A parking space + aisles is basically the size of a microapartment.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/0...
Suppose there is enough on-street parking for other non-residential uses. You don't want these spaces being constantly used by car owners who are living in apartment complexes that aren't meant for them. As a local government, you have to play the game of not letting them park using parking restrictions while potentially also managing by-laws that allow residents to get parking permits that let them bypass some restrictions.
This doesn't really apply in high-density urban areas, but I could see it being tricky to manage in growing areas.
(Although, I guess from a non car-owner's point of view you wouldn't care about whether other drivers are being inconvenienced by a lack of parking, because the knock-on effects wouldn't affect you.)
It's just as bonkers for a city to shut out everyone who can't use transit.
When the government forces all developers to build parking, and provides free or severely underpriced parking on streets, it lowers the market value of off-street parking. Developers are forced to price-in parking development and maintenance.
Developers will still build parking where residents need parking. If they didn't, they would have trouble selling/renting their property. There is no need to force them. In cities around the world, we still find private parking in absence of parking minimums.
I'm fine with landlords offering parking as a perk of rent - but the next landlord can offer an apartment to those who don't need/want a parking spot at a discount (how much discount is an open question). The law doesn't all the market to decide.
A lot of places do this, where they charge a few thousand a year to park on the street.
A lot of people don't need parking. And we are forcing them to pay for it. That's bad policy. My old condo had like $80,000 worth of parking attached to it with two spaces. I only needed one of the space.
If you need a parking spot, you should make sure you rent an apartment that has one.
Having a law that each unit has parking just increases rent and traffic.
How do you enforce that?
Sorry I'm not sure I follow?
By preallocating a parking spot for each occupant you prevent this problem.
Just because the person did not think they needed a car when moving into the home does not mean they will never want to get a car.
perhaps a better solution is to make each residence come with a parking spot - that is essentially owned by the resident. Then if they do not need it they could rent it out until which time they do need it (if ever).
I'm not sure where you've lived but I've never seen this happen? I live in the US. I've seen multiple ways to prevent this.
People who don't have a parking spot shouldn't have access to the parking lot.
Even if you do have access you have to register your car, and any cars that were not registered will get a warning then either a ticket or towed.
Another solution is to just have assigned parking.
Parking on the street is fine if that's legal? I don't see the issue with that.
> perhaps a better solution is to make each residence come with a parking spot - that is essentially owned by the resident. Then if they do not need it they could rent it out until which time they do need it (if ever).
This creates incentives to get a car though. You have to do more work to not drive and it's possible you can't find a "tenant" for the parking spot.
If it's worth it to have parking I'd gladly pay for it. For the moment I'm renting it out just below my costs because this next generation of renters aren't even bothering to drive much less park. So there is more capacity than need.