Post's Rein knows your dreams: circling for parking

Parking

Post's Rein knows your dreams: circling for parking

by David Alpert • October 20, 2009 4:36 pm

I spoke too soon about the Washington Post moving away from "war on drivers"-style reporting. Today, Lisa Rein and Yamiche Alcindor mar the Metro section with a biased article about Arlington's performance parking proposals that not only inflames suburban-urban divides but gets the policy issues completely wrong as well.

Photo by debaird.

Like Amy Gardner and Sandhya Somashekhar's stereotype-ridden "racquet clubs are paradise, living near stores is blight" story in July, Rein and Alcindor start out with clear assumptions about what kind of living is good and what's bad, and aren't ashamed to show their bias on their sleeves:

It's a renter's dream: a swimming pool, a washer-dryer right in the apartment and a 24-hour Giant across the street. And at the foot of Wildwood Towers, a high-rise building off Columbia Pike in Arlington County, a glorious, free parking space.

Now the Post claims to know your dreams? I think a lot of people think a renter's dream is to live within walking distance of work, or right near a Metro station (or both). Not to knock Wildwood Towers, but it's in a fairly car-dependent area with a lot of big box buildings and huge parking lots. Most of the stores around Bailey's Crossroads aren't walkable from there. If that's your dream, great, more power to you, but it's far from the typical renter's dream.

Rein, Alcindor, and their editors seem to think nothing of pushing a clear bias right from the start. You wouldn't see that in other policy areas. The Post did not start today's front-page story on Deeds with "It's a voter's dream: A conservative candidate leading in the polls despite President Obama's support for the other guy." That might be a Republican voter's dream, but the Post would never dream of asserting it's everyone's dream.

Rein and Alcindor go on to exhibit a primary sign of windshield perspective: assuming that "you" are a driver. They write, "When you do park, you'll pay what the market will bear." Too many articles introduce an issue with language like, "Your commute may get longer with the construction on I-95." That's totally true, if you are a driver. But not every reader of the Washington Post is an auto commuter. A large percentage of people in our region commute in other ways. Assuming that "you" only drive is like assuming every Virginian voter is a Republican.

Besides looking at this issue through a very thick windshield, Rein and Alcindor then go on to get the policy issues entirely wrong. Start with the "dream" parking space at Wildwood Towers. They write, "The amenity that makes residents swoon is likely to disappear soon, though—along with thousands of parking spaces in office buildings and shopping districts across the county." But this is completely false. Under Arlington's plan, no buildings will have to give up their parking spaces. No existing private lots will suddenly go up in price. Large, private lots surround Wildwood, and Arlington's proposal would not touch that. It's as if Rein wrote that under Obama's health care plan, government squads would come to your door and infect you with H1N1. It's not just wrong, it's comically wrong.

Fact-free, inflammatory assertions thickly fill the first few paragraphs:

The goal of today's planners and politicians is maximum inconvenience for drivers. The District is pulling up parking lots and putting in expensive meters to get drivers out of their cars and onto a train, bus, bike or their feet. Montgomery and Fairfax counties are thinking along similar lines, considering changes to codes to reduce the number of parking spaces builders have to include.

The only correct sentence is the last one. Montgomery and Fairfax are indeed considering reducing requirements. But reducing requirements isn't the same as banning parking or "pulling up parking lots" to create "maximum inconvenience for drivers." Reducing parking minimums only avoids debacles like the DC USA garage, which Paul Schwartzman just covered earlier this month in the same pages. Rein, on the other hand, uses scare quotes around words like "underparked" (where she really means "overparked") as if developments with unnecessary, expensive parking were just some planner fiction instead of a reality of many developments in jurisdictions with inappropriate minimums.

The insanity goes on and on. When introducing performance parking (scare quoted, of course), Rein and Alcindor write, "If it cost $100 a day to park in Friendship Heights (a hypothetical price), drivers might reconsider." If it cost $100 a day to read the Washington Post, people might not do it, either. So? Nobody has ever proposed prices anywhere near $100 a day for any parking. Even market rate garages in downtown DC cost about $15 a day.

"Market rate" doesn't necessarily mean "really freakishly high rate." Most of the time, it doesn't mean that at all. But Rein and Alcindor seem to react to the concept of a "market rate" and assume that it means major pain. In fact, a market rate at many locations is lower than the current rate. We've written about many examples in the past.

Market rate pricing also increases driver convenience, rather than creating "maximum inconvenience." If it's too hard to find a space, a driver won't go somewhere. The 85% occupancy target of performance parking isn't an attempt to force people out of cars, but to provide a real choice between actually finding a space (for a fair price) and transit, rather than no choice because there are no spaces.

