Long time listener. I’ve learned something in each and every episode. Usually one pushes me further in direction I’m already leaning. Often pushes me in direction I did not know existed.
THIS episode is unique in that I am not reevaluating my utter disgust toward real estate developers. Oh, I will still despise the majority of them and their cash contributions to ugly politicians . And their regular campaign contributions.
“$60,000 for a built parking space.” rocked my world.
My union hall in downtown New Orleans had a 34 space parking lot and I met a sleazy parking company agent from the local monopoly. Rotten!
More to the point is my 35 years of living inner SE Portland, Oregon. Building 20 40 unit complexes with 8 parking spaces each forever changed to tenor of sleepy cozy SE Portland.
I am forced to rethink my hatred and contempt for RE developers.
So to get wind and solar farms approved, the developers should create more/affordable child care nearby. Or find a grandma who couldn't build her dream handicap access house because she couldn't lease the back 400 to the solar developer.
I just attended one of these rural county planning meetings where the solar project was denied after 50:5 testimony against. I got the "get that out-of-towner out of the room treatment." The developer had a well thought out project after years of consultation.
I'm trying to tease out lessons for state "reform" to local solar/wind land use policy from work like this.
A confession: In a former life (between my time in mid-1990s Silicon Valley and, well, 2008 Iraq)- I helped found and served on the board for a San Francisco NPO focused on (drumroll) parking. It was specifically for motorcycles and scooters, but we got the legislation passed. And... there's a rumor that I may have indeed worked with some guy who is- as of this writing- currently serving as governor to make it happen.
All that context now out of the way, I am truly enjoing this interview! (Mahalo David et al.)
The Sightline people's rhetoric seems to alternate between complete deregulation and more sensible regulation which wastes less land and fewer other resources. I'm with them on the latter, but the full deregulatory rhetoric makes little sense. As long as there is "free" on-street parking, developers are going to have every incentive in the world to create too little parking, and push the externality off on somebody else.
In an Econ 101 model, there would be no such thing as too little parking, because limited parking would only encourage more mass transit and transit-friendly development. But causation in political economy doesn't work that way. Mass transit and transit-related development cause less wasted space for parking. It doesn't work the other way around.
Thanks so much for your effective advocacy, much needed and much appreciated!
Long time listener. I’ve learned something in each and every episode. Usually one pushes me further in direction I’m already leaning. Often pushes me in direction I did not know existed.
THIS episode is unique in that I am not reevaluating my utter disgust toward real estate developers. Oh, I will still despise the majority of them and their cash contributions to ugly politicians . And their regular campaign contributions.
“$60,000 for a built parking space.” rocked my world.
My union hall in downtown New Orleans had a 34 space parking lot and I met a sleazy parking company agent from the local monopoly. Rotten!
More to the point is my 35 years of living inner SE Portland, Oregon. Building 20 40 unit complexes with 8 parking spaces each forever changed to tenor of sleepy cozy SE Portland.
I am forced to rethink my hatred and contempt for RE developers.
So to get wind and solar farms approved, the developers should create more/affordable child care nearby. Or find a grandma who couldn't build her dream handicap access house because she couldn't lease the back 400 to the solar developer.
I just attended one of these rural county planning meetings where the solar project was denied after 50:5 testimony against. I got the "get that out-of-towner out of the room treatment." The developer had a well thought out project after years of consultation.
I'm trying to tease out lessons for state "reform" to local solar/wind land use policy from work like this.
A confession: In a former life (between my time in mid-1990s Silicon Valley and, well, 2008 Iraq)- I helped found and served on the board for a San Francisco NPO focused on (drumroll) parking. It was specifically for motorcycles and scooters, but we got the legislation passed. And... there's a rumor that I may have indeed worked with some guy who is- as of this writing- currently serving as governor to make it happen.
All that context now out of the way, I am truly enjoing this interview! (Mahalo David et al.)
The Sightline people's rhetoric seems to alternate between complete deregulation and more sensible regulation which wastes less land and fewer other resources. I'm with them on the latter, but the full deregulatory rhetoric makes little sense. As long as there is "free" on-street parking, developers are going to have every incentive in the world to create too little parking, and push the externality off on somebody else.
In an Econ 101 model, there would be no such thing as too little parking, because limited parking would only encourage more mass transit and transit-friendly development. But causation in political economy doesn't work that way. Mass transit and transit-related development cause less wasted space for parking. It doesn't work the other way around.