Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 455 posts

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

#261

Post by tjic »

adrianN wrote: post #258
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…

Isn't people saying "I would like this government policy changed" an essential step in a working democracy?

I'm anarchocapitalist; I don't believe that "working democracy" is a thing. Or, perhaps, if it is a thing, it's not what you think it is.

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

#262

Post by majewsky »

sandworm101 wrote: post #189
JDDunn9 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject. - People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that…

The one thing that definitely won't make people happy is someone else telling them they don't know how to make themselves happy. People want choice, even if that means making a few incorrect choices. >We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier. Some people really dislike cities. I need woods. I need open spaces. I need to see the stars at night. I need a place for my dog to run without some stran…

> People want choice, even if that means making a few incorrect choices.

I don't agree. I often feel liberated when someone takes away a meaningless choice from me. If (and only if) the choices that are left are acceptable to me, of course.

For example, I was going to shop for a new kitchen, and I hated the idea of it. Having to comb through dozens of wood and handle options, arguing all day about the layout, it sounded really dreadful. Then my brother moved into a new house that had a kitchen, so I just bought his old one and had it installed at my home. That was absolutely awesome. I didn't have to think about anything.

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

#263

Post by aninhumer »

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…

I don't think that's special pleading exactly. They're not saying "people should only pay for what they use, except for all these things I want and they don't", they're saying "people should be forced to pay for certain things, and those things should coincidentally be the ones I want". It's self-serving, but it's not an exception to a general principle.

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

#264

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #240
loeg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might apply in cities, but I don't believe parking spaces at suburban malls are typically regulated.

You are actually not correct; suburban areas have more intense and all encompassing parking minimum laws. Manhattan, for instance, has either none or none below 125th Street IIRC. Suburbs look like they do not because of preference but because it is not legal for them to look otherwise. The idea in the 50s was: A) Require cars to live and you will not have to live next to poor people or minorities since cars and main…

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

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

#265

Post by dsfyu404ed »

CalRobert wrote: post #209
hackuser wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable concern, but a few thoughts: * Increasing use of public transit benefits everyone, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions * Almost everything government does benefits some citizens more than others. Police help some more than others; some make more use of the water system, fire department, the courts, health care, other forms of transit, Social Security, etc. I want my society to provide those se…

"Increasing use of public transit benefits everyone, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions" Which would be a good reason to put housing and amenities near the station instead of parking...

That does nothing to help existing residents utilize the rail station.

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

#266

Post by return0 »

jedberg wrote: post #16

There was a study a while back that showed that the USA has eight times as many parking spaces as it has cars. At first that seems crazy, but it makes sense if you think about the fact that all the places you go in a day need to have enough parking to meet their peak demand all year, so places like malls have huge empty lots most of the year until Christmas rolls around. And then there is the spot your car is in at w…

We don't even need self-driving cars, we need connected cars

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

#267

Post by majewsky »

nickff wrote: post #125
woah wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're painting your own preferences onto everyone else. Why does land cost more in the cities?

There are many jurisdictions which try to 'right-size', most notable among them is Portland. Many other cities have an implicit policy of preventing sharp increases in density through slow, restricted, and expensive zoning.

Why do they want to do that, though? A huge quality of my city (Dresden, Germany) is precisely the wild fluctuation between very dense areas and places that feel like villages (usually because they actually were villages that were annexed in the 20th century). It feels much more livable and diverse than e.g. http://www.dorisleslieblau.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/...

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

#268

Post by lhopki01 »

nitrogen wrote: post #159
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…

Does that include the electricity used by the restaurants they eat at instead of cooking at home?

You do realise that lots of people all eating out at a restaurant is much more efficient than all those people cooking and eating at home right?

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

#269

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jschwartzi wrote: post #182
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, traffic lights, fire stations, rural mail deliver.... everything makes society expensive to some degree.

The difference is that fire stations have some tangible benefit, like a form of mandatory insurance that pays out before your house and everything you own burns down.

...if you own a house.

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

#270

Post by JoeAltmaier »

lhopki01 wrote: post #268
nitrogen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that include the electricity used by the restaurants they eat at instead of cooking at home?

You do realise that lots of people all eating out at a restaurant is much more efficient than all those people cooking and eating at home right?

Depends on the restaurant. McDonalds', sure. Michelin 3-star, probably not. I don't cook like that.
Post reply on HN