Arlington is going to base their policy on actual data. They'll measure real parking usage and set policies appropriately. Rein and Alcindor, on the other hand, simply go off the deep end because someone said the word "market" or "reducing" in the same sentence as parking, and because the narrative about governments waging war on "you" drivers is good for a rise if completely ridiculous. The Post Metro section should hold its reporting to a higher standard.

33 comments

Tags: Arlington, parking minimums, performance parking, press, Virginia, windshield perspective

Arlington plans performance parking pilot, other progressive parking policies (Sep 30, 2009)
Talk about choice and freedom for parking policy, not "jacking up" and controlling (Jul 23, 2009)
Underpriced Metro parking doesn't justify more parking (Sep 9, 2010)
Georgetown Post Office shows need for performance parking (Dec 8, 2010)
The worst mainstream local articles of 2009 (Jan 6, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I read this article this morning and was so upset by the slant. I have been waiting all day to read GGW's response.

by David Uhl on Oct 20, 2009 4:57 pm • link • report

@ArlingtonVA on Twitter says: Washington Post today got Arlington's proposed parking policy all wrong. For the real story, visit the County's website. http://bit.ly/2khCs0

by BeyondDC on Oct 20, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report

So funny how different people react to the same article. I raised my eyebrows. David A writes a good articles.

By the way, since when does anybody in America oppose letting the free market doing its work? Since when is market pricing bad? I love how some folks - often republicans - suddenly go communist when they have to pay for something. "No no, the government must provide that for free!", they suddenly argue. Why is it, that roads are supposed to be "free", while transit problems never are "cost efficient"?

Remember when Sarah Palin got Sean Hannity all about Alaska owning all natural resources and paying its citizens money when they sell something? It's a fine system, but *the state owning everything* is not a free market. It is so communist, even Russia doesn't do it anymore.

by Jasper on Oct 20, 2009 5:08 pm • link • report

@Jasper

You're not saying the Washington Post is Republican, are you?

I think, given the typical slant of the post that they would be against markets.

Please don't use Sarah Palin as an example of anything.

@David
As far as dreams go, Baileys Crossroads is not my cup of tea but there seems to be a lot of people who live there. As a proponent of markets, you should know that anything can be more or less desirable depending on the price.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2009 5:27 pm • link • report

Very fine deconstruction of the Post article. Arlington County is the most civilized jurisdiction around here and is certainly not either as short sighted or draconian about parking as the Post article wanted to pretend.

by slangwhanger-in-chief on Oct 20, 2009 5:58 pm • link • report

but *the state owning everything* is not a free market. It is so communist, even Russia doesn't do it anymore.

Except for all the gas and oil.

by цarьchitect on Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm • link • report

I am worried about Arlington's parking policy and I live here. Not long ago Arlington printed maps highlighting where one can park for free in municipal garages. Now policy is feeling more like a money grab and punishment than an effort to make life easy for residents. Arlington is a victim of its success -- there are more people here who want to drive, but we don't have the density or the public transportation structure to support true car-less living. Even in DC living without a car is a small world. In Arlington, you can't easily get between the "urban villages" by bus unless you are very patient.

by Michael on Oct 20, 2009 6:38 pm • link • report

I agree 100%. I read articles like that and then I sneer when newspapermen start crying about how they are the only "real" journalists and bloggers are just spewing out a bunch of trash.

by Omari on Oct 20, 2009 6:54 pm • link • report

DCUrban Turf passed on the shoddy WaPo reporting, but fortunately a commenter linked to your good response (I also commented).

by Lauren on Oct 20, 2009 7:09 pm • link • report

DCUrban Turf passed on the shoddy WaPo reporting, but fortunately a commenter linked to your good response (I also commented).

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/parking_disappearing_in_the_region/1427/

by Lauren on Oct 20, 2009 7:09 pm • link • report

With shoddy reporting like this, why should I be upset that the Post and other newspapers may go out of business soon?

by mark on Oct 20, 2009 7:17 pm • link • report

Great article. Fairfax County actually RAISED their residential parking minimums a couple years ago. No imminent worries about "underparking" here.

by Douglas Stewart on Oct 20, 2009 7:54 pm • link • report

The Post is losing money hand over fist and still prints lifestyle trash like this. As to the canard that it's a liberal paper, just read the op-ed pages or the coverage of health care reform.

by Rich on Oct 20, 2009 8:26 pm • link • report

@ Tom: I am saying that many people are hypocritically claiming they believe in certain principles, just as long as the principles come out in their favor. Very few people have the guts to stand by their principles when they turn against them. Oh, and hypocrisy is very bipartisan.

