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.
The Economist magazine makes the case that free parking costs cities dearly- urban sprawl, poorly designed/planned cities which make it harder for people to walk, bike and utilize public transit and "The biggest cost of parking minimums may be the economic activity they prevent". Parking appears to be heavily subsidized- as the Economist magazine says "Free parking is not, of course, really free. "
Did the Economist just hire Capt Obvious ? I thought he had a gig doing commercials for some hotel site.
I predict their next story will be "Free delivery isn't really free"
I live near a city right now that has plenty of FREE city owned parking lots and very few parking meters on city streets. Before moving here, I lived in a city that had quite a bit of free city owned parking and had NO parking meters on any city streets.
In IDAHO.
Unfortunately that's not typical throughout much of the U.S. - at least not in the downtown areas.
Of course it might be helpful to clarify whether the city simply had no parking meters vs whether the city did not charge for parking. Austin, for example, has been tearing out parking meters. The city did not eliminate parking fees. Instead the city uses parking sticker dispenser/pay stations in lieu of individual meters. You go to one of the pay stations, pay for parking sticker, stick the dispensed sticker inside your window. There isn't a parking meter per se but they simply came up with something besides parking meters in order to extract a fee. This pay station scheme extends out quite a bit from downtown. If you get far enough away from downtown you will be able to get away from parking meters/pay stations.
The Economist magazine makes the case that free parking costs cities dearly- urban sprawl, poorly designed/planned cities which make it harder for people to walk, bike and utilize public transit and "The biggest cost of parking minimums may be the economic activity they prevent". Parking appears to be heavily subsidized- as the Economist magazine says "Free parking is not, of course, really free. "
I agree only to a limited extent. I think there should be more parking, if anything, but just not free. See the thread in which I was the OP, Monetize the Streets of Our Cities. I said in part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
How common is it that city governments bellyache that they don't have money? All the time. Yet in major urban centers such as New York, major avenues have free parking. Some goes free at 6:00 p.m. and some at 7:00 p.m. And residential areas are often always free, subject to having to have the cars off the streets from, say, 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on Mondays and Thursdays one side of the street, Tuesdays and Fridays the other. This is called "alternate side of the street" parking.
Ingeniously, Mayor Bloomberg, about 10 years ago, instituted muni-meter parking at night for the theater district, enabling people to park close to Broadway theaters for $18 for six hours, and a pro-rated $3.00 per hour for less time.
Now that most parking charges are collected via multi-space meters that take credit cards and bills, I think that most city parking should require payment. In areas with alternate side of the street people could be allowed to park for, say, $12 a day, up to the time that the car would have to be moved. In other areas, such as Third and Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) the charges could be similar to theater district rates in some areas, less in other areas with less demand.
While I am not with the "greenies" who want to bar car traffic from midtown, there is no reason not to fund city programs that way.
People are going to travel by car, at least where any alternatives (if they exist at all) are either dangerous, cumbersome or inconvenient. A tourist cannot be expected, before or after hotel checkout, to carry luggage up and down subway staircases. Many parts of many cities are served by subways that run in one direction but not crosstown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
First, few of the cities have free parking. One is expected to feed parking meters. The privately owned spaces at shopping centers, etc. are not city property.
See above. I repped this post since I agree with most of it.
While I agree with your point overall NYC has abundant off-hours and residential area free parking. You overstate your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Second, it's pretty obvious the article is little more than anti-car. The author promotes elimination of parking spaces and then has the gall to blame the victim (instead of his scheme) for the inevitable result:
"The result [of eliminating parking spaces] is a perpetual scrap for empty kerb. A survey in 2015 found that 53% of permit-holders had spent at least five minutes looking for a space at the end of their most recent trip, and 7% more than half an hour. As San Francisco’s infuriated drivers cruise around, they crowd the roads and pollute the air. This is a widespread hidden cost of under-priced street parking."
