Report a Comment

Removing the requirement that all buildings have a parking footprint at least equal to the building's own footprint IS a small step in the short term. It will take years for infill development to build over even a fraction of the existing lots.

You approach the issue as if there was a possibility of *banning* parking, when in reality they're removing an obtrusive government restriction on what people can build.

"those who can afford to do so and pay whatever it costs to drive/park where they need to"

How is this different than now? How many people can afford a house in DC and the land to build a driveway next to it? Removing parking minimums at least allows them to approach that economic equation with a maximum of choices available to them (find a space every time, rent a space permanently, go to zipcar, use transit) - a flexibility that the suburbs don't have.

If there is a demand for additional parking, and people are free to build it, people will build it. It comes down to whether you want to tax all landowners a significant amount in order to subsidize free parking as an egalitarian perk. We can't afford to do that forever.

by Squalish on Jul 31, 2008 7:34 pm • link • report