Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There really isn't any school that is affordable to me; ineligible for financial aid.
Ineligible for financial aid? I find that hard to believe. The only people I have known that were ineligible were people who had parents that made enough and they still lived with their parents. I am sure you could qualify for financial aid.
Ineligible for financial aid? I find that hard to believe. The only people I have known that were ineligible were people who had parents that made enough and they still lived with their parents. I am sure you could qualify for financial aid.
Ah, I am one of those evil student loan defaulters Reagan warned you (or your parents) about; as a result I have an ongoing garnishment.
To get my loans out of default I would have to voluntarily pay an equal amount on top of the garnishment for nine consecutive months; that's not going to happen until either income improves or expenses decline.
In the meantime, borrowers not in default and with more income than I can qualify for monthly payments of zero under the Income Based Repayment (IBR) program.
Ah, I am one of those evil student loan defaulters Reagan warned you (or your parents) about; as a result I have an ongoing garnishment.
To get my loans out of default I would have to voluntarily pay an equal amount on top of the garnishment for nine consecutive months; that's not going to happen until either income improves or expenses decline.
In the meantime, borrowers not in default and with more income than I can qualify for monthly payments of zero under the Income Based Repayment (IBR) program.
Do you have student loans you defaulted on? Sounds like you created much of your own problems....you can't really expect others to fix your own mistakes. Which makes this a weird thread for you to create. What exactly does this have to do with parking requirements for new apartment buildings?
I think the question comes down to whether people who live in the neighborhood are (legally or morally) entitled to a parking spot on the street or not. If they are, then any new construction which significantly increases the car density will harm the existing neighbors unless it also correspondingly increases the amount of parking. If the existing neighbors do not, then the newcomers have just as much right to street parking as they do, and if that makes available street parking more difficult to find, that's just too bad.
In environments where car ownership is not an option, its more understandable that there should be mechanisms to preserve parking access. In certain limited environments (i.e. NYC, parts of Chicago, SF, DC, etc), there are viable alternatives to driving, so it is possible to increase population without increase the number of cars. In this areas, mandatory parking minimums should not be imposed.
Obviously, we know that in real life, the incumbents will always claim a right to street parking whether such a legal right exists or not. In general, incumbent residents will tend to oppose any kind of development which increases the number of residents and/or cars.
Oh, God, not morality again! Please leave morality out of it.
If an apartment building has enough street frontage to provide parking for say, six cars, yet has 100 apartments (say it's a 3-4 story building) and NO offstreet parking, that's a problem.
Oh, God, not morality again! Please leave morality out of it.
If an apartment building has enough street frontage to provide parking for say, six cars, yet has 100 apartments (say it's a 3-4 story building) and NO offstreet parking, that's a problem.
Why is it a problem? Those who don't need or want parking can live there. Those that don't like it can not live there and instead live another place that has offstreet parking.
Yeah, its actually better to stick to legal rights. Unless there's a zoned or resident permit parking system in place, its very difficult to claim that a current resident has a right to park on the street. Likewise, unless there's a system in place where pre-existing residents have street parking rights, but new residents do not (and I don't know if such a system would be Constitutional), incumbent residents don't really have a legal leg to stand on in terms of complaining about difficulty of parking due to new construction. This is why residents rely on the political process to prevent these kinds of situations from developing.
As I was kind of inferring, however, most people think that if they are currently parking on the street without difficulty, they should forever be guaranteed easy street parking.
Why is it a problem? Those who don't need or want parking can live there. Those that don't like it can not live there and instead live another place that has offstreet parking.
Right. And you know what happens? Someone moves there thinking they don't need/want a car, and bingo! They get a job that requires commuting. Next thing you know, they're buying a car. Or they simply decide life w/o a car isn't what it's cracked up to be. What are you going to do? Kick people out if they buy a car?
Oh, God, not morality again! Please leave morality out of it.
If an apartment building has enough street frontage to provide parking for say, six cars, yet has 100 apartments (say it's a 3-4 story building) and NO offstreet parking, that's a problem.
What about incumbent carless residents who say they need new apartments in order to maintain affordability?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.