cawacko
Well-known member
If you live in an area where there's a need for housing and land is not readily available then density is the answer.
California bans building parking lots near transit stops
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
If you live in an area where there's a need for housing and land is not readily available then density is the answer.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That is virtually nowhere in the US.
There are cities around the world that are much more dense than California cities, and I am pretty sure none of them ever outlawed parking lots.
We are being lied to yet again, the program here is to get rid of private car ownership, because it gives people the feeling of freedom and then they want more of that.
ExpressLane
Verified User
OK have you found your calculator yet?
If I told you I would raise your property tax by 1.2% and reduce the taxable value of your home by half but charge you 0% state income tax would you take it?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
There are whole nations where the density of cities is greater than in the US. There is no particular reason we need to increase urban density here. The Left wants it to increase because many--most--Leftists think that is how everyone should live because that's how they live. It's just one more dictatorial, totalitarian push by the Left to control people's lives.
Now, in Japan, a very densely populated nation, to buy a car you have to demonstrate to the government you have a place to park it. That's their rule. They don't control parking, but rather buying a vehicle without having a place to park it.
In Phoenix, I can recall several developers that had serious fails because they built high rise condos or apartments in high density urban settings, like the artificial City North project, only to find nobody wanted to buy their fucking development because of the lack of parking--among other things.
Given that density is not what this is about, that is the lie used to cover for what they are really doing, debating density is irrelevant here.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
But density is what they are trying, at least in part, to achieve. The authoritarian Left wants you and me to live in dense urban high-rise apartments and condos because they think that is what you want and should do. I recently got an e-mail survey from the University of Arizona (where I did my undergraduate studies) about whether I'd be interested in getting a luxury apartment in a high-rise in downtown Tucson that the university was backing.
I wasn't kind in my answers.
This came down the grapevine yesterday and is interesting......the plan from the energy transition stewards is to not allow people to plug in their electric cars at night, because there is no solar and the wind drops and they are now finally figuring out that the possibility of .building enough batteries with current tech are zero.
As if that could possibly work.....these people are FantasyLand Creatures.....and they are hurting us.
As if that could possibly work.....these people are FantasyLand Creatures.....and they are hurting us.
Ya in their dreams hundreds of millions from all around the world will want to come to the AMERICAN UTOPIA, and there must be someplace to put them.
I am a bit surprised that Tucker has not run with this yet. He has been talking for a long time about how this war on cars and particularly private ownership of cars is not about saving the planet as the communists claim, this is about ease of surveillance and control. And that this is about not allowing the serfs the taste of freedom, because that would cause too many problems for the Over Lords of UTOPIA.
When you have no choice but to try to get a car service like Uber they can easily tell you no if they have a problem with you (Have you a low Social Credit score?), or if they dont want you to go where you want to go. Maybe they allow you to go but charge you up the ass trying to get you to reconsider. And remember too that the communists want to get rid of physical money, they want everyone on electric payments so that they can for instance see if we are eating too much meat.....people will not be able to do anything that reguires payment without Regime approval.
cawacko
Well-known member
It is in coastal urban areas and that's who this legislation is geared at (well since this is a California law it's geared to the Bay Area and L.A.)
cawacko
Well-known member
I am so intrigued. Why the continual misrepresentation/flat our lying about this legislation. It does not outlaw parking lots. Why the need to lie about that?
cawacko
Well-known member
Can you give me a scenario with actual numbers to demonstrate your example? Clearly you have something in mind, I'm just not able to follow it. Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious but how do you reduce the taxable value of your home by half short of an exodus from an area and property values just absolutely tank.
cawacko
Well-known member
Honest question, have you ever spent time in the Bay Area or LA? You live in Arizona right? I don't think you understand the impetus for this legislation.
You talk about politics making strange bedfellows, progressives in the state are pissed at Newsom for signing this. He's been called a neoliberal tool of developers for signing this. Yet here are a number of people on the right, none of whom live in California, all upset as well about this pro-growth, pro-development legislation.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm a real estate guy so I find this so intriguing. Why does it anger you so much that not everyone wants to live in the suburbs and/or single family homes?
cawacko
Well-known member
This is from the Libertarian Magazine Reason on why this legislation is good. I don't know, maybe in this new MAGA era free markets are no longer viewed upon as favorably by some on the right and high cost government mandates have their place. Because at least with this legislation, letting the market determine what is needed is no bueno.
