Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Loading zones would likely eliminate some free street parking and thus no one will do anything about it. Street parking is literally the third rail of NYC politics.

Walk down any street in Greenwich Village and you'll see a plethora of $100k+ cars. We continue to subsidize parking for literal millionaires because Dave in Crown Heights is afraid if we get rid of street parking in Greenwich Village they're going to come for his parking space next and he can't afford paid parking. Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn? Good question...

So we have people who park in the same place without moving for 11 years [1].

[1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-street-bookselle_n_9...

View on HN

NYCHA residents also get parking, as you'll notice if you glance at their vast parking lots, and they do it with taxpayer subsidy.

I'm not defending the vast street parking problem (although you underestimate how many of those cars parked in Greenwich Village are actually not residents there at all but traveling from outer boroughs or LI or NJ). But it's a little bit more nuanced than, rich people with all the cars.

The amount of cars in Manhattan swells considerably during the week due to commuters, for one thing. You can observe the traffic patterns on Google Maps each direction on the FDR, Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, etc.

Maybe resident parking permits should be considered.

>”Dave in Crown Heights is afraid if we get rid of street parking in Greenwich Village they're going to come for his parking space next and he can't afford paid parking. Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn? Good question...”

Sounds like Dave is right to be worried. In the span of one sentence you went from mocking the notion that some people are defending millionaires’ parking because of a slippery slope that would lead to them losing their own parking, to begging the question on why this non-millionaire even needs a car.

Edit: It feels like something along the lines of: “Don’t be crazy, we are not coming after your parking stall. We are coming after your car.”

> Why does Dave need a car at all living in Brooklyn?

This question bugs me quite a bit, mainly because it shouldn't matter why someone needs a parking space; there are many valid reasons that I'm sure you could think of if you spent even a minute thinking about it. If someone does actually need a parking space, there should be some way to have one that takes into consideration scarcity and other market forces so Dave can decide whether it is worth it to live there/continue living there based on his own needs and means. Many cities have systems for this that usually involve permits that need to be paid for and while I'm sure none of them are perfect, it's better than subsidizing spaces or outright banning them. And if the locality decides that there just can't be any parking spaces, so be it, but it should not be because those deciding are completely lacking empathy and are so unimaginative that they can't think of a reason why someone might want something as benign and common as having a car in a city. Driving, parking, private car ownership, etc as a whole and clearly imperfect, but the reality of public transportation, especially outside of cities and in the United States, is abysmal.

Who is the other person who has parked in the same place without moving for 11 years?

who is Dave?

A friend of Alice and Bob.

Don't forget about Charlie before reaching out to Dave. One typically follows the alphabet

Likely a generic name for a resident.

No.

Street parking is figuratively the third rail of nyc politics.

Words and usage change (although I just read of literally being used in the late 18th century to mean figuratively). According to Marriam-Webster, one definition of literally is:

": in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com