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.
Articles claims parking and cars are subsidized by the poor and non car owners for parking lots and parking garages even when they do not have a car and it claims increases the cost of goods and housing.
And I pay to educate their children even though I have none of my own. See how this works?
Exactly.
Not to mention the expectation that you pay for massively expensive rail and other transportation projects that you do not use and which are impractical for you to use.
I don't know that many cities that offer "free parking" to begin with. The example given in the story is a poor one. New York has to be one of the most expensive places to live in the country and perhaps the highest tax rate anywhere in the country. At some point shouldn't people actually get a service for all the taxes paid or does the OP believe the primary purpose of the city is simply to shovel taxes collected from some to those the local government believes should receive the money? Seems to me it benefits the "poor" the best because they get to park their cars for free rather than paying meter fees.
The solution in the article is to up the fees for parking and it cites a Pew study showing various cities contemplating up to $8/hour for street parking. Curiously it is urbanists that promote these policies while trying to push cities as desirable places to live, work, or play. I can tell you that if there is an alternative I certainly would pursue the alternative rather than paying $$$$ for parking to purchase goods at a business in the city. I would go elsewhere and so would most folks that had a choice. It is a self-defeating proposition and I doubt the merchants that the city is already taxing would support such a proposition. Try extending this to residential subdivisions see what happens. I'm not interested in the excuse that it's being done in some places - that's one reason why the vast majority of the population doesn't live in those places.
I'm always amused to see the complete lack of logic on this forum. Yes, we all pay for schools even though many of us don't have children.What does that have to do with parking? That's just an illogical argument. I'm sure everyone has a laundry list of things that they don't think they should pay for, even if they support public education. Just because public education is worthy of subsidy doesn't mean parking is too. It just doesn't follow from the premises.
It may be that people who don't have cars should be forced to pay for others parking spots - I mean, I certainly don't think so, and I've never heard a compelling argument as to why they should, but I'm open to an actually good argument for it. "But you also pay for schools you don't use!" however is not at all a good argument.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
Here in Seattle, any free parking would be rare as hen's teeth. It's interesting that one of those artticles mentioned Seattle free parking at an apartment driving up rent by $250. The fact is, most Seattle apratments do not do that, there are not enough spaces. They charge $250-500 additional to rent a space in the garage. If you go over to the eastside cities like Bellevue, Issaquah, Sammamish, Kirkland and Redmond, almost all parking is free. It has no affect on the poor because there are none, they cannot afford to live in those cities. There are also few, if any non-car owners.
And I pay to educate their children even though I have none of my own. See how this works?
Exactly! And I pay for fire protection, but have never used it. I'm getting ripped off. I'm going to write my congressman. Jared Polis, are you listening?
Exactly.
Not to mention the expectation that you pay for massively expensive rail and other transportation projects that you do not use and which are impractical for you to use.
I don't know that many cities that offer "free parking" to begin with. The example given in the story is a poor one. New York has to be one of the most expensive places to live in the country and perhaps the highest tax rate anywhere in the country. At some point shouldn't people actually get a service for all the taxes paid or does the OP believe the primary purpose of the city is simply to shovel taxes collected from some to those the local government believes should receive the money? Seems to me it benefits the "poor" the best because they get to park their cars for free rather than paying meter fees.
The solution in the article is to up the fees for parking and it cites a Pew study showing various cities contemplating up to $8/hour for street parking. Curiously it is urbanists that promote these policies while trying to push cities as desirable places to live, work, or play. I can tell you that if there is an alternative I certainly would pursue the alternative rather than paying $$$$ for parking to purchase goods at a business in the city. I would go elsewhere and so would most folks that had a choice. It is a self-defeating proposition and I doubt the merchants that the city is already taxing would support such a proposition. Try extending this to residential subdivisions see what happens. I'm not interested in the excuse that it's being done in some places - that's one reason why the vast majority of the population doesn't live in those places.
The only free parking in Denver provided by the city that I know of is in the larger public parks, and that's quite limited. There's also some free parking on residential streets, but in some areas it's reserved for residents only. I guess you could say the zoo/Museum and Nature and Science/Botanic Gardens have free parking, but since you have to pay to enter, I assume the costs of providing the parking is included in the entry fee.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-15-2016 at 03:27 PM..
I'm always amused to see the complete lack of logic on this forum. Yes, we all pay for schools even though many of us don't have children.What does that have to do with parking?
And I'm always amused to see a complete lack of ability to make a connection between Concept A and Concept B.
Whether you like it or not, parking -- be it free, convenient, low-cost, safe, high turnover, or some combination thereof -- can make or break a business or a commercial area, thus affecting local development and economy.
Even a perceived lack of parking can hurt a business. It's not rocket science.
And I'm always amused to see a complete lack of ability to make a connection between Concept A and Concept B.
Whether you like it or not, parking -- be it free, convenient, low-cost, safe, high turnover, or some combination thereof -- can make or break a business or a commercial area, thus affecting local development and economy.
Even a perceived lack of parking can hurt a business. It's not rocket science.
Oh no, I see the connection that you think you are making, it's just that your argument makes no sense and it's hilarious that you still can't recognize it. As I already said, just because people pay for schools that they don't use doesn't mean that people should pay for parking they don't use. You could use the "but you already pay for schools you don't use!" argument to justify anything.
Person A: The widget industry is dying because not enough people are buying widgets. Therefore the government should require more people to buy widgets.
Person B: But I have no use for widgets. Why should I have to pay for something I'll never use?
Person A: Well you already pay for schools you don't use, so you can't complain about paying for widgets you won't use.
Your argument is just as unsophisticated as Person A's.
There MIGHT be reasons that widgets or parking are so important that we should require people who don't use them to pay for them, but you can't know those reasons just based on the fact that we require people to pay for schools. So your first post makes no sense. It's a non sequitur.
And I'm always amused to see a complete lack of ability to make a connection between Concept A and Concept B.
Because some view basic education and safety as something very different from parking? Not very hard, regardless of whether it's useful for business I don't connect the two.
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.