You are quite right here. Control freaks want to hinder or prevent car use. Many are hypocrites, including Al Gore, who uses private planes as well as private cars, while claiming to be saving the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Since when do cycle paths and tram lines make something visually appealing?
Pretty sad that a publication calling itself "the Economist" would publish an article like this.
Couldn't agree more. Five-lane First Avenue is constricted to three lanes by a bike lane, bus lane and other special lanes designed to put roads on a diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
to accommodate the aesthetic preferences of onlookers. No doubt "planners" would be complaining about the space used by the example above too because this article is really not proposing a solution to the contrived "problem". It's just anti-car.
Westerners seem to feel guilty about being successful. I have a thread in my head on this.
Our local city (of about 150,000 people) has been in seemingly interminable decline for 40+ years. Consequently, curbside parking is easy to find, and the parking garages are mostly empty. We have a smattering of parking lots a block or two from the heart of downtown – again, mostly empty. Given the economic implications, I’d much prefer a mad scramble for parking-spots, than lots of open spaces. I’d much prefer economic vitality, at the cost of more expensive or less convenient parking.
That said, America’s second-tier cities often consist of vast suburban, exurban and rural rings. I live in a rural locale, not geographically far from town, but far enough that in our township we probably have more cattle than people, and electricity is our only public utility. Cars are essential, whether I wish to visit the post-office in the nearby small town, or to go to the theater in the aforementioned city, which is 25 miles away. Public transit, cycling or pogo-sticks aren’t an option.
One solution, which seems to be out of favor here, is a kind of “parking city†on the outskirts of the city-center. Build massive garages charging reasonable prices, perhaps in blighted or otherwise marginally-desirable areas, and then built mass-transit from the parking garages to the city core. This allows the rural folk, who necessarily must arrive by car (or by mule?) to access the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Inadequate parking causes congestion. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
No it doesn't. Some of the most congested areas in the country have tons of parking. ...
One amusing factoid towards the above-cited comments is what happens in a local trendy small-town. Most of our surrounding towns are moribund and impoverished, with worries like mass unemployment and drug-epidemics being more topical than parking or urban aesthetics. But there is one nearby town, a bastion of counter-culture novelty and relative wealth, known for its occasional festivals and various outdoor functions. Of necessity, most participants arrive by car. But curbside parking is limited, and there are of course no parking garages. The result is an amusing frantic scramble for parking, mostly amongst persons totally unused to the concept of parallel-parking or other such urban-style considerations. I wonder how much the incidence of fender-benders spikes.
I meant that a developer would come along to offer parking to business owners (who don't have a building yet or maybe they want to move to a new location) that don't want their business to fail like those that have before them.
Too late. The building is already there. If one built they way many urbanophiles promote on this site (wall-to-wall buildings so as not to disrupt the "urban fabric"....) there isn't a place for the parking to come from. Instead of supporting blindly building without regard to how parking is addressed local governments impose parking codes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
If it's true that parking is necessary for a business to succeed, why would you buy a development that has no parking if you've seen developments like that fail before?
and why should a local government tolerate a failure of that nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Solutions for existing businesses also could emerge too though, like someone building a parking lot/garage next to buildings that don't have their own parking.
That solution doesn't work unless there is space available to build the parking lot/garage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Just because a local government imposes a code doesn't mean it's a good or worthwhile code.
No doubt. But plumbing, electrical, lighting, water, wastewater, fire, and PARKING codes exist whether you like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Upon examination some of those other standards you mention might be ill-conceived too. But in principle, a standard to say ensure that a building has safe electricity or structural integrity has a different motivation behind it than a parking standard. The former is about safety, the latter is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
If you go to a building and you can't find a parking spot, you're inconvenienced but you're not in an unsafe position like you would be if the building you're in collapses.
