My War on Parking Minimums Continues

[jar546]

A while back I posted a similar video that discussed issues with the lack of public transportation in the United States that is used by the masses like it is in Europe and this component is related to that. Many people look down at those who use public transportation, when you’ll find all classes of people in public transportation in Europe.

 

[tmurray]

We have the same issue in Canada. Personal vehicles are seen as a status symbol.

Personally, I really enjoyed my time taking a bus in my colleges years. It gave lots of time to reflect and decompress before I got home. Unfortunately, I live in a community that has a relatively small density, so public transportation is not an option for me to get to work.

 

[e hilton]

I will join your army in the war.

About 6-8 yrs ago a small strip center was built in out town. It’s isolated by street, so it doesn’t share parking with any other center. Looks like it was built with absolute minimum parking, so the city approved it based on some theoretical use. Then the landlord started leasing it out ... a nail salon and 8 fast food places. Firehouse subs, that kind of place, no drive-ins. So after you subtract parking for employees, there is about 5 spaces per tenant. Doesn’t work.

 

[SH225]

From a Dallas perspective - Our land uses are compartmentalized so we don’t live near where we work. We don’t live near shopping or entertainment or healthcare. Everything seems to have its own district. A mall is like a shopping district of its own, surrounded by parking. Then it gets surrounded by big box retail and outlet stores which are surrounded by parking. And if you open a restaurant or bar or other commercial use near a neighborhood, you most certainly have to meet the parking minimum or you would see an uprising from the residents. In many neighborhoods, the proposed restaurant or bar itself would meet resistance. That’s even with meeting the parking minimum.

 

[JCraver]

I agree that parking minimums should be abolished, but for way different reasons... I don't believe in forcing a landowner to develop any portion of his/her land to any one specific use. It's his; if he wants to build a building and doesn't want to also build a place for people to park to get to it, that's his choice. Making him provide parking is stupid. If an area is developed enough, then another landowner will use his land to build parking, and you can walk to the first guys place. If not, the first guy goes out of business and someone else will do something else with his land. Market solves the "problem", with no intervention from government.

I also vehemently disagree that the "fix" is providing public transportation. Tax dollars, specifically MY tax dollars, should not be spent providing YOU transportation to get to/from anywhere. It's YOUR responsibility to get where you're going. Don't spend my money to do it.

 

[cda]

I agree that parking minimums should be abolished, but for way different reasons... I don't believe in forcing a landowner to develop any portion of his/her land to any one specific use. It's his; if he wants to build a building and doesn't want to also build a place for people to park to get to it, that's his choice. Making him provide parking is stupid. If an area is developed enough, then another landowner will use his land to build parking, and you can walk to the first guys place. If not, the first guy goes out of business and someone else will do something else with his land. Market solves the "problem", with no intervention from government.

I also vehemently disagree that the "fix" is providing public transportation. Tax dollars, specifically MY tax dollars, should not be spent providing YOU transportation to get to/from anywhere. It's YOUR responsibility to get where you're going. Don't spend my money to do it.

So from someone that hates to park blocks away or drive around the block for 30 minutes, waiting for an opening,,,

If allowed not to install parking,,,

How about if no one provides parking???

 

[jar546]

I agree that parking minimums should be abolished, but for way different reasons... I don't believe in forcing a landowner to develop any portion of his/her land to any one specific use. It's his; if he wants to build a building and doesn't want to also build a place for people to park to get to it, that's his choice. Making him provide parking is stupid. If an area is developed enough, then another landowner will use his land to build parking, and you can walk to the first guys place. If not, the first guy goes out of business and someone else will do something else with his land. Market solves the "problem", with no intervention from government.

I also vehemently disagree that the "fix" is providing public transportation. Tax dollars, specifically MY tax dollars, should not be spent providing YOU transportation to get to/from anywhere. It's YOUR responsibility to get where you're going. Don't spend my money to do it.

Then why should I pay for your roads?

 

[tmurray]

I agree that parking minimums should be abolished, but for way different reasons... I don't believe in forcing a landowner to develop any portion of his/her land to any one specific use. It's his; if he wants to build a building and doesn't want to also build a place for people to park to get to it, that's his choice. Making him provide parking is stupid. If an area is developed enough, then another landowner will use his land to build parking, and you can walk to the first guys place. If not, the first guy goes out of business and someone else will do something else with his land. Market solves the "problem", with no intervention from government.

I also vehemently disagree that the "fix" is providing public transportation. Tax dollars, specifically MY tax dollars, should not be spent providing YOU transportation to get to/from anywhere. It's YOUR responsibility to get where you're going. Don't spend my money to do it.

