Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hdhcnsnd t1_j9gh8bn wrote

Reply to comment by ActionJawnson in 81 Short Term Rental Units to Replace Parking Lot in Chinatown by ColdJay64

Parking for everyone means the city becomes a parking lot, which means we don’t have a city at all.

Less parking disincentivizes driving and gets people walking, biking and on public transportation. More people using those different modes creates a “critical mass”, which improves safety on virtue of volume alone.

Less parking is more room for businesses and housing, all of which provide more tax revenue for the city (which can be used to fund public safety!), and adds actual value to the community.

I get what you’re saying about safety, but your proposed solution of “parking for everyone” really just accelerates the problem you’re talking about.

23

ActionJawnson t1_j9ghtwj wrote

When I say parking for everyone, what I mean is everyone that doesn't feel safe walking, riding a bike or taking public transportation. Obviously, the city cannot support parking for each person...

−18

ColdJay64 OP t1_j9go5m0 wrote

Aren't walking, biking, and taking transit all safer than driving though?

16

DonQOnIce t1_j9gimhq wrote

So, like, how is this determined? Is it a secret poll? Is there “fear for safety” parking permits? I don’t know how you’d come up with these numbers or avoid having people who “fear for their safety” who just prefer to drive.

15

ActionJawnson t1_j9gj7ox wrote

The mental gymnastics you must be going through thinking of a reply to me. Holy shit, I just want to keep the parking we already have. Wtf are you on about?

−5

DonQOnIce t1_j9gjr87 wrote

I’m trying to understand your logic in how we’re going to keep parking for the people concerned for safety but not have it overwhelmed with people who just don’t want to travel any other way.

I also think it’s odd when people on the pro-parking side are defensive if surface lots. All of us should hate how space wasteful and ugly surface lots are at least.

11