Can we get some followup from DDOT on who is fired for the printing of the signs with the spelling errors?

by Redline SOS on Oct 5, 2011 8:21 am • link • report

I'd say the decision to not allow certain buildings to get a RPP is bordering on a equal protection violation. Tread carefully, DC.

Note: That isn't Shoup either. Shoup says ban on-site parking, throw it into the street, and let the market sort it out. This says ban onsite parking, ban free street parking, and hope you don't buy a car.

Arlington has a similar rule, and it isn't working well.

by charlie on Oct 5, 2011 8:49 am • link • report

@Redline

Presumably, there are thousands of those signs. If one's got a typo, I'd hope that the guy doesn't get fired. I'd blame bad QC rather than the one guy who had to churn out hundreds of these things, and slipped up a handful of times. (It's also probably cheaper to skimp on the QC, and correct any problems that arise on an ad-hoc basis)

by andrew on Oct 5, 2011 9:17 am • link • report

If buildings without on street or off street parking gave tenants some kind of rent rebate that would seem fair. Heck, I'd live there, I've forgotten how to drive anyway.

by Steve S. on Oct 5, 2011 9:21 am • link • report

The decision on the gun laws is pretty spot-on. Under standing precedent, the District has some leeway in deciding which guns can be limited, subject to the standard of arbitrariness and capriciousness. That may change the next time the Supreme Court hears a gun case, but it's where we are now.

On the other hand, the registration laws are arbitrary. They punish those who are trying to follow the law with expensive, cumbersome and unnecessary rules. It is a Constitutional right, but the City Council is treating it like a communicable disease.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

Bills introduced in the DC Council yesterday include one letting new or empty buildings ask DDOT to make future residents ineligible for RPP stickers

That's just stupid. What is will lead to is that the prices of places that have the right to RPP stickers will go up, while the prices for places that don't will go down. On the streets, nothing will change. People without RPP stickers will still park.

Legislation to alleviate unsubstantiated concerns are usually bullshit and poorly designed.

@ andrew:I'd blame bad QC rather than the one guy who had to churn out hundreds of these things, and slipped up a handful of times. (It's also probably cheaper to skimp on the QC, and correct any problems that arise on an ad-hoc basis)

It is interesting to note that 1/3 of Washingtonians is functionally illiterate.

Leave signs on Maryland roads, face big fines.

Since when is $25 is big fine? If you wanna make those companies stop, the fines should start at $250 and be given per removed sign. $25 won't even cover the time to figure out the address of the company.

by Jasper on Oct 5, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Arlington has a similar rule, and it isn't working well.

Why would you say that Arlington's similar rule on RPP isn't working well? Perhaps it depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to reduce NIMBYism, speed the pace of development, and reduce time wasted in length public hearings, I'd say it's working well. If your goal is to ensure maximum utilization of street parking spots, then maybe not.

It's not that burdensome of a rule. Basically, if you want a parking spot along with your condo/apt, make sure you buy or rent one. There simply wouldn't be enough parking otherwise. For example, if all 1600 units at River Place in Rosslyn were allowed to park on the streets, there would be parking mayhem.

What is will lead to is that the prices of places that have the right to RPP stickers will go up, while the prices for places that don't will go down.

The rule is only for buildings that are empty, so the market price for those units hasn't been set yet. Yes, it will increase the value of property for people currently living in the area but it will hopefully reduce NIMBY opposition to development if current residents see greater benefits to themselves for development.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

It's not that burdensome of a rule. Basically, if you want a parking spot along with your condo/apt, make sure you buy or rent one. There simply wouldn't be enough parking otherwise. For example, if all 1600 units at River Place in Rosslyn were allowed to park on the streets, there would be parking mayhem.

The question in DC is why single family residents should have the right to buy RPPs while apartment/condo residents should not, which is what this rule sets up. It protects parking "rights" for residents of houses by potentially barring apartments dwellers from having access to the same nearly free parking as house dwellers.

by ah on Oct 5, 2011 10:27 am • link • report

@Falls Church

It's not about maximizing the use of on-street spaces, but about parking policy overall. If you deny the ability for new apartment dwellers to get RPP stickers, surely this will only increase the market demand for expensive off-street spaces, yes? Is that a desirable long-term policy outcome?

So, there are policy questions here.

There's also the fairness question. Curb space is public space, is it not? Except this policy makes is more public for some, less public for others.

You write: It's not that burdensome of a rule. Basically, if you want a parking spot along with your condo/apt, make sure you buy or rent one.