@ Ñ†arÑŒchitect: Gazprom is a private company that anybody can buy stocks from. It so happens to be that the Russian government holds a controlling stake in the company. Case and point is that even Russia privatized their oil and gas production.

It is beyond my point that when the company started to behave too independently (as in: like a private company only caring about its own profits), the Russian president (Putin) clawed back a controlling share of the company's shares, and started denying foreign companies permits. Alaska isn't even to the point of pretending to privatize their natural resources. It operates more like Venezuela than like a free market economy.

BTW: I am trying very hard not to voice an opinion here on the situation. There are very good arguments in favor and against a state owning its natural resources.

by Jasper on Oct 20, 2009 8:45 pm • link • report

Jasper... I should know better than troll for wonkiness on this blog. Yes, it's not literal state ownership. That said, Putin's dissertation is all about pushing and bribing private companies into acting in the State's interest.

by цarьchitect on Oct 20, 2009 9:30 pm • link • report

@ Ñ†arÑŒchitect: :-D

by Jasper on Oct 20, 2009 10:26 pm • link • report

@ Ñ†arÑŒchitect: :-D

Putin's dissertation is all about pushing and bribing private companies into acting in the State's interest.

whereas in the United States we have private companies pushing and bribing the government into acting in the companies' interest.

Hmmmm. Both don't really sound like democracy as it was intended...

by Jasper on Oct 20, 2009 10:28 pm • link • report

"But taking public transit to work would be inconvenient for Sarah Brodfuehrer, 25, a Fairfax teacher who, with her roommate, searched for four months for a building that had a spot for her Toyota Corolla. 'If they started charging, it would certainly make me consider moving,' she said. 'Parking can add hundreds of dollars to your rent.'"

(a) Parking already IS factored into the rent, such that the other tenants without cars are subsidizing Sarah's space.

(b) 4 months of searching to find a building with a parking space? really? really?

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2009 8:35 am • link • report

David, excellent critique. The Post ends its streak of decent transportation/planning reporting on this one. Just awful.

by Cavan on Oct 21, 2009 9:21 am • link • report

It's Chinese Democracy?

by цarьchitect on Oct 21, 2009 9:24 am • link • report

I agree with David's critique of the article but... I do happen to dream of off-street parking.

by Ward 1 Guy on Oct 21, 2009 11:33 am • link • report

(c) How about living in Fairfax, Sarah, where your job is?

When people fail to hop on board to your utopian vision of everyone using mass transit, the easiest solution is to simply tell people how and where to live their lives.

by MPC on Oct 21, 2009 11:53 am • link • report

When people fail to hop on board to your utopian vision of everyone using mass transit, the easiest solution is to simply tell people how and where to live their lives.

When smart growth advocates point out that planning shouldn't be driven by a requirement to sustain unsustainable lifestyles, they are accused of telling people how to live their lives. People are free, and will always be free, to live as unsustainably as they like.

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report

@Rich:
The Post hasn't been a liberal paper in years. The current owners are pretty conservative and while the paper is clearly to the left of The Washington Times most of the editorials and the slant of many of the news articles are still right of center.

by Jacob on Oct 21, 2009 4:26 pm • link • report

Ken,

What if the teacher's roommate works in DC or Arlington? Would you prefer they have gotten an apartment in Fairfax and both joined the many others commuting west to east?

The teacher is commuting east to west and reverse commuting is still much, much quicker than west to east. Her roommate might take mass transit to a job in DC or Arlington. If they lived in Fairfax that friend might drive to work.

She's a 25 year old teacher. She can't afford her own place in Fairfax.

by maw on Oct 21, 2009 5:09 pm • link • report

maw,

Excellent points. An unsustainable lifestyle is always bound up in systemic blind spots that the smart growth community is working to bring to light. Here are the questions I would ask:

(a) How much does Sarah pay for a car, insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc? Would that enable her to live closer to her work in Fairfax?

(b) The Fairfax school system provides free parking to teachers. That's expensive real estate. Do they provide an equivalent monetary benefit to teachers who don't drive to work? Would that, combined with the savings of being car-free, enable her to live on a bus line that goes to work?

It's not about telling people how to live. Rather, it's about not saddling public policy with the premise, for example, that 25 year old teachers will never be able to afford to live in the school system where they work.

Ken

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2009 5:45 pm • link • report

When I attended Fairfax County Public Schools, none of my teachers could afford to live in the area where they worked, mostly due to the fact that higher-paid government workers and related contractors price-out lower-salaried teachers.

by MPC on Oct 21, 2009 6:16 pm • link • report

MPC - Actually, the people who seem to be foisting their "utopian vision" on others are the authors of the WP article about the "renter's dream," along with those who continue to support regulations that require new housing developments to include acres of parking, whether the developers or occupants want it or not.