Since when are all codes exclusively directed at safety? Lighting codes may have a safety component but they also have a utilitarian aspect as well as an aesthetic aspect. A code that requires a certain number of bathrooms based upon area is not solving a safety issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
In addition, parking is directly related to considerations specific to the business like customer demand. That's an area where the business owner is going to have a better idea than some regulator, in contrast to something like an electrical code where the owner may not know. So I don't think they're that comparable.
Parking standards are also about avoiding congestion and other problems for the local government. Maybe the type of business could be the basis for an exception or variance but it doesn't matter what the owner or lessee knows. The local government isn't obligated to trust the judgment of the owner/lessee.
Too late. The building is already there. If one built they way many urbanophiles promote on this site (wall-to-wall buildings so as not to disrupt the "urban fabric"....) there isn't a place for the parking to come from. Instead of supporting blindly building without regard to how parking is addressed local governments impose parking codes.
Bad reading comprehension. I was referring to new developments, that's why I said future business owners or those who want to move to a new location.
But as for the developments that are already there, if there isn't enough parking for you, go elsewhere. You are not entitled to a parking spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
and why should a local government tolerate a failure of that nature?
Why shouldn't it? Developments fail all the time for a number of reasons. It's not the government's responsibility to "bail out" businesses from their bad decisions, like opening shop without ensuring that there is a way for their customer base to reach them. But even if you do believe that it's the government's responsibility to "bail out" dumb business decisions, there are plenty of examples of businesses that don't provide very much parking (either they were grandfathered in, or there are in the areas where minimum parking reqs don't exist) and succeed. There's no evidence that the local government is tolerating MORE failures without a minimum parking standard than with one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
That solution doesn't work unless there is space available to build the parking lot/garage.
Right, but there usually is. Even in the most extreme case of density in the country, Manhattan, there is parking all over the place, often in the form of a commercial garage. Most places aren't ever going to approach anywhere near the density of Manhattan, so parking won't be as expensive as there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Since when are all codes exclusively directed at safety? Lighting codes may have a safety component but they also have a utilitarian aspect as well as an aesthetic aspect. A code that requires a certain number of bathrooms based upon area is not solving a safety issue.
Whoever said all codes are exclusively directed at safety? Not me. I said that those codes that are based on safety seem to have a reasonable justification, ie preventing people from being killed if the wiring catches fire or the building collapses. Codes based on subjective considerations (like the idea that everyone should always be able to find a free parking spot at all times) or aesthetic ones seem like just ways for local governments to tyrannize business owners with their subjective judgments about the "best" way to run a business that they don't even own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Parking standards are also about avoiding congestion and other problems for the local government. Maybe the type of business could be the basis for an exception or variance but it doesn't matter what the owner or lessee knows. The local government isn't obligated to trust the judgment of the owner/lessee.
Except there's no evidence that parking standards reduce congestion. I already talked about that earlier in this thread. If it's true that any development with little to no parking will fail, then it shouldn't be congested at all since the customers will go elsewhere.
But more fundamentally, congestion in and of itself isn't always a bad thing. Whenever a professional sports team plays, the area around the stadium is going to get very congested. There will be traffic slowdowns, packed trains, crowded sidewalks, etc. That's just an unavoidable situation that occurs whenever thousands of people descend on one location at one time. So if congestion is such an inherently bad thing, what should we do, ban sports events?
Last edited by stateofnature; 04-10-2017 at 08:55 AM..
Bad reading comprehension. I was referring to new developments, that's why I said future business owners or those who want to move to a new location.
But as for the developments that are already there, if there isn't enough parking for you, go elsewhere. You are not entitled to a parking spot.
....and your attitude is why parking codes exist. Local government doesn't want the mess from people circling to look for a spot. As for myself, I don't bother to frequent areas that fail to offer adequate parking if possible (and neither will lots of other folks). Local government is aware of the economic impact of inadequate parking as well and doesn't need your consent to impose parking codes/standards.