I'd agree that it's not burdensome if it applied equally to all residents. But it does not. Why shouldn't that apply to single family home dwellers as well? If you want a parking spot along with your house or rowhouse, be sure to buy or rent one.

by Alex B. on Oct 5, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

if all 1600 units at River Place in Rosslyn were allowed to park on the streets, there would be parking mayhem.

It does bring up enforcement issues. I realize that when one registers a car, all the registrar has to do is check the address against a list of disallowed addresses for a RPP. But look at from the residents' point of view: all a dishonest condo resident need to do is use a friendly neighbor's address (who could be partly paid off) when that resident registers his/her car. Presto! nearly free on-street parking and no need to rent a costly parking space.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

What is will lead to is that the prices of places that have the right to RPP stickers will go up, while the prices for places that don't will go down.

This phenomenon is well-known in economics, where they call it "the free market". Under the free market, people who want something pay for it, and people who don't do not. It's surprisingly efficient at allocating resources.

On the streets, nothing will change. People without RPP stickers will still park.

And presumably they'll get tickets for doing so. Say what you will about the District government, but it can sure write parking tickets.

by cminus on Oct 5, 2011 10:46 am • link • report

Of course all 1600 units at River Place CAN park in the street; they can't park in streets designeated RPP.

Luckily for them, there aren't any RPP streets near them. In fact, there aren't any places to park nearyby at all that aren't metered.

by charlie on Oct 5, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

The question in DC is why single family residents should have the right to buy RPPs while apartment/condo residents should not

My understanding is that it has little to do with single family vs. apt/condo and more to do with existing residences vs. new (i.e., the rule only seems to apply to new or completely empty buildings). The reason to favor existing residents is that it's only fair since they moved to their home with a certain set of expectations and it would be unfair to change the rules on them.

If you deny the ability for new apartment dwellers to get RPP stickers, surely this will only increase the market demand for expensive off-street spaces,

True but if you increase the price of parking, wouldn't you reduce demand?

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 10:57 am • link • report

@Falls Church

My understanding is that it has little to do with single family vs. apt/condo and more to do with existing residences vs. new (i.e., the rule only seems to apply to new or completely empty buildings). The reason to favor existing residents is that it's only fair since they moved to their home with a certain set of expectations and it would be unfair to change the rules on them.

I'd say that your understanding might be technically correct, but wrong in practice. The vast majority of RPP streets are in single-family areas (either rowhouses or detached houses). There's a valid goal of not wanting commuters to park on the street to ride metro (as an example), but when this pits residents vs. residents, something's gone wrong.

And I disagree with the notion of expectations. There is no legal expectation that on-street parking will be cheap and plentiful for residents.

True but if you increase the price of parking, wouldn't you reduce demand?

For some, yes.

I'd have little problem with limiting the ability for apartment dwellers to get RPP stickers if the RPP stickers were actually priced to the market (which would really defeat the purpose of that distinction amongst residents in the first place) - but they are not. They are massively subsidized.

If you want to assert that residents have a right to park on the street, that's fine - but they do not have the right to do so for free or for any less than the market value of that scarce resource.

by Alex B. on Oct 5, 2011 11:12 am • link • report

RPP: is a privilege (not a right) that flows from residents' local tax obligations. Since commuters are not obliged to pay local taxes, they don't get one.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

There's also the fairness question. Curb space is public space, is it not? Except this policy makes is more public for some, less public for others.

There are other examples where access to public space is restricted. Otherwise you end up with the tragedy of the commons.

all a dishonest condo resident need to do is use a friendly neighbor's address (who could be partly paid off) when that resident registers his/her car. Presto! nearly free on-street parking and no need to rent a costly parking space.

I haven't heard that being a problem in Arlington. Maybe people in DC are more dishonest or the incentive for dishonesty is greater. That said, what you stated is also true for other things like the homestead deduction.

Of course all 1600 units at River Place CAN park in the street; they can't park in streets designeated RPP.

Luckily for them, there aren't any RPP streets near them. In fact, there aren't any places to park nearyby at all that aren't metered.

There are non-metered, RPP spaces near River Place in Radnor Heights and on the road in front of Iwo Jima. Those spots can be less than a 5 min walk from River Place.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

How does the proposed new rule for RPPs treat in-fill single family houses? I realize that the chances of in-fill single family houses are almost nil, but I'm troubled by the idea that we are setting up a distinction between single family and multi-family dwellers.

I've heard people complain in my neighborhood about visitors to condo buildings are preventing "traditional row house owners from being able to park on their block." People really seem to think they are entitled to that spot in front of their house. I'm a little concerned this would increase that sense of entitlement.

I also wonder where the line is with neighborhood amenities. Would we say a building could be built, but no children in it could go to existing schools? Or what preventing new residents for using CaBi so old residents don't have to fight for bikes?

If we need to limit RPPs, I'd rather do so in a away that doesn't create two classes or residents.

by Kate W. on Oct 5, 2011 11:36 am • link • report

There are other examples where access to public space is restricted. Otherwise you end up with the tragedy of the commons.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a restriction (the permit), I'm opposed to how that permit is being administered. Big difference.

by Alex B. on Oct 5, 2011 11:40 am • link • report

The vast majority of RPP streets are in single-family areas (either rowhouses or detached houses).

So for these vast majority of areas, the rule would have no impact, right? The proposed rule seems to be applicable only to newly constructed/gut renovated large buildings.

And I disagree with the notion of expectations. There is no legal expectation that on-street parking will be cheap and plentiful for residents.

I agree, hence the reason that new residents in newly constructed large buildings should not have an expectation of an RPP. As for existing residents, this rule is not guaranteeing them cheap RPP fees or plentiful parking. All its doing is encouraging new developments to be located in walkable, transit friendly areas by essentially penalizing new residents who are car owners.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 11:43 am • link • report

the chances of in-fill single family houses are almost nil, but I'm troubled by the idea that we are setting up a distinction between single family and multi-family dwellers.
To the contrary: in-fill single family houses are all over DC, and are being built all the time. Also what is left unclear is the tear-down and/or gut rehab. Developers and contractors often buy run-down houses and redo them; are the buyers of these properties not allowed to get a RPP? If so, why are residents of new condo buildings not allowed to?

This law stinks, and I will work to oppose it.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

How does the proposed new rule for RPPs treat in-fill single family houses?

In Arlington, in-fill SFHs and small apartment/condo buildings are exempt from the rule. The rule only applies to large buildings. If the same is not true about DC's proposed rule, then I would have second thoughts.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 11:53 am • link • report

The reason to favor existing residents is that it's only fair since they moved to their home with a certain set of expectations and it would be unfair to change the rules on them.

Does the right to the RPP travel with the resident, or the property? I gather the property - so if this is enacted, and 5 years from now, the SFH-owner moves, the new resident will be able to get a RPP, but the condo-dweller who has been there for 5 years still can't get a RPP. That strikes me as ridiculous.

The only reasonable expectation that existing residents could have is that they can purchase a RPP and park on the street if there is room. Nothing about that has changed. Any expectation that street parking will be easy and convenient and available - in perpituity - is delusional, and DC shouldn't perpetuate it.

I'm a little concerned this would increase that sense of entitlement.

It not only will increase it, it caters to it.

by dcd on Oct 5, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

This law stinks, and I will work to oppose it.

While it's very generous of you to be so concerned about the interests of developers building additional housing, just remember that they probably care little about your interests.

You may think that you're actually protecting the interests of future residents, not just the developers, but that's not true. Future residents won't have to pay as much for new developments that don't allow RPP, so it all evens out for them. The winners from opposition to this law are the developers.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

I gather the property - so if this is enacted, and 5 years from now, the SFH-owner moves, the new resident will be able to get a RPP, but the condo-dweller who has been there for 5 years still can't get a RPP

Yes, but the condo dweller who bought a unit after the rule was enacted paid less for his/her condo than he would have otherwise, so it all evens out for him.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

If we need to limit RPPs, I'd rather do so in a away that doesn't create two classes or residents.

We're not creating two classes of residents. We're creating two classes of properties. Any resident (existing or future) who moves into a home that is RPP eligible can get an RPP.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

@Falls Church: Government is about applying laws fairly.

My interest here is the equitable and proper way for the government to administer a program for DC residents. If the point of RPP is that it is parking convenience afforded to DC residents because they pay DC taxes, then it should be available to all residents at equal cost. Period.

If on the other hand, the point is to sell parking permits to allocate a scarce resource, then anybody, DC resident or not, that is willing to pay the cost should be able to buy one. Moreover, the holder should be able to sell it if he/she no longer needs it; all the free market tools can be used. If that is the reasoning, then the PPs -- not RPPs because residency has nothing to do with it -- should be auctioned or something similar, and perhaps the spaces could be numbered, such as in a condo parking lot.

I think the latter case this is very unlikely, which means that former situation applies...unless you have a different rationale?

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

We're not creating two classes of residents. We're creating two classes of properties. Any resident (existing or future) who moves into a home that is RPP eligible can get an RPP.

And you haven't yet argued why this is good policy or why it is fair.

by Alex B. on Oct 5, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

@Goldfish

The auction format would be most efficient but unlikely.

