cost of the spot is factored into the cost of the building so it still costs something, but even if it were a separate bill I'd still be stuck paying for it because I need a car and it has to go somewhere (plus I live in an area where it snows and don't want to get up at 5AM to move it every time that happens or scrape the ice off my windows/mirrors before I can leave).
    - jmye 3y ago
      Assuming bad faith is somewhat ironic and kind of a crummy way to interact online. Do you not think it's conceivable that someone could possibly think this is a bad idea honestly?

> artificially induced scarcity How is *not requiring* parking to be provided inducing scarcity artificially?

Because before developers were required to ensure that when they built something adding parking spaces to handle the demand they were introducing to an area was their responsibility. Now developers can (and will) push that externality onto the public at zero cost to them. The city has a very limited amount of parking spaces it can provide at any cost which means that removing that requirement will suddenly make parking much more expensive and harder to obtain.

kilotaras 3y ago
But that's not what artificially inducing means. London for example have buildings which are prohibited of having parking (or getting street permit). Providing an option not pay for parking space when buying an apartment is not that.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  The externality is already accounted for there.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  IDK, pure speculation, but maybe 'autoexec' isn't arguing in good faith here and may have a conflict of interest
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I really don't. I'm not even sure what kind of person would have a conflict of interest while supporting that we keep the requirement until actual alternatives are available to everyone. While I have a car, and enjoy having one, and have a nice parking space in a heated underground garage, I also work remotely and don't drive all that much. I'm in a privileged position and could afford to uber (within the city anyway). This is just a bad/non-solution to a very real problem that will do more harm than good.
    - brewdad 3y ago
      Do you pay for that spot? Would you keep the car if it was costing you $150/mo to park it there? If not, then removing parking minimums accomplishes exactly what it is intended to do.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        The cost of the spot is factored into the cost of the building so it still costs something, but even if it were a separate bill I'd still be stuck paying for it because I need a car and it has to go somewhere (plus I live in an area where it snows and don't want to get up at 5AM to move it every time that happens or scrape the ice off my windows/mirrors before I can leave).
  - jmye 3y ago
    Assuming bad faith is somewhat ironic and kind of a crummy way to interact online. Do you not think it's conceivable that someone could possibly think this is a bad idea honestly?