Sno - I didn't know that we were going to go into such fine detail. I would have typed a few pages myself if I knew you were going to get into the nitty-gritty. Surely you'll understand that my stub of a post should not be misconstrued as a complete policy platform.
snoqueen wrote:As long as people can drive on public streets with nothing more than a driver's license and a registration on their car, they should generally be able to park with the same freedom. Freedom does not mean "free" any more than the use of other amenities supported by taxes is free. We do not charge people to use a park or beach, but they can do so freely.
Property rights are instituted to allocate the exclusive use of scarce goods. The more scarce a good, the more important it is to apply property rights to allocate that good on an exclusive basis. This principle is broadly applicable and really is that simple. If beaches and parks became so in-demand that exclusion were necessary (i.e. the entire surface of the beach were covered with beach blankets, with no additional room), then property rights could be implemented to deal with this situation. As it stands, these situations rarely arise because thankfully we have enough beaches and park space. Unlike beaches and parks, we do not have enough parking spaces in high-demand areas.
snoqueen wrote:--New residential development: some amount of off-street parking per residence or occupant should be (and is, in Madison) mandated. If it stands empty over time it should be converted to another use, and for that reason should be designed at the outset to facilitate conversion.
I pulled this point out because it is exceptionally nearsighted. One does not easily re-convert parking spaces for another use without inducing high costs. It might be easy to imagine converting one off-street spot into a cozy little patio garden, but this type of thinking does not scale. Imagine a 300-unit high-density apartment development that was built with a required 2 parking deck spots per unit. A 600-car parking deck imposes a huge upfront cost to the developer and residents, and would not be trivially easy to later convert to some other purpose - purpose-built parking decks don't lend themselves easily to other uses (and surely you would argue that the conversion itself be regulated by all sorts of zoning, planning, building code, and community input - all adding layers of cost). Another option is for the developer to provide 600 surface spots - terrible land use, and practically impossible in the dense urban environments you surely wish to create.
snoqueen wrote:The idea you can create an auto-free utopia by piling on new expenses is profoundly anti-progressive, same as the flat tax is.
I am happy to be called anti-progressive. In this case though (parking), you are really arguing for the preservation of old, arbitarily-issued rules that have created all of the perversions of modern parking issues.
snoqueen wrote:Some colleges and universities around the country have been afflicted by this libertarian nonsense and sold off their parking areas and buildings to private companies to be run at a profit. The results have been less than satisfactory, and did little or nothing to promote a car-free or public-transit-focused campus or city.
snoqueen wrote:I advocate a balanced approach to gradually help people adjust and prefer that type of living, not simply dreaming up more ways to suck more people's money into corporate pockets without any appreciable improvement in public well-being. Purpose is important. The purpose needs to be greater well-being, not more ways for those with capital to profit.
I would consider this to be a nice distillation of the progressive mindset (let me know if you agree). To me, the idea that "purpose is important" is absurd. Outcomes
are much more important than purpose. And you've merely asserted that there wouldn't be any appreciable improvement in public well-being under a property rights system for parking - I think you are wrong, and the most modern thinking
on this issue agrees with me. Here is a pundit
who most people think of as "progressive" advocating property rights in parking. You are on the wrong side of history on this issue.