If the point of RPP is that it is parking convenience afforded to DC residents because they pay DC taxes

First, I would not say that RPP is a convenience that has anything to do with paying DC taxes. As a DC landlord, I pay DC property taxes but have no RPP rights. On the other hand, many low income people pay no DC income taxes but have RPP rights.

The right of parking is something that conveys with a property, not assigned to a person. Let's say in a neighborhood of rowhouses, each rowhouse is on a 1/12 acre plot. While I believe that rowhouses can get an unlimited number of permits under the current system (not sure if that's correct), the current system is designed with the assumption that for each 1/12 acre, there will be on average 1-2 RPPs issued (not sure of the actual avg but you get my point -- some avg number like that exists). Now, let's say a developer comes in and builds a high rise on that the footprint of 6 rowhouses. Now instead of 6-12 RPPs assigned to that piece of land, you might end up with 50 RPPs assigned to that same piece of land. Essentially, the RPP rights of that land have increased (I realize that technically that's not the case if a given piece of land has unlimited RPP rights under the current system).

What this rule would do is essentially stop a developer from taking a piece of land with X number of RPPs (on average) and creating a situation where that land now has many more RPPs assigned to it, diluting the value of every existing RPP held by every other resident.

So, one might argue, okay, let's not allow the developer to have 50 RPPs assigned to that land but what about the original 6-12 that were assigned before the development?

I think the ideal system would allocate a certain number of RPPs per piece of land and that ratio would remain regardless of how dense a development you eventually created on that land. Short of that, the easier-to-implement system is just to say that any new high density buildings won't get RPPs.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report

We're not creating two classes of residents. We're creating two classes of properties. Any resident (existing or future) who moves into a home that is RPP eligible can get an RPP.

And you haven't yet argued why this is good policy or why it is fair.

It is fair because it's a win-win. Developers get to develop land into higher densities (and see a nice payday) and residents get a slight increase in the value of their existing RPPs because some RPPs are taken out of the system (assuming the land being developed had RPP rights pre-development that will be taken away). Even if existing residents don't benefit, at least they won't lose out from the development (which would happen if there were significant more RPPs issues, diluting the value of existing RPPs).

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

It is interesting that DDOT is quick to replace signs with typos, yet can't seem to replace the many outdated signs throughout the city. Signs that direct people to the old convention center, or the "MCI Center" or the "Starplex."

While they're at it, how about taking down every single sign directing people to a hospital that is not actually NEAR the hospital. If anyone from out of town tried to actually get to Children's Hospital by following the signs, their kid would be to old for a pediatrician by the time they got there.

by seaster on Oct 5, 2011 1:22 pm • link • report

@Falls Church: As a DC landlord, I pay DC property taxes but have no RPP rights.
You are in a business; your tenants pay you rent, part of which you use to pay DC taxes. If you had no tenants you would not be able to pay the taxes -- unless you get a subsidy from somewhere outside of your business.

I presume that you do not vote in DC elections, and that you do not serve on a DC jury. The RPP works the same way.

I repeat my point that RPP is a privilege, not a right. You seem to view it property, which does indeed have rights. Your opinion that RPPs should be auctioned confirms this. But at this time this is not the situation.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report

@ cminus:This phenomenon is well-known in economics, where they call it "the free market". Under the free market, people who want something pay for it, and people who don't do not. It's surprisingly efficient at allocating resources.

Yes, but the bill was not proposed to fix the free market. It was proposed to address "concerns" about overflow parking. My point was that all the law will do is affect property prices, not perceived parking issues.

@ goldfish:Since commuters are not obliged to pay local taxes, they don't get one.

Plenty have one due to all kinds of loopholes.

by Jasper on Oct 5, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

This is control and not democracy! All residents, house or condo, in an area should be able to buy an RPP sticker. Don't descriminate! If there is not enough street parking then some will be renting parking spaces to meet their needs. Those that use public transporation won't need the RPP sticker and that is their CHOICE. The purpose of the RPP was to give residents who return from work or errands a place to park instead of MD and VA drivers who filled up all the spaces and stayed there all day or all night blocking out local residents. DC is encouraging more residents to move into the city and this law is doing the opposite. This is not encouraging public transporation but manipulating and controling new residents. We want your taxes but not your cars.

by Mary on Oct 6, 2011 8:40 am • link • report

So should I be concerned that two comments criticizing Matt Yglesias were deleted without comment from the owner of this blog? Or is it just par for the course?

by Jazzy on Oct 6, 2011 9:03 am • link • report

@Jazzy

Try bullet #2 under the comment policy.

by MLD on Oct 6, 2011 9:11 am • link • report