Your argument is somewhat circular. To prevent the problem of inadequate parking to begin with the local government imposes parking standards at the time of construction. This keeps the new development from being the existing development with inadequate parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Why shouldn't it? Developments fail all the time for a number of reasons. It's not the government's responsibility to "bail out" businesses from their bad decisions, like opening shop without ensuring that there is a way for their customer base to reach them.
It's not a "bail out" of a business. The business is free to fail. The building not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
But even if you do believe that it's the government's responsibility to "bail out" dumb business decisions, there are plenty of examples of businesses that don't provide very much parking (either they were grandfathered in, or there are in the areas where minimum parking reqs don't exist) and succeed. There's no evidence that the local government is tolerating MORE failures without a minimum parking standard than with one.
It's not about bailing out the business as indicated above. The local government can impose fire codes, bathroom codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, and PARKING codes, all of which impact the layout and construction of the building. It will cost the builder to comply with these codes - it's not a "bailout" of the business that might eventually own or lease the building in whole or part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Right, but there usually is. Even in the most extreme case of density in the country, Manhattan, there is parking all over the place, often in the form of a commercial garage. Most places aren't ever going to approach anywhere near the density of Manhattan, so parking won't be as expensive as there.
Well you can make that argument at the time you are seeking a variance from the parking codes in the jurisdiction where you are trying to create your new development. Go ahead and tell them "but in Manhattan....". I'm sure that will be well received.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Whoever said all codes are exclusively directed at safety? Not me.
You are the one that put up the false dichotomy for your conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
I said that those codes that are based on safety seem to have a reasonable justification, ie preventing people from being killed if the wiring catches fire or the building collapses.
Even the codes you characterize as being based on safety aren't always about "safety" per se. They may be about standardization, managing local government resources, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Codes based on subjective considerations (like the idea that everyone should always be able to find a free parking spot at all times) or aesthetic ones seem like just ways for local governments to tyrannize business owners with their subjective judgments about the "best" way to run a business that they don't even own.
Again your false example. The parking codes do not mandate that "everyone" should be able to find a "free" parking spot much less "at all times". Plumbing codes, electrical codes, parking codes, etc. are not about the "best way to run a business".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Except there's no evidence that parking standards reduce congestion. I already talked about that earlier in this thread. If it's true that any development with little to no parking will fail, then it shouldn't be congested at all since the customers will go elsewhere.
It should be no surprise to you that local government would not approve an apartment project that failed to provide for parking for its residents. When the project is completed it might actually create more congestion because there will be more traffic as a result of all the tenants. So I'm not sure where you would expect evidence of less congestion to come from. What you don't get to do is build an apartment complex without addressing parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
But more fundamentally, congestion in and of itself isn't always a bad thing. Whenever a professional sports team plays, the area around the stadium is going to get very congested. There will be traffic slowdowns, packed trains, crowded sidewalks, etc. That's just an unavoidable situation that occurs whenever thousands of people descend on one location at one time.
Since the event is avoidable the result is also avoidable.
In any case how does this make congestion a good thing or otherwise not a "bad thing"? Your example and hypothesis are a non-sequitur.
The local government is going to impose requirements to accommodate parking for the stadium. From your own example you know that the code isn't going to require the parking to be "free" nor so plentiful that the lots would never be full. Extending your stadium example to other properties in an area, the whole area shouldn't be designed intentionally to ensure never-ending congestion as you propose - nor to create congestion to rationalize a false "need" for infrastructure requiring huge capital contributions (e.g., rail).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
So if congestion is such an inherently bad thing, what should we do, ban sports events?
Using your own example, who said you had a right to have a sport event at a particular location? Is your "sport event" taking place in a public stadium or a privately owned venue? If the former you need government approval for the event and yes the local government can say "no". If the latter, consider there are already codes dealing with gatherings, public nuisance, etc. Consider fire codes impose occupancy maximums in buildings and rooms and local government can certainly break up gatherings that result in code violations.