It's a little silly to debate whether Sarah can afford to live in Fairfax. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. (And perhaps one way to make living in Fairfax more affordable would be to avoid imposing onerous parking requirements for new developments, which make new housing more expensive.) She chose to live in Wildwood Towers, and although the WP article suggests otherwise, the proposals in question wouldn't take away Sarah's parking.

by Paul Product on Oct 21, 2009 6:37 pm • link • report

I'm amazed that in 2009 people still assume you drive everywhere. I had a job interview the other day, and took public transit to get there. The interviewer asked "Did you have trouble parking?" Luckily, I could respond, Nope, No trouble at all!"

by Tom A. on Oct 22, 2009 10:15 am • link • report

Arlington and Parking - there is a love hate relationship there if ever you saw one. Ballston Common opened on a good note had plenty of trendy and upscale stores and was hanging it's future success on a client base who could afford to shop there frequently. Two misfires occurred shortly thereafter. ONE - the retention of as many units as possible in low income housing near Pershing Drive prevented the planned on influx of Yuppies to shop there, and TWO when pay parking at Ballston Common was instituted the well heeled ladies of Arlington took it as an insult and drove out to Tysons Corner. The county's theory about the pay parking was that they need the income to offset the tax benefits given the developer. Then the mall developer bought a difficult to move house from a county official - enabling him to move to new diggs and eventually sold the property in question at a loss. Mysterious and smokey but I do not recall any indictments being made. I have two messages here - parking and developers make a bad mix with county governments - and past decisions have not proven to have been all that wise after all. Note to the policy makers - please go slow and honest and keep Arlington very friendly as a destination - we need those meal taxes and tourist and visitor dollars.

by John Dorsey on Oct 28, 2009 7:25 pm • link • report

I like public transit as much as anyone but after reading that Post article and the accompanying comments, methinks a lot of this hand-wringing about parking is ultimately going to be whistling in the wind. Point blank, people like cars and being dependent on them. Rightly or wrongly they're associated with freedom, choice and convenience of movement. Most people live in the suburbs for this reason and even with urban areas in the U.S. growing and regenerating economically over the past 10-20 years that won't fundamentally change.

by Mike O. on Nov 1, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report

Mike O,

I think you are correct. But how much of the investment of feelings of freedom, choice and convenience into cars is generational? I know that plenty of young people are in the suburbs, but is it possible that this is only because city-living became much less attractive thanks to car-driven planning and not because younger generations viscerally identify as much with their cars?

Ken

by Ken Archer on Nov 1, 2009 2:31 pm • link • report

Hello Ken & Mike O:
Age gives me claim to the long view. We have gone from the people and bike unfriendly 1950's with no sidewalks and little curb and gutter. Few parents made their children independently mobile via car. The 1960's all same except used VW and other near micros and 25 to 40 cent gas made nearly all mobile. Commuter neighborhoods within 8 blocks of Arlington Metro stops are successful ( 1982 ). Clarendon is an impossible visit for natives on the weekend, causing car trips to same stores in less urban settings (2000). In southside Arlington 22206 (2009) is starved for quick bus hook ups and still un-civil enough that walking about in the early or late dark to get somewhere has one putting the "little friend" in a pocket on the way out the door 2009).
It is going to continue to cost a fortune to refit Arlington - originally a summer vacation hideaway for government workers, into a true urban experience. Falls Church will be similar, McLean, Fairfax, Centreville (the place with no center..) and all else outlying will cost untold fortunes to retro fit. Little electric cars with short range, small parking footprint, in a county commuter lot are going to be in the mix. (Shrinks will make a fortune helping the Lexus, Mercedes, Audi crowd find another way to impress one another in the context of a 6 foot long car...)
The younger of you have gravitated towards urban, bicycle, hike, metro - if the work is already done - Ballston, Clarendon, Courthouse. Retro Example : Rosslyn - AGAIN AN ARLINGTON COUNTY GOTTA HAVE FROM 1970 is largely a failure and just now getting torn down and made into a business - residential mix.
We have continued to make huge mistakes when our county boards are populated by lobbyists and developers are in charge. Look at Crystal City - spawn of Pomponio Brothers - now being partly torn down to provide balance.
SO - careful how you throw around the term GENERATIONAL we are driven by our economic parameters and current knowledge - not some mysterious change / improvement, in breeding genetic code. All of you would have made the same "bads" given the same stuff to work with. Now get your shoulder to the wheel to help us fix this street, this place, this county, this country, this world, before it uses us all up.
John Dorsey

by John Dorsey on Nov 2, 2009 6:18 am • link • report