Reply to The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”[/quote]

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park.  Now no one gets a cookie.  [/quote]

2/3 of the bakery's customers arrive on foot or by bike. Why would it close due to lack of car parking?[/quote]

66/100 arrive by foot and 1/100 arrives by bike. Your statement is still true. But the bakery lost 33/100 so it had to close. [/quote]

Every study, everywhere, has shown that bike lanes benefit businesses. [/quote]

And yet developers keep lobbying for parking because they know that people will travel farther in a car than they will on a bike or by foot, thus increasing the size of the customer base for retail. [/quote]

???  Developers are not lobbying for parking. They would simply rather build parking where it rationally makes sense and not build parking where it doesn't, but zoning usually proscribes (too much) parking so buying/renting costs more.[/quote]

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?[/quote]

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.[/quote]

So then it's a fair trade off when Arlington County or DC imposes a condition on zoning relief for off street parking that the building will not be eligible for residential permit parking (RPP) on the adjacent streets?  The reason that they do this is to mitigate the additional parking burden when local streets are already full, and to avoid a situation where the developer is foisting its external costs (added parking demand) onto the public.  Some people claim that this is discriminatory against the exempted development's residents.  However, others point out that the residents are getting cheaper units than otherwise because of the cost savings and are leasing or purchasing with full notice of the condition.[/quote]

This seems entirely fair to me — cost savings or no, if the idea behind the building is supposed to be that its residents won't need parking, they shouldn't be eligible for parking. If you don't like the provision, don't move there.[/quote]

or lease a private spot to store the car[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics