Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car • Hacker News Board

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#331

Post by imgabe » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

tjic wrote: post #245

Meh. You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them. You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. etc. Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. ...but the other 99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions, where a single b…

> You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids

and you receive the benefit of living in a society where most people have a minimum level of education. You can then hire these people and not have to pay to teach them how to read.

> You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them

Maybe you personally somehow never enjoy seeing nature, I don't know. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to see a little nature which is shown to make people happier and more productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian landscape.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#332

Post by hellcow » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #302

tjic wrote: post #245

Meh. You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them. You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. etc. Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. ...but the other 99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions, where a single b…

Just in case someone wants to know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what it…

You're describing toll roads, which of course work fine.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#333

Post by snrplfth » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #276

...And I pay for public schools even though I do not and will not have children. I'm not complaining, mind you, but of the problems we could be trying to solve, this seems like a relatively low priority. My state also passed a sales tax (you know, the regressive kind) intended to preserve natural resources and cultural heritage, and most of the money has gone to art projects in the major metropolitan area that are mo…

But it's a large deadweight on the economy. It requires the production of considerable amounts of parking that is never, or almost never, used or needed by anybody. It makes parking easier only by hiding the cost of parking in everything else, in a wholly regressive way. And it's not a "commons problem" like air pollution - it's just the government deciding that a particular private good is nice, and everybody should be forced to provide it. It's silly.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#334

Post by bluecalm » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

msl wrote: post #312

tjic wrote: post #245

Meh. You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them. You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. etc. Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. ...but the other 99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions, where a single b…

> You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. Which means that your kids will live in society largely made up of people who have received some education. You could argue that there is more value in this than there is in providing parking.

The argument is that he is paying double: for homeschooling and for other kids in public schools. Other parents are paying only for public schools even though they benefit from living in a society where kids not attending public school received education as well. I sympathize with parent's views but I think early education (say up to high school) is a good thing to put in a common basket. If you want to home school you need to do well enough to be able to afford it which filters out people who shouldn't be homeschooling at least a bit.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#335

Post by closeparen » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

malyk wrote: post #313

closeparen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. have significantly higher commute times (including by public transit) than less dense cities. New York's subway riders have it particularly bad, spending an average of 7.5 hours per week on the trains [0]. This is despite those cities having some of the best transit systems in the country [1]. I'm aware of the finding that lower commute times are associated with happiness,…

BART is way over capacity and a terrible experience for sure. Have you tried the transbay busses? I ride the F from North Oakland every day and I have a seat every morning and, with a little planning, a seat every night on the way home (get to the stop early). A motorcycle will probably be faster, but a 40 minute "leisurely" commute on the transbay is a pretty nice option. http://www.actransit.org/transbay-lines-in-e…

The Transbay buses are all standing room by the time they get to me, and I've been denied boarding several times. BART is somewhat easier to stand on then they are.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#336

Post by snrplfth » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

cobbzilla wrote: post #173

I'm wondering what are the myriad other ways that low-income folks are silently taxed? higher interest rates, housing codes, regulatory compliance (leading to higher prices), and possibly even the minimum wage come to mind (I'm sure there's much more), thus always keeping "the basics" expensive enough to be out of reach.

All of those things are substantial factors. Building codes are another big one - most of them have little to do with safety or health, but rather "buildings must be of such-and-such minimum niceness, and if you can't afford that, too bad, go somewhere else." And everybody standardizes on the same building codes, and pretty soon there is no "somewhere else" to go to.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#337

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

gbrs wrote: post #303

TulliusCicero wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the reason transit sucks and cars are way more convenient in 95% of the USA is exactly what we're discussing: mandates from the government that prioritize cars over other modes.

I think the problem is that to transition to a public transit model would require the transportation to be built first. It would also require the public transit to operate at a loss for a decade or two while buildings and people transition to this new mode of transportation. Many people are against this in the US because it's expensive and nobody likes tax hikes. Also people love their cars.

