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

371–380 of 455 posts

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

#371

Post by sfifs »

snrplfth wrote: post #324
sfifs wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it's tempting to say that but it doesn't solve the underlying problem which is the development didn't create sufficient parking space. It didn't create because the government didn't mandate. A parking lot is not a high value salable area for a property developer and so unless he is building it for the 1% who value and pay a premium for such, there is no incentive fir him to do so. So as people become wealthier an…

But you said it yourself - the way to solve the externality is to forbid them from parking on the street. How is that so difficult? Rather than the government trying to plan the optimal amount of parking for every possible time and use and density, they can just say, "don't park on the street. Figure out your own parking requirements."

Let me refer you to this part of my comment: "A parking lot is not a high value salable area for a property developer and so unless he is building it for the 1% who value and pay a premium for such, there is no incentive for him to do so"

You appear to be commenting from the POV of the US or Canada where land is plentiful and people build independent houses in towns and suburbs.

In the cities I mention, owning an independent house means your wealth is in tens of millions of dollars (mere millionaires would struggle to afford independent houses). The average middle class person is very much dependent on developers constructing multi storey apartments - and it's not in their economic interests to solve for parking requirements unless compelled as I explain above.

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

#372

Post by a3n »

bluecalm wrote: post #334
msl wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Agreed. Pare it back to someone who doesn't have kids. If I had no kids I would still want a society where most people are generally educated. I benefit from that public good.

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

#373

Post by thorawy33 »

jessaustin wrote: post #361
ue_ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Anarchocapitalism isn't anarchistic, as capitalism necessarily entails the establishment of at least two classes: the proletariat and bourgeoisie, defined in terms of the relationship to the means of production. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-huc...

That seems unrelated to the discussion. If GP had said, "I'm a blueberry muffin and would love to see all of these costs unbundled...", could you have responded differently?

I think you're getting hung up on too specific an idea (unbundling costs). In the linked page on "anarchocapitalism":

"They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning."

Basically peddling "more of the same" and trying to sound cutting edge by adding "anarcho". It lacks intellectual honesty in the first place. We've been down the laissez faire path (a label pointlessly added before capitalism anyway given the traditional values upheld in capitalism; it wants to be left alone in the first place).

It was a disaster, and would be again if we allowed it anymore rope to hang us all with.

He's basically peddling that which he rants against: Monolithic economic policy that fits with his preferences.

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

#374

Post by muninn_ »

VLM wrote: post #301
muninn_ wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't have a problem with this, but I do have a problem with minimum numbers of parking spots, or giant parking lots that are unutilized during the night or while you're not at work. Parking spots at place should like Costco are notoriously bad for the planet and aren't some of the least efficient things possible. At some point, the things you value (such as your parks and woods and scenery) are going to brush…

America is extremely large, our economy is shrinking not growing, and our native population is not growing either. Note that the above situation is fractal similar at different scales ranging from my state to the entire world. Similar but not identical.

If this is the case, it just shows we need to further urbanize.

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

#375

Post by massysett »

jabl wrote: post #199
userbinator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that many people actually want higher population densities.

It's a tradeoff, of course. Hey, I want to live in a large country estate but still within walking distance of work, shops, restaurants, all kinds of leisure activities and whatnot. However, as this isn't happening unless I win the lottery (probably not even then..), I have to sacrifice some of that.

I also want the airport to be very close by, and great highway access too, all with no noise.

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

#376

Post by snrplfth »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #234
readme wrote: post #86

Implicitly, the author assumes that a car would be the last thing this hypothetical poor person would purchase. There are in fact, many impoverished homeless people who live in cars. In this case, they might find themselves parking in one of those abundant spaces. I wonder when the last time she walked by a walmart was.

The irony in this post is tremendous. The whole reason so many poor people in the US still own cars is precisely because of these kinds of pro-car regulations! In western Europe, a poor person owning a car is much less common, because transit works well enough that they don't really need it, and driving is an expensive activity.

That's how these kinds of regulations frequently get ratcheted up.

A: "It's nice to have lots of parking available everywhere! Let's make it mandatory."

B:"But now everything is far apart, and I need a car to do anything."

A:"Hm, good point. Well, then we will make sure there's even more parking than anybody ever needs, so it doesn't cost you anything to park anywhere."

B:"What about letting the market decide?"

A:"The market? Why do you hate the poor?!"

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

#377

Post by closeparen »

InitialLastName wrote: post #338
closeparen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it under rent control? (Otherwise I have totally misread the NYC housing market, thank you).

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

#378

Post by thorawy33 »

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…

"...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 basket of goods is created and handed to everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not."

Oh the irony of calling everyone else out for their love of monolithic solutions, then peddling your personal preference for how the economy for everyone should work for everyone.

The 99.9% is just asinine. It's another ideological monolith. It's this over generalization, this "the world is against me" narrative that is peddled here, Twitter, Reddit...

How about some rigor in our discourse. Peddle your ideals with detail, not your emotional hangups and QQ's

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

#379

Post by TheCoelacanth »

freehunter wrote: post #315
tjic wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely li…

I've heard stories about SF's housing problems, but not about Manhattan. I know Manhattan is expensive, but it's also full of some of the tallest buildings in the world, and more are built every day. Are there actually policies restricting housing in Manhattan?

Actually, yes. If you look at an aerial view[1], you can see that there are only skyscrapers in two fairly small parts of the island. Much of the rest has zoning rules that don't allow taller buildings. Even when the taller buildings are allowed, there are things like setback requirements that lower the amount of floor space that the building can contain.

Frequently, the buildings that you can see aren't even representative of what the current restrictions allow. Many building in Manhattan were built long ago when zoning was less strict. Forty percent of the buildings in Manhattan could not be built today because they don't meet zoning requirements[2].

[1] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9e/13/54/9e13...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...

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

#380

Post by snrplfth »

sfifs wrote: post #371
snrplfth wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you said it yourself - the way to solve the externality is to forbid them from parking on the street. How is that so difficult? Rather than the government trying to plan the optimal amount of parking for every possible time and use and density, they can just say, "don't park on the street. Figure out your own parking requirements."

Let me refer you to this part of my comment: "A parking lot is not a high value salable area for a property developer and so unless he is building it for the 1% who value and pay a premium for such, there is no incentive for him to do so" You appear to be commenting from the POV of the US or Canada where land is plentiful and people build independent houses in towns and suburbs. In the cities I mention, owning an ind…

I live in a metro area of 6.5 million people. The level of condo/apartment tower construction is huge, and is the majority of housing growth in the region. Developers demonstrably do construct parking - even expensive-to-build underground parking - but generally they do not demand to build more than they need. Recently a tower was finished, directly above a subway station, without any dedicated parking for 400+ units. All the units sold, no problem, because those buyers don't have or want cars. Other towers are built with parking, but frequently the minimum required. Indicating that it's not in high demand for that tower.

The cost of building a parking space doesn't evaporate just because it's required by the government. And builders will include parking if it's in sufficient demand, just as they include any other amenity in their buildings.

Post reply on HN