do you have free parking? cities are making money out of parking spots. a lot of money. so much than one would say they have an incentive to reduce parking space to increase price and reduce expenses
They should be making decisions based on how to improve quality of life for residents.
Parking should exist where public transport is not a viable option. Ideally the work to make public transport an option should be prioritised over the work to making parking exist.
Cities and councils can make money from public transport too, it'll work out OK revenue-wise, and quality of life improvements can be considerable.
Why not?
> They should be making decisions based on how to improve quality of life for residents.
Residents can use money to purchase goods and services to improve their quality of life.
> Parking should exist where public transport is not a viable option.
And the market can provide parking at market-prices. (And, cities and councils can perhaps also offer parking at market prices on their properties.)
i live in a city with pollution problem. where can i buy this clean air to improve the quality of my life?
I believe that relying on individual purchasing power ("utility"), to improve the average quality of life is an experiment (often referred to as "Reganism" or "Thatcherism"), that after 40+ years of trialling has shown to be net negative to social mobility, overall net happiness and other factors important to me as a UK middle-class (this isn't the same as what middle-class means in the US), citizen with a significantly-above median income for my age, social background and other predictive factors, as compared to natural experiments in free market economies where such trials did not take place (most of Northern Europe), in the same time frame.
The core problem with free markets being used as a mechanism to settle all societies ills is that theory ignores natural monopolies. You can't have a car parking space and a children's park in the same place: you must make a choice. And if you choose based on economic utility, the outcome with the direct revenue will allow a realised "win" over that which has indirect or non-utility rewards such as "happy, well-adjusted, children who have learned to be nice to each other".
If you believe in the right wing view of economics without taking into account the lack of natural monopolies, you and I are unfortunately going to be so far apart from being able to find common ground we might just be wasting each others' time.
If you do understand the nature of a natural monopoly from a land use to utility company infrastructure, then you'll realise that when you follow the thread that car parking at market prices denies other monopoly uses of that land, that residents can't influence that through purchasing decisions, and that cities and councils would be failing in their duty to provide an equitable and comfortable city/town in which to exist by making decisions about monopoly situations purely based on revenue potential.
They also provide utility. If you remove parking spaces near a children's park less children can/will visit. You need a balance.
You can reach a children's park on foot or by taking public transportation, so ideally there's no need for a parking lot right next to it.
But it's like buying a gym membership across town with the idea that you would walk everyday. You aren't going once winter hits.
Not American but have been young and took transit and walked everywhere but also seen seniors in wheelchairs who stopped going to the park after they stopped allowing cars to park.
My adopted home of Singapore goes a lot harder on private initiative than Thatcher and Reagan ever dreamed off. And thanks to that, and some other factors, they went from third world to first world (or arguably zeroth world) in less than a generation.
> The core problem with free markets being used as a mechanism to settle all societies ills is that theory ignores natural monopolies. You can't have a car parking space and a children's park in the same place: you must make a choice.
You might want to read up on how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
What you are describing here has nothing to do with a 'natural monopoly'.
Funny enough, most places in the US have outrageous mandatory minimum parking space requirements. A free market would most likely provide less street parking. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_mandates and especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking
Revenue means people are willing to pay for something, something they value. So it's not the be-and-end-all for how to run your city, but it's better than many other ways political decisions are made. (And better than whatever political decision procedure leads to mandatory minimum parking requirements, IMHO.)
An entire section of philosophy is built on this question alone, and why there is such a thing as a social contract.
The existence of the towering edifice of Catholic theology doesn't disprove Hinduism. (Nor does it prove Catholicism.)
Do you chew gum when you are at home in Singapore? No, you don't, because it's illegal. Did you agree to that, were even you given a choice? No, of course not.
Singapore is more authoritarian than most liberal democracies. That means you do as your told. That's the social contract. If you disagree with the people in power to loudly, you got to rot in jail. https://www.smh.com.au/world/lee-kuan-yew-a-towering-figure-...
As it happens, Singapore got lucky. The people in charge are good at running a country efficiently. In particular, they didn't line their own pockets too aggressively - certainly not in a way that was out of line with liberal democracies. The Singapore it's an outlier compared to other authoritarian countries. Generally, once politicians eliminate the competition, they use their control to milk the economy for all they are worth.
It's more like a license than a contract.
> Singapore is more authoritarian than most liberal democracies.
The Singaporean government is a smaller part of life than in most other places. Much less red tape to fill out before you are allowed to do anything and regulations are simpler.
Yes, there are some weird regulations about how you can say things. But they affect the form more than the substance. You are pretty much allowed to say whatever you want, just not however you want it.
Yes, Singapore got lucky in that they had (and have) a hardworking population, and competent leadership.
Why do you insist that Singapore is authoritarian? We have free and fair elections, that are regularly observed to be so by international organisations.
I agree that the laws about homosexuality are weird, but they are also democratic: it's broadly in line with what the population wants as far as I can tell.
... although if they were, the price of parking would be way higher. The optimal price for parking is a time-and-day-dependent price set high enough that around 10% of spots everywhere in the city are free at any given time, so that people who need parking can generally find it conveniently nearby to where they're going.
OTOH, if there is always that much space available (and presumably there didn't used to be before the price hikes) then it is evidence that a lot of people have chosen to go elsewhere because parking became too expensive.
Can the location compete with that "elsewhere"? If it is a unique location with unique reasons to visit, probably yes. But if it is the typical old downtown with stores competing with the strip mall with similar stores but free parking, probably not.
I've seen the depressing cycle of multiple vibrant downtown cores become abandoned after parking meters came in. I very much prefer a strong active downtown core even if finding parking is a pain, to one that is mostly all boarded up and abandoned but there's plenty of paid parking.
If after the price increase there are 10% (50) parking spots open, that means at least a 100 people went elsewhere (20%). That's a pretty significant drop in business to the local stores.
And speculation aside, I've seen this happen in two downtowns I frequented. Parking meters were installed, people went elsewhere, the vibrant downtown died and was boarded up and abandoned. And it's not just a transfer of business to a different location, but a loss of cultural significance. Because the old downtown had artists and musicians who no longer have a place at the strip mall. The stores moved, but the culture was lost.
Your math ain't mathing.
That $1 isn’t much, but many believe the Commons can’t compete on that basis and shoppers will avoid the Commons and go to stores on the commercial strip instead, it doesn’t help that the Commons doesn’t have a diversity of shopping, instead it has some gift stores, a legal cannabis dispensary that is just about to reopen after being closed for some reason, numerous head shops, a bookstore, and numerous CBD stores that I think sell real weed in a back room.
It's still a subsidy because they are charging less than the market value of the most valuable possible use.
However here in the UK I'm not sure your point about virtual subsidy quite computes. Most of the free to use parking in valuable areas is street parking outside homes. Seeing as housing costs are just a big sponge that absorbs any surplus productivity, I suspect if people had to rent or buy those parking spaces to use them then you would see a corresponding drop in house prices/rents.