Hacker News Reader

Comment by unethical_ban | Hacker News Reader

Who gives a damn if the city "loses money" on parking?

I had to delete a few versions of this comment because I got dizzy with anger.

What is wrong with people thinking government should make net profit on fees from every individual service?

Perhaps transit and parking charge nominal fees to ensure the users of said services aren't abusing a limited resource. But the cost of operating city services should ultimately come from taxes.

A city should not have the profit expectations of a publicly traded company.

View on HN

It is a tax, on parking.

Because if it loses money, I, a taxpayer that does not drive is paying for you to park your car. No thanks.

I see. You don't think taxes should go to anything you don't directly use. A libertarian.

I would argue that subsidizing driving is a net negative for the city. Cheaper parking means more cars. This means more traffic and more pollution. Normally subsidies funded by tax dollars are for net positives. A fire department existing in the city is a net benefit, even if I don't personally have a house fire.

I get that perspective, though I am a bit more cynical about the ability of cities to transform. It's either cars or nothing, it's have decent parking availability downtown or let the city center die, in many places. Buses are shit, and light rail won't catch on until after the Collapse in most places.

A metered world where you only pay for what you use.

And presumably denied access to anything you don't pay for.

There's more than one sci-fi story including that premise

Realistically, the tax payer that doesn’t drive in Chicago is likely a fiscal drain. Which is ok, but it’s silly to pretend that folks who drive are being subsidized by folks who don’t, outside of maybe a small number of upper income taxpayers in NYC.

Tons of tax payers who don't drive are young single people who are almost always fiscal positives because they don't use many services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com