• Oneser@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    While the fuck cars sentiment is as important as always, planning rules like this have a few goals which aren’t all so malicious, including stopping projects decoupling their parking space and selling it for extra, or avoiding 30+ cars all over the sidewalks once everyone is moved in.

    Planning codes tend to try and anticipate a community’s immediate vicinity needs. The best approach though would be “$x000 per unit to provide and maintain local public transport facilities and routes”

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Japan at least seems to direct this at the car owner instead of at the property developer. If you don’t have proof of owning or leasing a parking space, you can’t register a car.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        This would be literally impossible to implement in the United States.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            Because the majority of people park their car and their homes where they don’t have to pay for a space.

            • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Then they have proof of owning a space. Japan outlaws overnight street parking to prevent cheating the system.

                • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You either own a space or you don’t. I edited it earlier about overnight street parking being outlawed if that’s what you’re talking about. I don’t know what you mean by parking at their homes. Driveways? That’s owning a space. The key point here is if a house/apartment isn’t built with a space you need to get one either from someone who isn’t using it or a commercial parking structure. If a municipality wanted to dole out street parking in residential areas they could do that too.

                  • Kairos@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    12
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It won’t work in the U.S. because people still have to drive everywhere anyway. Go over to a friend’s house? Get fucked I guess.

                    I should have said “it won’t work in the united states without decades of work undoing car centrism”

                    Also in its current state there’s no good way to actually ensure that an address has a parking space. And what do you do with large families? Or people registering multiple cars at the same address otherwise?

    • pc486@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Parking mandates are some of the most egregiously bad laws on our books.

      They increase housing costs significantly; land isn’t free and cars structures are expensive to build. This is a punitive for those who are trying to make ends meet, or those who are unable to drive. Why would you force a blind man to pay for a two car garage when you’re also disallowing them to drive? Doubly so when you don’t allow them to sell their unused parking to their neighbors. Oh, and parking minimums significantly reduce our housing inventory. Parking reform alone can boost home building by 40% to 70%. If you haven’t noticed yet, we have a bit of a housing crisis going on.

      These laws also increase public expenditure because a car is used as transport from A to B. If A is your home, where is B? Pushing parking onto private developers is why in US there are, on average, 6 parking spots per vehicle. That’s 5 car spots in your downtown and on your streets that you pay for, be it taxes or increased grocery prices, that sit empty most of the time.

      Parking mandates are broken. So broken that it’s the #1 campaign item for Strong Towns. We must remove parking minimums or we’ll continue to pave over our downtowns and create insolvent cities.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sure. But Nash specifically has a lot of nimby bigots - so while 2 car park spots is great, they won’t vote for a future in which no car spots is acceptable because that would mean an increase in public transit. cf the whole light rail idea that was killed even though a light rail from downtown to east or bellevue would have been fantastic.