This is an awful lot of conjecture, yet remarkably little substance. The core claim of this purported injustice is that "Digging these holes is astronomically e

This is an awful lot of conjecture, yet remarkably little substance. The core claim of this purported injustice is that "Digging these holes is astronomically expensive", with absolutely nothing to qualify it (beyond a link to an Onion article). The single proof was that LA allowed builders to re-purpose existing buildings (e.g. turning that old sugar factory into condos) without satisfying current parking requirements, which has absolutely nothing to do with the cost on a new build. Large buildings need a substructure proportional with their height, especially in an earthquake zone like SF area. Even where non-parking substructure is built, it usually still requires a complete excavation to ensure that the materials are appropriate for keeping a skyscraper from falling over. However more expensive parking is than without, unless an accounting construction expert wanders in, I draw very little value from someone looking out of their window and drawing perhaps unsupported conclusions. And then even if you assume that parking is more expensive, most buildings charge for parking. Does this cover the extra costs, if any? I don't know, and neither does the author. Just a perceived injustice and yet another claim of subsidizing car drivers.