Report a Comment

Take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say you live some place where street parking isn't too difficult to find and it's more or less free. The city comes to your neighborhood with a development plan that will significantly increase the number of residents and retail/restaurants in your neighborhood. The upside is greater access to amenities. The downside is either:

1) It becomes significantly more difficult for you to park on the street

2) It now costs you $1000-2000 to park on the street.

I'd probably be ok with option 1 but I can understand why many people would not be. Option 1 would also strengthen the case for mandatory parking minimums which is bad land use policy.

As for option 2, even though I consider myself as pro-growth as they come, I'd say no way. I'm guess most car owners in that situation would agree.

That's why if I lived in the above described hypothetical neighborhood, I would demand option 3: some portion of the street is reserved for residents so that parking is only a little more difficult after development than before.

The problem for Dupont residents is that all their negotiating power is gone after the development happens. Their power only exists prior to approving the development.

by Falls Church on Apr 4, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report