Transit already exists in the US, it just usually sucks. And you're never going to get radical, system-wide improvement in one shot in a car-dominant area. But there's nothing stopping us from releasing mandatory minimum parking requirements while gradually improving transit, biking, and walking. Removing the minimums doesn't erase parking overnight.

> It would also require the public transit to operate at a loss for a decade or two while buildings and people transition to this new mode of transportation.

Transit always operates at a loss, same as driving, or biking, or walking.

> Many people are against this in the US because it's expensive and nobody likes tax hikes.

Agreed, politically it's up in the air whether this will work. Mostly it is region-dependent, with a bunch of metros actually passing tax hikes to fund better transit the other day: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/nearly-70...

> Also people love their cars.

Two things:

1. Again, this is largely a chicken and egg situation. Over the course of decades, we've created an environment that's good for cars and hostile to everything else. People are mostly pretty rational about their personal transportation choices, and they quite rationally prefer the method that's much better supported, because it works better. But when other modes work well, people will choose them too.

2. The younger generation does not like cars as much as previous ones. There's a steady shift underway.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#338

Post by InitialLastName » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #156

JDDunn9 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, we are seeing a return towards urbanisation globally, which is a positive trends, since it's a vital component for curbing global warming. Residents of NYC use 1/3 as much electricity as their suburban counterparts, use a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions on transportation, and produce less garbage. All without convincing New Yorkers to recycle or drive electric cars. Environmental responsibility is bak…

Residents of NYC pay $3000/mo for 1-bedroom apartments, while their suburban counterparts pay $1000/mo for 3-bedroom houses. You could buy quite a few solar panels and lease several electric cars for less than it would take to move to NYC.

As a data point, I pay $2310/mo (total, not individual) for a 3-bedroom apartment in a safe, vibrant, reasonably commutable part of Manhattan. The NYC residents you're talking about are making poor decisions with their money.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#339

Post by snrplfth » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #14

I haven't read the actual study, but I don't really buy this on the basis of the article alone. Allocated parking that you're not using? Let it out. Abundant parking at supermarkets? Pfft - only in locations with an abundance of space anyway. At least in the UK, I'd argue that supermarkets with plenty of parking have lower prices than those without - since they're not in city centres.

The problem is that the requirements are so high, and demand the creation of so much parking (indeed, parking lots for commercial uses are generally required to be larger than the buildings they serve) that the price for parking is driven down to $0. Most parking lots in the suburban US fill up either never, or on a single day per year.

The point is that forcing businesses to have excess parking imposes a real cost on them that they make up with prices increased over what they otherwise would have been.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#340

Post by iamatworknow » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #292

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1950s vehicle ownership wasn't the significant financial hurdle you seem to think it was.

Car ownership today, as then, is actually a pretty big financial hurdle for the poor. Cars are probably the most expensive way of getting to work. Let's count how they are expensive: 1) Large initial capital outlay; back in 1950 this might be $1500 but your earnings might be $3300 a year. You'd either need to get a loan, save up a significant portion of your salary, or get a used car (which were less plentiful as car…

And unfortunately, related to all of the points you mentioned, this need of the poorer suburban/rural people to own their own cars is what spurs on the subprime auto finance market. If you're making minimum wage there's a good chance you have bad credit, and your only option to get to work is getting a vehicle financed at a smaller, less reliable dealership who charges huge markups on decade old vehicles with 100k+ miles, and exorbitant amounts of interest, and they won't hesitate to repossess if you miss a payment.

In the past couple of years in the US the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FTC have started working to help these types of car buyers and protect them against deceptive practices in advertising and unruly markups, much to the chagrin of the so-called "Buy Here-Pay Here" dealerships. The recent election and the deregulation culture surrounding it, however, does may not bode well for the consumers. I wouldn't be surprised if the CFPB is dissolved entirely.