>
Paying for parking only works in places where you park temporarily and then move elsewhere, you can't exactly add meters in front of people's homes, unless, I suppose every house had off street parking?Serious question: why not?
I loathe the idea, personally, of yet more rent, but I'm having a tough time refuting the parent comment myself.
You're trying to avoid people using on-street because they didn't build off-street. But even if a minimum build is required, it seems to me that people would still prefer utilizing the on-street parking? As it is free, assuming the landlord charges for off-street, and why wouldn't the landlord charge? (Mine does; that's a $70/mo incentive to park on-street. Our garage is, unsurprisingly, mostly empty.)
(The whole thing seems horridly regressive, given the requirement for transportation; even though I'm technically in a major megalopolis, I cannot cut a car from my life for a variety of reasons which amount to "sufficient services are not accessible by public transit". I prefer public transit, when I can, but I cannot 100% of the time.
Also, sometimes travel, and renting is absurdly expensive.)
(Like, ultimately, the landlord is never going to utilize the build spaces fully if he believes that an increased price will fetch more $ overall, even if some spaces are then unused. Or worse, we get price discrimination, possibly due to information asymmetry in the pricing. Those forced out are probably then using on-street.)