Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProcNetDev | Hacker News Reader

The framing of this story is so weird (and I think meant to trigger conspiracy nuts.)

The story of culdesac is about parking not about banning mobility!

Parking is insanely expensive to build. The only way the city would let them not build parking was for residents to agree to not own cars. (I think this is a clear 14th amendment violation but thats just me.)

Read Henry Garbar's new book for the full story on parking: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174962751/paved-paradise-exa...

View on HN

Wouldn't this self select people who are willing to ditch vehicles.

Shocking that folks selectively willing to live in an area with specific rules are happier living in the area with specific rules they self selected into.

I am all for people being allowed to self select into communities that fit their lifestyles.

Well, yes. It's a sort of inhabitable theme park. “It’s positively European, somewhere between Mykonos and Ibiza,”, per article - it does indeed look like all those holiday photos of Mykonos or Corfu.

To be clear: this is a compliment. I think it's good that people are allowed to have a variety of living environments and try things every now and again.

They ditched personal vehicles. Not owning a car is different than not having mobility. They aren't hermits.

Yeah while I applaud new ideas, and them actually designing for the site, this is basically an apartment complex with no parking. It's not a neighborhood, it's in an existing neighborhood. The addition of some commerce is nice, but this is not some self contained destination.

Tempe, Arizona is not a practical place I'd want to be without a car, due to the high heat.

Not owning a car is different from never riding in a car. That money not spent on parking every month can buy a lot of ride shares.

I can afford about four trips to downtown in an Uber for the annual cost of my car insurance, registration, and parking, but sure

You're well below average if that's true. AAA reports the average annual cost to own a car is around $10,000 - that's all inclusive - purchase, financing, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc.

In my area, an Uber trip from my house to the grocer, my office, or the local school is $10-$15.

> I think this is a clear 14th amendment violation but thats just me.

Care to expand a little? What exactly is a clear violation?

Allowing access to city services (street parking) based on land ownership (or lack there of) seems (to me, a software engineer, not a lawyer) like a violation of the equal protection clause.

I think the relevant case is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_County_Board_v._Rich...

Where the SCOTUS said yeah this is bad but it's okay because we want to encourage non-homeowners to take the bus. This was decided before there was lots of clear research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Allowing homeowners free and easily accessible on street parking encourages more car ownership.

From my understanding, there's nothing saying that Culdesac residents can't park on public street parking, it's just that the development doesn't have any street parking. So that case (which was about restricting access to existing street parking) doesn't seem relevant.

Unless you're claiming that the 14th amendment would require the developer to include street parking? But that seems like quite a stretch.

The residents of culdesac have to sign a lease that states that they are not allowed to park on the streets. This was a condition of the city to allow the zoning variance for culdesac.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com