Instead of banning events, local government simply ignores suggestions from folks like yourself that want to promote "let it fail" and imposes standards so that the building doesn't become more of a problem for everyone else including local government. There is certainly a fuzzy line between excessive government intrusion and right to control one's own property - but you won't win that argument on parking codes in most cases any more than you would be able to successfully challenge standards imposed by fire, electrical, plumbing, bathroom density, ADA, lighting, wastewater, and other codes.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-10-2017 at 10:09 AM..
....and your attitude is why parking codes exist. Local government doesn't want the mess from people circling to look for a spot. As for myself, I don't bother to frequent areas that fail to offer adequate parking if possible (and neither will lots of other folks). Local government is aware of the economic impact of inadequate parking as well and doesn't need your consent to impose parking codes/standards.
I totally understand that there are people who don't "want" to have to look for street parking. The problem is just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's a lot of stuff that I "want" according to my own subjective preferences but I don't argue the government should provide it for me. The idea that people circling for spots creates a "mess" is an example of such a subjective preference. If you don't like street parking, don't do it, and go elsewhere. Leaves more spots for me. There's no justification for calling upon the government to provide you with what you want merely because you want it. You try to appeal to some higher justification by mentioning the "economic impact" but you have no evidence of a negative economic impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
It's not a "bail out" of a business. The business is free to fail. The building not so much.
If a development fails because not enough customers are patronizing the business because they can't get there, that is indeed a business failure that causes the building to fail. You're making this distinction that it's fine for a business to fail but not a building. But developing a building and selling it to an owner is in itself a business. The idea that there is somehow categorically different about a building failing compared to a business failing is just an arbitrary distinction you have created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Well you can make that argument at the time you are seeking a variance from the parking codes in the jurisdiction where you are trying to create your new development. Go ahead and tell them "but in Manhattan....". I'm sure that will be well received.
Ah the good old "argument from authority" logical fallacy. Just because a local government would reject my argument doesn't mean my argument is wrong. You don't have an actual substantive response to my point. This fear that there will no space available for parking without minimum parking requirements is belied by the reality that even in the very densest place in the country there is parking all over the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
You are the one that put up the false dichotomy for your conclusion.
Even the codes you characterize as being based on safety aren't always about "safety" per se. They may be about standardization, managing local government resources, etc.
It's not a false dichotomy. There is a categorical difference between imposing a code to prevent someone dying or being injured, and imposing a code for some other reason like aesthetics. I'm sure the codes aren't always about safety, but it doesn't follow from that point that therefore local governments should impose codes that have nothing to do with safety. Just because the government has the authority to do something doesn't mean it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Again your false example. The parking codes do not mandate that "everyone" should be able to find a "free" parking spot much less "at all times". Plumbing codes, electrical codes, parking codes, etc. are not about the "best way to run a business".
Not all of them but many of them functionally do provide that there will always be more parking than is ever needed, so no one ever has to look for a spot. That is absolutely telling someone how to run a business since the government is saying how many parking spaces it deems necessary, when this might be more than is actually needed based on demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
It should be no surprise to you that local government would not approve an apartment project that failed to provide for parking for its residents. When the project is completed it might actually create more congestion because there will be more traffic as a result of all the tenants. So I'm not sure where you would expect evidence of less congestion to come from. What you don't get to do is build an apartment complex without addressing parking.
There will be traffic from all the tenants if they have parking spaces too. Probably even more traffic because now a tenant might have two cars instead of one if he/she knows there will be a free place to park it provided for him/her. If someone else is providing me food I am probably going to eat more than I would if I were buying the food myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
The local government is going to impose requirements to accommodate parking for the stadium. From your own example you know that the code isn't going to require the parking to be "free" nor so plentiful that the lots would never be full. Extending your stadium example to other properties in an area, the whole area shouldn't be designed intentionally to ensure never-ending congestion as you propose - nor to create congestion to rationalize a false "need" for infrastructure requiring huge capital contributions (e.g., rail).