The issue I have with this is that it frequently becomes a government problem. People complain that parking is inconvenient. They complain loud enough for the elected officials to hear, but they don't care enough to actually pay for parking if someone provides it for a cost. So, our elected officials task us with adding parking at the cost of tax payers. At this point, we are subsidizing business who do not want to pay for the construction or maintenance of a parking lot with tax payer money. That is all fine. We just need to tax the businesses benefitting from this scheme accordingly. But at this point you are probably asking yourself; why would the government provide the service and tax the businesses receiving the benefit instead of the businesses just supplying the service themselves?

In an ideal world, people would complain and the elected officials would turn a blind eye towards the issue, but this is snot what actually happens in reality. How many times do we need to explain to elected officials why we should not get involved in a civil issue between two property owners just because the elected official is vote shopping?

 

[steveray]

Save the planet, stop paving....

 

[tmurray]

Then why should I pay for your roads?

Or pay for the DMV? There are countless examples of this where the government provides a service that not every single tax payer uses, but provides a net benefit for society.

 

[JCraver]

Then why should I pay for your roads?

Because it says so in the Constitution - "The Congress shall have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads". The Congress has delegated that power to the states (except for the Interstates), and every state says that every road that has a mailbox on it is a post road, so there you go.

If we can solve your problem and provide more travel options with privately-built and funded, for-profit mass transit, I'm all for that. Charge whatever you want, don't block or interfere in any way with any post road, and have at it. But gov't built and ran public transportation is theft from a majority of taxpayers to serve a minority of them, and is evil.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I also vehemently disagree that the "fix" is providing public transportation. Tax dollars, specifically MY tax dollars, should not be spent providing YOU transportation to get to/from anywhere. It's YOUR responsibility to get where you're going. Don't spend my money to do it.

Public roads are public transportation, it's just the most expensive way to do it. Trains, buses, etc are much cheaper per person.

 

[tmurray]

Because it says so in the Constitution - "The Congress shall have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads". The Congress has delegated that power to the states (except for the Interstates), and every state says that every road that has a mailbox on it is a post road, so there you go.

If we can solve your problem and provide more travel options with privately-built and funded, for-profit mass transit, I'm all for that. Charge whatever you want, don't block or interfere in any way with any post road, and have at it. But gov't built and ran public transportation is theft from a majority of taxpayers to serve a minority of them, and is evil.

I'm going to re-write your argument in technical format:

Premise 1: The constitution provide power to the government
Premise 2: The power is to establish post offices and post roads
Premise (unstated) 3: The government has no other powers to establish transit systems
Premise 4: Tax money is collected
Premise 5: Tax money is used for mass transit systems
Premise (unstated) 6: tax money used for any other purpose than defined by the constitution is unlawful
Conclusion: It is illegal for the government to use tax money for mass transit systems.

So, this is a logical argument. This means that all the premises do support the conclusion. Some were unstated, so I had to extrapolate them, but I feel relatively confident I captured your argument. The issue is just because an argument is logical, does not make it a true argument. To test if the argument is true, we must test if the premises are true. We can all agree that a number of these premises are true. For instance 1, 2, 4, & 5 all appear to be true. However, I'm not sure I would agree that #3 or 6 are true. For instance, in #3, governments establish transportation systems all the time. One would assume if this were an illegitimate use of tax payer funds, there would be fairly decisive decisions from the courts prohibiting it. In addition on item #6, various levels of government use funds on items other than that dictated by the constitution relatively frequently. Again, I would have expected a decision from the courts prohibiting it.

 

[JCraver]

Again, I would have expected a decision from the courts prohibiting it.

Me too, man. Can we go to live in that world? There's all kinds of stupid ____ our gov't spends money on that the courts ought to put a stop to. I'm sure your gov't has done the same.

 

[tmurray]

Also, just FYI, your premise #1 is flawed: our Constitution provides LIMITS on government, and secures rights for individuals. It does not provide power to the government beyond the forming of it and describing its duties.

Aha, I would not know as it does not apply to me. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms lays out the rights of the individual and what authority (power) the government has. Our government cannot act beyond their stated authorities.

 

[JCraver]

Aha, I would not know as it does not apply to me. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms lays out the rights of the individual and what authority (power) the government has. Our government cannot act beyond their stated authorities.

I edited that out, because it doesn't really pertain to this discussion and because I erroneously called it a "power" in the post you quoted first.

My bad.

 

[ADAguy]

Because it says so in the Constitution - "The Congress shall have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads". The Congress has delegated that power to the states (except for the Interstates), and every state says that every road that has a mailbox on it is a post road, so there you go.

If we can solve your problem and provide more travel options with privately-built and funded, for-profit mass transit, I'm all for that. Charge whatever you want, don't block or interfere in any way with any post road, and have at it. But gov't built and ran public transportation is theft from a majority of taxpayers to serve a minority of them, and is evil.

There in you have identified an issue without resolution. As a democratic society there are no guarantees granted to "minorities" of any kind.
He who has the gold will always control the "game"