Better... for who? I don't know if it's better for either business or society, but it's better for me because I walk to the grocery store and never take my car. If the price of parking is unbundled from the price of food, then I don't have to pay for something I'm not using.
There's no free lunch either way here.
It's somewhat amazing how entitled many car drivers feel to be able to use up space and not having to pay rent for it.
I don't think urban parking makes sense (other than parking in/outside of homes).
You should look up the specific Trader Joe's the article is talking about on google maps. It's smack in the middle of Hollywood, within walking distance of numerous businesses and tourist attractions. Expecting free parking in that neighborhood is completely unreasonable.
The gist is that we use more parking than would be societally optimal because it's “free”, which really just means that non-drivers subsidize drivers. It would be like if every restaurant were expected to be all-you-can-eat: we'd societally consume more food than was optimal.