Email City Council to Abolish Minimum Parking Requirements! City Council is meeting at 5:30pm on Monday, October 24th to discuss making it easier and cheaper to build new housing by eliminating requirement for unneeded parking spacesCJYP t1_itgydok wrote
Reply to comment by noob_tube03 in Email City Council to Abolish Minimum Parking Requirements! City Council is meeting at 5:30pm on Monday, October 24th to discuss making it easier and cheaper to build new housing by eliminating requirement for unneeded parking spaces by Responsible-Bath2778
Who is saying no cars ever? I certainly am not saying that, and I doubt many other people are either. There's plenty of parking already, and plenty of people who live in Cambridge perfectly fine without a car.
If not having a car is really that big of a problem, developers will simply continue to build parking. Because otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their new buildings. It wouldn't take a government mandate. If not having a car is OK, then forcing developers to build parking is wasteful. It just takes up so much space that could be used for anything else instead.
noob_tube03 t1_itgz1kl wrote
You didnt even address my question; if more people bring more cars, where do you expect them to park. There's plenty of parking in Cambridge? Where? I find more nights I cant even park in front of my house, and am doing laps of nearby blocks just to find parking.
CJYP t1_itgzhrm wrote
People who need a car will rent an existing apartment with parking spots. People who don't, can rent an apartment without spots. If there's more people who need parking than people who don't, then developers will continue to build parking. And people will park in the off street spots their apartment provides.
noob_tube03 t1_ith0b42 wrote
I trust developers to build less revenue generating property as much as I trust rats to stay out of the trash. I suppose you think developers will create affordable housing all in their own for the good of the residents too
CJYP t1_ith0kh1 wrote
I 100% trust developers to follow the profits. If people want parking, it won't be profitable to build housing without parking, and they will build parking.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith3wol wrote
This person has their slice of Cambridge and wants to shut the door behind them. Its that simple.
noob_tube03 t1_itjkwq4 wrote
This other person seems to think people both need parking and increasing the population of Cambridge doesn't require more infrastructure. Which is it, do people need parking or not? Minimum parking requirements mean new development can accommodate parking. If you think people people don't want parking, then how am I "shutting the door behind me"? Especially since I'm the one who wants parking for them?
noob_tube03 t1_ithugkc wrote
Do you have an example of a recent project that required parking, and the building hit occupancy while the parking wasn't utilized?
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1jfr wrote
You're assuming that everyone is just like you and cares more about their car than they do their own life. Not everyone wants to waste thousands of dollars a year on a metal box, and not everyone wants to subsidize those who do own one.
noob_tube03 t1_ithumtr wrote
I mean, that goes both ways. I don't assume everyone is me, and neither does minimum parking requirements. I do assume that if you increase the population by X%, you will see an increased amount of people needing cars
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ithwatf wrote
Having a forced parking minimum is the definition of forcing people to pay for something they don’t necessarily want, and if you don’t think there are people moving into Cambridge who don’t own cars and don’t want a parking spot, then you are assuming everyone is like you.
And why would increased population density lead to an increase in car necessity?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments