141–148 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next time you check in to a hotel, notice that the little hanging sign on the door no longer has a side that says "do not disturb."
Is that true everywhere or only in high-risk places like LV?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are reasons why most services aren't public ones and should not be - this argument actually works. For each service that is public there's usually a good counterargument. Is there one for public subsidizing of private car parking?
In and around a commercial district, there is. If your customers are living in a standard suburban area around your commercial core, the city will often provide parking so that those customers can reach the businesses in that area. See the publicly owned parking lots in Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Palo Alto, etc. Without those lots, there would be a lot less business (and thus less tax revenue) because the customers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" think their usual rationale of being "environmentally friendly" is really wake-washing/cover for wanting to fit in more apartments that sell for £650,000-1,000,000+ each, vs parking spaces which only sell for £25,000 each." ...and? The fact that apartments cost more than homes means that the market values that area more highly for human habitation than for car habitation. Perhaps you simply can't afford to store yo…
Sheesh, these “conversations”. Just “eliminating” parking at new developments does not eliminate the _need_ for parking. People still have to get to work, school, the grocery store. We had that happen near us 30 years ago by a developer who used a similar argument. A golf course was developed into 13,000 apartments with virtually no parking. Overnight, the surrounding neighborhood’s streets were changed. Once they ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because someone has to be held accountable for the tragedy, and since we can't hold politicians, or the gun manufacturers accountable for it, you find the next person in line. What happened to holding the shooter responsible?
Gun owners in the USA aren’t required to carry liability insurance, so going after shooters in civil cases isn’t very productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gun owners in the USA aren’t required to carry liability insurance, so going after shooters in civil cases isn’t very productive.
True, but it isn't just to sue someone else just because they do have liability insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but it isn't just to sue someone else just because they do have liability insurance.
There is no pointing in suing someone for hundreds of millions of dollars unless they have some chance of actually paying that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In and around a commercial district, there is. If your customers are living in a standard suburban area around your commercial core, the city will often provide parking so that those customers can reach the businesses in that area. See the publicly owned parking lots in Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Palo Alto, etc. Without those lots, there would be a lot less business (and thus less tax revenue) because the customers…
Or you can design your city to not be so car-centric. Why aren't commercial districts designed so that walking or using public transportation to reach them is viable? If you put cars right at the center of urban planning, you'll always build cities that require people to own cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. re: power. But perhaps I'm seeing that power relationship differently. I'm feeling very strong parallels with economist Eleanor Ostrom's view on governing natural commonses [1]. Basically, she spent 4 decades disproving the "tragedy of the commons" in a whole set of defined cases, showing that a group of people DON'T selfishly destroy a commons when looking after it. She codified the requirements for a group…
Per your description “disproving” sounds wrong. Sounds like she proved its overall correctness but found ways to correct for it.