Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NewLoseIt t1_itqw5h6 wrote

A good case where I’m in favor of less government regulation.

On a case-by-case basis, maybe it’ll make sense for a city to mandate parking spots in certain areas (near stadiums, park&ride transit lines etc), but no need for excessive red tape that forces small businesses to develop their own land - at their expense - in a way that doesn’t fit the needs of their business and customers.

If a business needs parking to accommodate their customers, go for it, but if not, it shouldn’t be forced on them and the community.

10

1minuteman12 t1_ittdjqp wrote

Government regulation is always a good thing when that regulation is motivated by the desire to improve the lives of its citizens. A significant amount of government regulation since the 1980s works precisely the opposite: it’s burdens the populace in favor of special interests. This is one example. Mandated parking was never about accessibility, it was part of a nationwide effort by the auto lobby to make our towns and cities dependent on motor vehicles. It worked. Ask any European what is sneaky the most surprising thing about visiting America and they’ll say how little public transportation there is and how many American cities aren’t walkable. We have ceded so much public space to cars and we don’t even realize it.

8

CompletePen8 t1_itrestw wrote

even then a lot of the time the requirements are way too generous and we end up with acres of parking near stadiums that could be housing.

in the uk and eu people put stadiums near well built homes all the time.

It isn't a big deal.

But the big thing is with parking requirements the builders and owners can't pick less parking, they have to build to build a home or whatever.

It should be by choice, not forced.

7

NewLoseIt t1_itrk3ay wrote

Yeah IIRC there’s actually a new movement to create “walkable” stadium areas in the US because of the additional revenue generated for restaurants and bars in the area (sometimes owned by the same owner as the team). I think Detroit did that recently with most of their professional sports, not sure if it’s caught on elsewhere though

5

Candid- t1_itrtmsq wrote

The issue is that now businesses aren’t forced to care about parking for customers and the burden falls on the local residential areas.

−2

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itujc2l wrote

“Car traffic is awful… when it’s in MY neighborhood” - literal NIMBY that owns a car

5

Candid- t1_itwpggw wrote

“Car traffic is awful… I wish we had thought of this before we allowed all this construction without parking” - everyone living in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Beijing…

Being a NIMBY isn’t bad if you are being reasonable. I think we can all agree a garbage dump or low-level nuclear waste site in Cambridge would be bad. We purchased homes or signed leases with a certain expectation of what the community was like. That is going to change in a way that is not favorable to the existing residents. Feeling annoyed by that shouldn’t be grounds for scorn or shame.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ity4ugf wrote

When you are forcing people to live 50 minutes away just to work at a minimum wage job because you expect to have a parking space in every home in a city… I think that is worthy of scorn.

5

Candid- t1_itz7tji wrote

I think I see the disconnect.

  1. I think minimum wage is criminal and companies that can’t afford to pay their workers enough to live off of should go out of business.
  2. No one should have to live that far away. The city should structure its housing so that the low income people who support the city can also afford to live there.
  3. I don’t believe this law will have any impact on housing prices because it isn’t the full solution. It is an easy step 1 that drastically favors groups that are neither part of the short or long-term solution.
0