Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itujyjf wrote

Given that these parking minimums add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit built in the city, how could you possibly argue that it is anything but wealth segregation?

2

Candid- t1_itwo3tl wrote

Adding residential property without parking, to a city where 2/3rds of the households have vehicles, is about disrupting the lifestyle and convenience of the majority of the residents in the city, wealthy or not.

Owning a car is not about wealth. It is about lifestyle needs and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that low income people are more likely to require a car than wealthy people.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ity34qz wrote

Then the conclusion is that the lifestyle and convenience provided by the city for the past 60 years, based largely on a population that was 30% smaller than it is today, is not sustainable and must change, and is changing, as the city grows.

2

Candid- t1_itz8baa wrote

Agreed. This is an interesting step 1. Now further steps need of be taken to ensure this doesn’t result in a ton of new high prices development without actually solving the real problems.

When Boston passed a similar law, the made it only apply to low income housing. I would have liked that better since it drove the right focus.

1