California Takes on the High Cost of Mandated Parking
California's cities require developers to include a minimum number of parking spaces in their projects, regardless of whether those spaces are in demand. A state bill would change that.
When the La Valentina Station Project in Sacramento, California, was working its way through the approval process in 2009, it seemed like a perfect development for the city's downtown. Domus Development and the city's housing agency were together planning to turn a vacant, blighted lot into a mixed-use building with 81 below-market-rate units and commercial space on the ground floor.
One major snag was the city's requirement that the project include over two spaces of parking for each new unit of housing it added.
"It would have required ridiculous amounts of underground parking, and it was already a tight site and contaminated, so you couldn't actually build that parking," says Meea Kang, president of Domus at the time. "We were also 30 seconds from the nearest light rail station."
After multiple hearings and rounds of review before the planning commission and City Council, the La Valentina project was able to obtain 18 special permits and variances—including one giving it relief from the city's parking requirements.
It was hardly the only project to have to contend with these rules.
California's cities, like almost everywhere else in the country, require that new developments come with a certain amount of parking spaces. New apartment buildings must have a minimum number of spaces per unit. New stores must have a minimum number of spaces per square footage.
Meeting these parking minimums can impose a lot of costs on developers, as well as the end users of their buildings. The more land on a property that's eaten up by parking spaces means less land that's available for rent-generating homes, businesses, and office space. Meeting parking minimums often requires either the construction of an underground or above-ground parking garage—which is expensive.
A structured parking space can cost north of $75,000, says Kang. Those costs get passed on to the residents of new apartment buildings and the commercial tenants of new shopfronts. As with many government mandates, parking minimums often require developers to build more parking spaces than people will actually use.
"Two weeks of the year that parking lot is utilized to the full extent. 50 weeks of the year it's not," Eddie McCoven, a spokesperson for San Diego's Clairemont Lutheran Church, told Reason back in 2020.
His congregation's plans in 2015 to redevelop a portion of the church's parking lot into an affordable housing complex were upended by the city's regulations that fixed a ratio of required parking spaces to square inches of pew space.
For some cities, stopping new housing has become the whole point of parking minimums, says Matthew Lewis, communications director for housing advocacy group California YIMBY.
"The challenge is cities have used parking as a cudgel for their NIMBYism. It literally blocks housing," Lewis tells Reason. He says the impact of these mandates falls particularly hard on developers of below-market-rate projects (which have to spend their fixed amount of subsidized funding on parking instead of more housing units) and smaller apartment projects that could fit on smaller lots but for parking requirements.
But change is in the air.
In recent years, some cities around the state have started to whittle down their parking requirements. In response to the Clairemont episode, San Diego abolished its parking space–pew space ratio and lowered parking minimums for churches overall as part of wider parking reforms. Sacramento committed to eliminating parking minimums citywide last year.
And yesterday, the California Senate passed A.B. 2097, a sweeping bill introduced by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D–Glendale) that generally forbids cities from imposing parking minimums on any development, commercial or residential, within a half-mile of a public transit stop.
Cities would have to prove that an individual project would have a "substantially negative impact" on its parking needs before it could reimpose a parking minimum. But they couldn't impose those parking minimums on a programmatic basis. Smaller apartment buildings and projects with a certain percentage of affordable units near transit would be completely exempt from parking minimums too.
Not having to ask city governments to waive parking requirements for individual projects would give developers a lot more certainty about what they're allowed to build too, says Kang, who as a director of the Council of Infill Builders, has advocated for A.B. 2097.
"When we go in front of a discretionary body like a planning commission or a city council [to request an exemption from parking requirements], there is always the risk of being turned down. The developer plays a calculated risk," she tells Reason. Cities would also lose their ability to extract costly community benefit payments from developers.
Having passed the state Senate, A.B. 2097 now goes back to the Assembly (where it's already passed once) for final legislative approval. It will still need to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to become law.
How impactful will the reform be?
Minneapolis is one test case. It eliminated parking minimums citywide as part of an update to its general plan in 2018. Crucially, the city also increased the maximum allowable size of apartments near transit and along commercial corridors at the same time. (The city also imposed some very unlibertarian parking maximums in some areas.)
