"Parkageddon"- Economist says free parking costs a lot (sprawl, pollution, traffic, lost $)-free parking isnt free

[stateofnature]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

It's pretty pointless for me to keep having this back-and-forth

For example:

-The majority of your post is attacking an argument that was never made: that "the government should not be permitted to impose parking codes." Hilariously in the very same quote you were responding to when you attributed that position to me, I said "Just because the government has the authority to do something doesn't mean it should." I never contested the LEGAL authority to implement a parking code. The argument of whether something is "legal" to do is completely different than whether it is prudent, ethical, etc. You're right, I "utterly failed" to establish something I was never trying to establish in the first place. A minimum parking requirement meets the legal "rational basis" in the sense that it could, theoretically, prevent congestion, but what I am questioning is, does it actually do that? Without any evidence you just presume that it would, and instead of substantively answering my point about why it probably wouldn't, you just call it a "silly diversion."
Then, even if removing a minimum parking requirement would increase congestion, I don't see why that additional congestion is worse than the additional congestion already allowed by many local governments, like when they allow a major sporting event to take place. The argument has nothing to do with whether or not local governments have the capability to prevent those events from taking place, but if they exercised that authority in all cases, pro sports could not exist.

-You continue to fall victim to the "argument from authority" logical fallacy even after I pointed it out. It might make you feel better to say I would "lose" but it has no bearing on the merits of my argument. If someone loses in a court of law or before a planning commission or some other body that doesn't mean they were wrong.

-Seemingly deliberate misreading of my point about Manhattan. The whole POINT was that nowhere else is like Manhattan. You throw back the point of the argument as if it is a refutation, showing that you can't really engage it at all. The whole point is that Manhattan is far denser and space-constrained than everywhere else in the country, so it should only be easier to build parking in "non-Manhattan," at least in most cases.

I could go on, but it's just so tiresome. It's not an interesting discussion. I won't be responding (or reading your response to this) again.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

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.

The "mad scramble for parking-spots" will result in more business for the parking garages. If curb spots are empty the problem is lack of economic life, not over-use of parking and cars.