> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.
See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency.
> Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.
I'm advocating the exact opposite.
I'm saying it never works well if residents have to participate in the street parking scene because residents are by definition there every night/day, so they need a dedicated spot. And the optimal way to provide that, is for the building they live in to have a spot for them (which they pay for, in either rent or mortgage).
That's why mandated parking minimums are still the best compromise solution. Anything else just externalizes the problem which is worse for everyone.
> Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes.
Yes, of course it does. The goal ultimately is to create livable housing, not just pack the maximum numbers of units into a space without practical considerations. Everything is a compromise.
I mentioned above what happens when you build apartments without enough parking: Constant fights over parking, vandalized cars, people circling four hours looking for a spot.
> You can build parking!
Where?
You can't build parking after the fact into an apartment building. It had to be designed in before construction started. If the building is already done and doesn't have enough parking, it will never have enough parking. You'd have to tear it down and that's too disruptive and expensive, will never get done.
(I am assuming city blocks which are fully built-out already. If there's a bunch of empty land nearby there probably is no parking problem either so this is all a moot point.)
> Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.
Capitalism always seeks maximum profit, not a sustainable long term solution. In the absence of regulation the builder will maximize units, which is more profit. The problems that arise when new residents realize they won't find street parking only occur after the builder is done and gone, not their problem. They are very happy to externalize the problem to others.
You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough. Or you can let people who don't need parking live there. Full disclosure, I have no car and enjoy not having parking
> You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough.
You "can", but that's right up there with spherical cows. Let's be serious.
It will never happen that a recently built apartment building gets demolished because they realize in hindsight that it does not have enough parking. That will never happen.
The problem will simply be externalized to the surrounding neighborhood, good luck in the street parking wars.
See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency.
> Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.
I'm advocating the exact opposite.
I'm saying it never works well if residents have to participate in the street parking scene because residents are by definition there every night/day, so they need a dedicated spot. And the optimal way to provide that, is for the building they live in to have a spot for them (which they pay for, in either rent or mortgage).
That's why mandated parking minimums are still the best compromise solution. Anything else just externalizes the problem which is worse for everyone.