Using your own example, who said you had a right to have a sport event at a particular location? Is your "sport event" taking place in a public stadium or a privately owned venue? If the former you need government approval for the event and yes the local government can say "no". If the latter, consider there are already codes dealing with gatherings, public nuisance, etc. Consider fire codes impose occupancy maximums in buildings and rooms and local government can certainly break up gatherings that result in code violations.
It doesn't matter how many standards you impose. There is always going to be congestion from thousands of people descending on one location at one time. You can certainly do things to make the congestion less bad at a sporting event but there is no sporting event in the world that doesn't lead to mass congestion. So if congestion is so bad, why allow any sporting event to ever happen? Why not just write a code declaring gathering that many people in one place a public nuisance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Instead of banning events, local government simply ignores suggestions from folks like yourself that want to promote "let it fail" and imposes standards so that the building doesn't become more of a problem for everyone else including local government. There is certainly a fuzzy line between excessive government intrusion and right to control one's own property - but you won't win that argument on parking codes in most cases any more than you would be able to successfully challenge standards imposed by fire, electrical, plumbing, bathroom density, ADA, lighting, wastewater, and other codes.
Again argument from authority fallacy. You just love your logical fallacies. No I might not win the argument, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument. It has to do with people like you who without any evidence believe that there is some objectively true "adequate" amount of parking and that parking less than this amount creates some mysterious horrible consequences, when in reality it's just your personal opinion that you don't like to ever have to circle to look for a spot so you think property owners owe you a parking spot. You are no different than the "urbanophiles" you constantly decry for trying to impose their subjective opinions about how to live onto others.
I totally understand that there are people who don't "want" to have to look for street parking. The problem is just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's a lot of stuff that I "want" according to my own subjective preferences but I don't argue the government should provide it for me. The idea that people circling for spots creates a "mess" is an example of such a subjective preference. If you don't like street parking, don't do it, and go elsewhere. Leaves more spots for me. There's no justification for calling upon the government to provide you with what you want merely because you want it. You try to appeal to some higher justification by mentioning the "economic impact" but you have no evidence of a negative economic impact.
Bottom line is you lose.
Local government has the ability to impose these codes.
You misread or misunderstood much. The discussion wasn't about what "government was going to provide for you". The point there was the congestion/disruption caused when the project did not have adequate parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
If a development fails because not enough customers are patronizing the business because they can't get there, that is indeed a business failure that causes the building to fail. You're making this distinction that it's fine for a business to fail but not a building. But developing a building and selling it to an owner is in itself a business. The idea that there is somehow categorically different about a building failing compared to a business failing is just an arbitrary distinction you have created.
Businesses come and go, the buildings not so readily. The local government is not obligated to allow you to create problems for the local government and surrounding properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Ah the good old "argument from authority" logical fallacy. Just because a local government would reject my argument doesn't mean my argument is wrong. You don't have an actual substantive response to my point. This fear that there will no space available for parking without minimum parking requirements is belied by the reality that even in the very densest place in the country there is parking all over the place.
Local government only needs a rational basis for the imposition.
Your example is not an analogous one. What might allegedly work in Manhattan does not necessarily work in not-Manhattan. Every place besides Manhattan is not-Manhattan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
It's not a false dichotomy. There is a categorical difference between imposing a code to prevent someone dying or being injured, and imposing a code for some other reason like aesthetics.
There is less protection for aesthetics than other codes. It was a false dichotomy for you to suggest that only safety codes were acceptable and that codes were either safety codes or not - and that parking didn't fall into your idea of a safety code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
I'm sure the codes aren't always about safety, but it doesn't follow from that point that therefore local governments should impose codes that have nothing to do with safety. Just because the government has the authority to do something doesn't mean it should.
