Report a Comment

AE:

If the drivers are able to pay the market rate for the space & construction expenses of the parking, no minimum requirement is necessary.

If a minimum requirement is used, it indicates that the developer doesn't believe he can get a market rate for the spaces in fees from renters, and would rather not construct them. A minimum requirement's mission is to force these developers to build parking anyway.

Thus, wherever the minimum requirement is necessary to force a developer to build parking, it increases the net cost of the entire complex by increasing the cost of construction. Whether the drivers are charged or not is irrelevant - because according to the developer's research, they can't be charged enough to make building the spaces economical (they can't be charged a market rate). That cost is passed directly onto the entire building in increased rent.

Specific figures or situations really don't matter, this is basic logical thinking about costs and who pays them.

By the way, in order to fit with your criteria, I'd like to ask for a peer-reviewed reference for every sentence you've written here. In particular the "nearby neighborhoods subsidize condominiums" - under what definition of subsidy is that? Only one which involves crossing the borders of a special tax district, or one which involves single-family-homeowners having some by-right claim to the streetside parking in front of their houses.

by Squalish on Nov 27, 2008 7:59 pm • link • report