4 ms·
But that's not what artificially inducing means. London for example have buildings which are prohibited of having parking (or getting street permit). Providing
by 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 agoThe externality is already accounted for there.
- hughesjj 3y agoIDK, pure speculation, but maybe 'autoexec' isn't arguing in good faith here and may have a conflict of interest
- autoexec 3y agoI 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 agoDo 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 agoThe 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 agoAssuming 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?