Who says parking codes have nothing to do with safety? Also calling something a "safety code" does not justify unlimited intrusion. The argument you are trying to make (and will not succeed with) is that the government should not be permitted to impose parking codes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Not all of them but many of them functionally do provide that there will always be more parking than is ever needed, so no one ever has to look for a spot. That is absolutely telling someone how to run a business since the government is saying how many parking spaces it deems necessary, when this might be more than is actually needed based on demand.
I don't buy into your premise so I certainly do not need to argue the remainder.
Parking codes also impose standards for the number and layout of handicapped parking spots.
If public policy in housing and places open to the public is accommodation, why do you believe you get to "opt out" on the rationale you provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
There will be traffic from all the tenants if they have parking spaces too. Probably even more traffic because now a tenant might have two cars instead of one if he/she knows there will be a free place to park it provided for him/her. If someone else is providing me food I am probably going to eat more than I would if I were buying the food myself.
The example you provide is again a silly diversion.
No one said there was a mandate that parking was free.
No one said there was no limitations the owner/landlord couldn't likewise impose on parking.
As to the rest of the point - yeah and that's why I posited it was no surprise you would be unable to find support for a claim of a reduction in congestion when the nature of the change was adding a project that was likely to increase amount of traffic. At the same time you must concede that imposing a parking code to ameliorate the impact of the increased traffic is certainly not an irrational step for local government to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
It doesn't matter how many standards you impose. There is always going to be congestion from thousands of people descending on one location at one time.
So are you trying to extend your stadium example as the argument why parking codes should not be implemented anywhere? Absurd. However, your observation illustrates one of the flaws of the urbanophile short sighted vision of centralized work areas. In any event, there is no reason to extend congestion from your sports stadium throughout the city the entire the work week or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
You can certainly do things to make the congestion less bad at a sporting event but there is no sporting event in the world that doesn't lead to mass congestion. So if congestion is so bad, why allow any sporting event to ever happen?
There was no promise of elimination of congestion. However, there is certainly no prohibition against a local government imposing standards in an attempt to ameliorate the amount of or impact of congestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Why not just write a code declaring gathering that many people in one place a public nuisance?
There are already fire code (max occupancy), loitering laws, and laws requiring permits for gatherings and parades. However, seems you are going a bit overboard with respect to your complaint about local government having parking code requirements. See above. The gatherings often are a public nuisance and some invoke other constitutional issues such as free speech (e.g., parade) - but as long as local government can make a buck from the gathering then it will issue permits, etc. The test for a parking code will be the rational basis test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Again argument from authority fallacy. You just love your logical fallacies. No I might not win the argument, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument.
Look you've given nothing here except non-analogous analogies, false dichotomies, and equivocal statements. A local government can impose parking codes just as it can and should impose electrical, plumbing, and other codes. As long as it is rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose - it can do it. Can you establish a lack of a rational connection to a legitimate government purpose? Probably not and the burden is on you to do so, not me to establish otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
It has to do with people like you who without any evidence believe that there is some objectively true "adequate" amount of parking and that parking less than this amount creates some mysterious horrible consequences, when in reality it's just your personal opinion that you don't like to ever have to circle to look for a spot so you think property owners owe you a parking spot. You are no different than the "urbanophiles" you constantly decry for trying to impose their subjective opinions about how to live onto others.
People like me? You got the wrong person for that bub.
This isn't about "me" and these businesses nor you and these businesses but rather the local government and these businesses or the local government and the general public. I'm not the one making those rules although I might be the person litigating where the line falls between reasonable regulation and overreaching intrusion. Bottom line is fire, bathroom density, ADA, electrical, plumbing, parking, fair housing, and other statutes and codes can be enforced so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Although you've made up stories about unlimited free parking as an apparent diversion and confused the issue about codes the local government imposes on others rather than codes that dictate the local government's own provision of parking, you have utterly failed to establish that a parking code (providing for minimum number of parking spaces or types of spaces) is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-10-2017 at 05:25 PM..
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.
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.
