Report a Comment

but the bundling makes money for the developer because there are all sorts of subsidies for parking. Since those subsidies are outside the control of local zoning boards, unbundling removes the tax and regulatory preferences to parking space.

Not sure I understand you here. If you're talking about parking minimums and our overall auto-oriented policies, then yes, you're right, there are lots of subsidies for auto use. But some of those (like the biggest subsidy specifically for parking, parking minimums) ARE within the purview of local zoning, so I don't see why it is any harder to change that than to slap on another layer of regulation so that we are saying, "you must build X number of parking spaces AND you must charge for them even if neither of those is in your best interest." That's just stupid. Forcing developers to build parking spaces and then forcing them to offer a disincentive to own a space just seems silly to me.

If you want a better way to fix the problem, get rid of parking minimums - that will mean a larger variety of housing that bundles parking, provides parking at a separate cost, and doesn't have parking at all. And, to top it off, this approach doesn't appear to be an overextended reach into the business of private companies.

by MLD on Oct 23, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam