Parking no longer free on Saturdays in MoCo lots starting 7/8/23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entitlement from car owners on display in this thread. Unreal.

It's the suburbs..

Move if you don't like it. No one wants your eat in a cage lifestyle.

What? OP, I own two SUVs and live in a big house in Rockville. I don't want to live in a small apartment either. I just don't expect to be given free stuff - parking or anything else - as a reward for that lifestyle. I own two cars and pay for parking in places I need it. I don't need a handout for that. I have a big lawn and pay someone to cut it. I don't need a handout for that. What I am mystified by is my suburban colleagues who think that someone else should pay for their lifestyle.

But not everyone can easily afford it. You're assuming everyone who uses these parking garages has extra money, esp. in this economy. Think of the house painter living in Silver Spring who has to park in one of these garages to take their kid to the dentist on a Saturday.

Dude, read an econ book. The money has to come from somewhere. Hint: taxes. You think just because you don't pay for a garage it's actually just "free" and built/maintained by jesus or something?

Lol. You must be a troll account. Nobody can be this stupid.

Our local urbanists are that stupid. They’re best thing that ever happened to NIMBYs.

What on Earth are you talking about? Are the urbanists the ones on here bellyaching about charging for parking, preferring instead to fund garages with unicorn dust and allocating scarce resources to ensure that no driver is ever mildly inconvenienced?

No, the urbanists are the ones who keep doubling down on the same failed policies. The louder they get the less gets built. They complement their fervor with a deep misunderstanding of how business works, how to attract jobs, and what makes developers actually want to build housing.

The garages are already built (overbuilt actually). The parking revenue doesn’t go to pay for garages. It pays for other programs. It’s yet another cash grab by a council that has an endless appetite for more spending.

Now I'm convinced you're a deeply unserious person. Urbanists are "doubling down on the same failed policies" .... by introducing a brand-new policy? C'mon, at least put some effort into your trolling.

Don't you get it? It's the fault of all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" that stuff isn't getting built! If all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" would just shut up and let the people who are saying "Don't build stuff!" have their say, then stuff would get built! Lots of stuff! Stuff all over the place!

Or, anyway, that seems to be the argument.

Yes, saying build stuff is how things get built. It gets built even faster if you click your heels three times while saying it.

Keep making my point.

It seems like advocating FOR building stuff would be better for building stuff than advocating AGAINST building stuff, but you know best.

They’re both about equally effective in determining what (if anything) actually gets built so you keep doing you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entitlement from car owners on display in this thread. Unreal.

It's the suburbs..

Move if you don't like it. No one wants your eat in a cage lifestyle.

What? OP, I own two SUVs and live in a big house in Rockville. I don't want to live in a small apartment either. I just don't expect to be given free stuff - parking or anything else - as a reward for that lifestyle. I own two cars and pay for parking in places I need it. I don't need a handout for that. I have a big lawn and pay someone to cut it. I don't need a handout for that. What I am mystified by is my suburban colleagues who think that someone else should pay for their lifestyle.

But not everyone can easily afford it. You're assuming everyone who uses these parking garages has extra money, esp. in this economy. Think of the house painter living in Silver Spring who has to park in one of these garages to take their kid to the dentist on a Saturday.

Dude, read an econ book. The money has to come from somewhere. Hint: taxes. You think just because you don't pay for a garage it's actually just "free" and built/maintained by jesus or something?

Lol. You must be a troll account. Nobody can be this stupid.

Our local urbanists are that stupid. They’re best thing that ever happened to NIMBYs.

What on Earth are you talking about? Are the urbanists the ones on here bellyaching about charging for parking, preferring instead to fund garages with unicorn dust and allocating scarce resources to ensure that no driver is ever mildly inconvenienced?

No, the urbanists are the ones who keep doubling down on the same failed policies. The louder they get the less gets built. They complement their fervor with a deep misunderstanding of how business works, how to attract jobs, and what makes developers actually want to build housing.

The garages are already built (overbuilt actually). The parking revenue doesn’t go to pay for garages. It pays for other programs. It’s yet another cash grab by a council that has an endless appetite for more spending.

Now I'm convinced you're a deeply unserious person. Urbanists are "doubling down on the same failed policies" .... by introducing a brand-new policy? C'mon, at least put some effort into your trolling.

Don't you get it? It's the fault of all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" that stuff isn't getting built! If all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" would just shut up and let the people who are saying "Don't build stuff!" have their say, then stuff would get built! Lots of stuff! Stuff all over the place!

Or, anyway, that seems to be the argument.

Yes, saying build stuff is how things get built. It gets built even faster if you click your heels three times while saying it.

Keep making my point.

It seems like advocating FOR building stuff would be better for building stuff than advocating AGAINST building stuff, but you know best.

They’re both about equally effective in determining what (if anything) actually gets built so you keep doing you.

If that's the case, then why are you so whiny about the people saying "build stuff?"

[Anonymous]

Libraries are free. So should parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entitlement from car owners on display in this thread. Unreal.

It's the suburbs..

Move if you don't like it. No one wants your eat in a cage lifestyle.

What? OP, I own two SUVs and live in a big house in Rockville. I don't want to live in a small apartment either. I just don't expect to be given free stuff - parking or anything else - as a reward for that lifestyle. I own two cars and pay for parking in places I need it. I don't need a handout for that. I have a big lawn and pay someone to cut it. I don't need a handout for that. What I am mystified by is my suburban colleagues who think that someone else should pay for their lifestyle.

But not everyone can easily afford it. You're assuming everyone who uses these parking garages has extra money, esp. in this economy. Think of the house painter living in Silver Spring who has to park in one of these garages to take their kid to the dentist on a Saturday.

The house painter living in Silver Spring (meaning what? Aspen Hill?) who is taking their kid to a dentist in downtown Silver Spring, on a Saturday, is most likely going by bus.

Most likely?! Oh boy. Somebody has been living under a bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entitlement from car owners on display in this thread. Unreal.

It's the suburbs..

Move if you don't like it. No one wants your eat in a cage lifestyle.

What? OP, I own two SUVs and live in a big house in Rockville. I don't want to live in a small apartment either. I just don't expect to be given free stuff - parking or anything else - as a reward for that lifestyle. I own two cars and pay for parking in places I need it. I don't need a handout for that. I have a big lawn and pay someone to cut it. I don't need a handout for that. What I am mystified by is my suburban colleagues who think that someone else should pay for their lifestyle.

But not everyone can easily afford it. You're assuming everyone who uses these parking garages has extra money, esp. in this economy. Think of the house painter living in Silver Spring who has to park in one of these garages to take their kid to the dentist on a Saturday.

Dude, read an econ book. The money has to come from somewhere. Hint: taxes. You think just because you don't pay for a garage it's actually just "free" and built/maintained by jesus or something?

Lol. You must be a troll account. Nobody can be this stupid.

Our local urbanists are that stupid. They’re best thing that ever happened to NIMBYs.

What on Earth are you talking about? Are the urbanists the ones on here bellyaching about charging for parking, preferring instead to fund garages with unicorn dust and allocating scarce resources to ensure that no driver is ever mildly inconvenienced?

No, the urbanists are the ones who keep doubling down on the same failed policies. The louder they get the less gets built. They complement their fervor with a deep misunderstanding of how business works, how to attract jobs, and what makes developers actually want to build housing.

The garages are already built (overbuilt actually). The parking revenue doesn’t go to pay for garages. It pays for other programs. It’s yet another cash grab by a council that has an endless appetite for more spending.

Now I'm convinced you're a deeply unserious person. Urbanists are "doubling down on the same failed policies" .... by introducing a brand-new policy? C'mon, at least put some effort into your trolling.

Don't you get it? It's the fault of all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" that stuff isn't getting built! If all the people who are saying "Build stuff!" would just shut up and let the people who are saying "Don't build stuff!" have their say, then stuff would get built! Lots of stuff! Stuff all over the place!

Or, anyway, that seems to be the argument.

Yes, saying build stuff is how things get built. It gets built even faster if you click your heels three times while saying it.

Keep making my point.

It seems like advocating FOR building stuff would be better for building stuff than advocating AGAINST building stuff, but you know best.

They’re both about equally effective in determining what (if anything) actually gets built so you keep doing you.

If that's the case, then why are you so whiny about the people saying "build stuff?"

I'm a DP, and I'm just guessing, but it seems like a lot of local Don't Build Stuff people assume that all their neighbors, and all people similar to their neighbors, agree with them, and then it's disconcerting to go to public meetings or public hearings and find out that a lot of the Build Stuff people are similar to them and their neighbors - or sometimes even literally are their neighbors. For example, see the posts on this thread from the poster who keeps characterizing Build Stuff people as 25-year-old tattooed singles who live in 300 sf studios with 16 bikes and a medicine cabinet full of edibles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entitlement from car owners on display in this thread. Unreal.

It's the suburbs..

Move if you don't like it. No one wants your eat in a cage lifestyle.

What? OP, I own two SUVs and live in a big house in Rockville. I don't want to live in a small apartment either. I just don't expect to be given free stuff - parking or anything else - as a reward for that lifestyle. I own two cars and pay for parking in places I need it. I don't need a handout for that. I have a big lawn and pay someone to cut it. I don't need a handout for that. What I am mystified by is my suburban colleagues who think that someone else should pay for their lifestyle.

But not everyone can easily afford it. You're assuming everyone who uses these parking garages has extra money, esp. in this economy. Think of the house painter living in Silver Spring who has to park in one of these garages to take their kid to the dentist on a Saturday.

Dude, read an econ book. The money has to come from somewhere. Hint: taxes. You think just because you don't pay for a garage it's actually just "free" and built/maintained by jesus or something?

Lol. You must be a troll account. Nobody can be this stupid.

But taxes are based on income (except sales tax), where this new charge is the same for all. The hit to your wallet isn't the same as the hit to someone making (presumably) much less.

The cost of the bus and metro are also not based on income; I assume you are opposed to the way these are priced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

Wow. Well. If we're getting rid of every government user fee, that will lead to a lot of changes. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just so you can park for "free" in a county-owned garage in downtown Bethesda on a Saturday afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

Wow. Well. If we're getting rid of every government user fee, that will lead to a lot of changes. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just so you can park for "free" in a county-owned garage in downtown Bethesda on a Saturday afternoon.

Start charging for library access then, just like gym memberships. Why should I pay for other to rent DVDs for their entiertainment, for them to have a place to fart around all day on the internet for free, and to read books? I don't use that, therefore people who use should pay too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

Wow. Well. If we're getting rid of every government user fee, that will lead to a lot of changes. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just so you can park for "free" in a county-owned garage in downtown Bethesda on a Saturday afternoon.

Start charging for library access then, just like gym memberships. Why should I pay for other to rent DVDs for their entiertainment, for them to have a place to fart around all day on the internet for free, and to read books? I don't use that, therefore people who use should pay too.

Also, let's put tolls on every road! Why should I pay for a road for you to drive on? I don't use that road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

Wow. Well. If we're getting rid of every government user fee, that will lead to a lot of changes. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just so you can park for "free" in a county-owned garage in downtown Bethesda on a Saturday afternoon.

Start charging for library access then, just like gym memberships. Why should I pay for other to rent DVDs for their entiertainment, for them to have a place to fart around all day on the internet for free, and to read books? I don't use that, therefore people who use should pay too.

Also, let's put tolls on every road! Why should I pay for a road for you to drive on? I don't use that road.

Sure, after they charge you additional fees to school your kids. Why should I pay for your kids' education when I don't have kids in MoCo schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libraries are free. So should parking.

You do not have to pay extra to park at a library, so you're all set. You do have to pay extra to take a bus to the library, though. Which does raise questions about what we're subsidizing, whom we're subsidizing, and why.

No, I mean actual use of libraries is free, therefore it should also be free for parking in the county. It's just another service the county provides just like libraries.

What other county services should be free? Buses? Swimming pools? Garbage pick-up? Construction permits? Canoe rentals? Summer camps? All of these should be paid for out of general revenue, like libraries? Hey, maybe there shouldn't even be property taxes? Why shouldn't owning property be free?

Yes to all.

You pay taxes for something, they spend it, therefore open to public use. You can't make libraries free then demand parking should be charged even though you're using taxpayer dollars to build that infrastructure. Buses are free in Baltimore. They figured out how to do it, so why can't MoCo?

And your last point is dumb. Property is private and allowed to be owned by individuals according to the constitution. People pay money, they get to own land. That's not using tax dollars.

Wow. Well. If we're getting rid of every government user fee, that will lead to a lot of changes. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just so you can park for "free" in a county-owned garage in downtown Bethesda on a Saturday afternoon.

Start charging for library access then, just like gym memberships. Why should I pay for other to rent DVDs for their entiertainment, for them to have a place to fart around all day on the internet for free, and to read books? I don't use that, therefore people who use should pay too.

Also, let's put tolls on every road! Why should I pay for a road for you to drive on? I don't use that road.

Sure, after they charge you additional fees to school your kids. Why should I pay for your kids' education when I don't have kids in MoCo schools.

Why have any public services at all? Or taxes?