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.
What I've learned from this, and other threads by New Urbanists, is that the definition of subsidy seems to be a floating concept which is changed to suit the argument.
The fact is practically every act by government benefits some and costs others.
There's generally a consensus that society needs to educate children in order to perpetuate civilization.
There's certainly no consensus that society needs to collectively subsidize car ownership.
Not on this forum.
There is a consensus, through the ballot box, that society wants roads and wants to provide for the cars that are used on the roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
One has nothing to do with the other.
Just because one thing is collectively subsidized does not mean that an infinite number of things should collectively be subsidized. Just because we believe in education doesn't mean we have to subsidize car parking.
Neither of the articles I read made much of a case that parking is being subsidized through taxes to any great extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
The market demands parking, but the developers often are too cheap to provide it. Hence the government interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
The developers would provide it if the demand was there. They could build apartments cheaper if they did not install air conditioning.
Developers have a well deserved reputation of "developing and running". They want to get the maximum profit out of their developments. If they can squeeze in a few more units by eliminating some parking spaces, they'll do it. Have you (whogo) ever been to a public meeting with a developer? They always ask for the most outrageous stuff, hoping to convince the planning board or city council of their case. Air conditioning can be retrofitted. It's hard to provide parking after the fact. So the municipality gets stuck with people parking on the streets, and all the other scenarios ohiogirl81 discussed above.
Yes, I agree with the urbanists, but not because the poor are subsidizing others. We all subsidize the actions of others as the education example shows. Some people, despite the title, are too dense to recognize that the OP is addressing the poor subsidizing others. Therefore the debate concerns more than one issue. Issue one, should the poor ever subsidize anyone? The answer is an obvious yes. Once again, read the title of the post and tell me that the OP does not think the poor subsidizing others is an issue. The second issue is; should minimum parking space be mandated by government? IMO, no. The free market is well equipped to address this issue.
If the title of the post had been "Should parking be mandated and/or subsidized?" the education argument would not apply.
Why is it I have a suspicion if free parking was not available there would be those complaining about the poor guy with his '78 Plymouth Valiant having to pay excessive parking fees?
The title of the post:
Articles states how the poor and non car owners subsidize parking lots/garages even if they do not use them
The title was not supported by the articles, at least not the two I read.
The market demands parking, but the developers often are too cheap to provide it. Hence the government interference.
Wait, what? That makes no sense.
If "the market" demands parking, and if the developers are "cheap" then obviously they would provide parking free of govt. interference, because the developers want to make as much money as possible.
If "the market" demands parking, and if the developers are "cheap" then obviously they would provide parking free of govt. interference, because the developers want to make as much money as possible.
Leaving land open for parking does not make money for the the developer.
Leaving land open for parking does not make money for the the developer.
Then you just proved the urbanists correct. If the parking isn't making money for the developer, and is only being provided due to govt. interference, then it's a subsidized use.
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.