The combination of those two reforms has kicked off a small boom in the construction of smaller apartment buildings, with most of those projects being built with less parking than had been typically required under the old rules.
https://reason.com/2022/08/30/california-takes-on-the-high-cost-of-mandated-parking/
California Takes on the High Cost of Mandated Parking
California's cities require developers to include a minimum number of parking spaces in their projects, regardless of whether those spaces are in demand. A state bill would change that.
When the La Valentina Station Project in Sacramento, California, was working its way through the approval process in 2009, it seemed like a perfect development for the city's downtown. Domus Development and the city's housing agency were together planning to turn a vacant, blighted lot into a mixed-use building with 81 below-market-rate units and commercial space on the ground floor.
One major snag was the city's requirement that the project include over two spaces of parking for each new unit of housing it added.
"It would have required ridiculous amounts of underground parking, and it was already a tight site and contaminated, so you couldn't actually build that parking," says Meea Kang, president of Domus at the time. "We were also 30 seconds from the nearest light rail station."
After multiple hearings and rounds of review before the planning commission and City Council, the La Valentina project was able to obtain 18 special permits and variances—including one giving it relief from the city's parking requirements.
It was hardly the only project to have to contend with these rules.
California's cities, like almost everywhere else in the country, require that new developments come with a certain amount of parking spaces. New apartment buildings must have a minimum number of spaces per unit. New stores must have a minimum number of spaces per square footage.
Meeting these parking minimums can impose a lot of costs on developers, as well as the end users of their buildings. The more land on a property that's eaten up by parking spaces means less land that's available for rent-generating homes, businesses, and office space. Meeting parking minimums often requires either the construction of an underground or above-ground parking garage—which is expensive.
A structured parking space can cost north of $75,000, says Kang. Those costs get passed on to the residents of new apartment buildings and the commercial tenants of new shopfronts. As with many government mandates, parking minimums often require developers to build more parking spaces than people will actually use.
"Two weeks of the year that parking lot is utilized to the full extent. 50 weeks of the year it's not," Eddie McCoven, a spokesperson for San Diego's Clairemont Lutheran Church, told Reason back in 2020.
His congregation's plans in 2015 to redevelop a portion of the church's parking lot into an affordable housing complex were upended by the city's regulations that fixed a ratio of required parking spaces to square inches of pew space.
For some cities, stopping new housing has become the whole point of parking minimums, says Matthew Lewis, communications director for housing advocacy group California YIMBY.
"The challenge is cities have used parking as a cudgel for their NIMBYism. It literally blocks housing," Lewis tells Reason. He says the impact of these mandates falls particularly hard on developers of below-market-rate projects (which have to spend their fixed amount of subsidized funding on parking instead of more housing units) and smaller apartment projects that could fit on smaller lots but for parking requirements.
But change is in the air.
In recent years, some cities around the state have started to whittle down their parking requirements. In response to the Clairemont episode, San Diego abolished its parking space–pew space ratio and lowered parking minimums for churches overall as part of wider parking reforms. Sacramento committed to eliminating parking minimums citywide last year.
And yesterday, the California Senate passed A.B. 2097, a sweeping bill introduced by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D–Glendale) that generally forbids cities from imposing parking minimums on any development, commercial or residential, within a half-mile of a public transit stop.
Cities would have to prove that an individual project would have a "substantially negative impact" on its parking needs before it could reimpose a parking minimum. But they couldn't impose those parking minimums on a programmatic basis. Smaller apartment buildings and projects with a certain percentage of affordable units near transit would be completely exempt from parking minimums too.
Not having to ask city governments to waive parking requirements for individual projects would give developers a lot more certainty about what they're allowed to build too, says Kang, who as a director of the Council of Infill Builders, has advocated for A.B. 2097.
"When we go in front of a discretionary body like a planning commission or a city council [to request an exemption from parking requirements], there is always the risk of being turned down. The developer plays a calculated risk," she tells Reason. Cities would also lose their ability to extract costly community benefit payments from developers.
Having passed the state Senate, A.B. 2097 now goes back to the Assembly (where it's already passed once) for final legislative approval. It will still need to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to become law.
How impactful will the reform be?
Minneapolis is one test case. It eliminated parking minimums citywide as part of an update to its general plan in 2018. Crucially, the city also increased the maximum allowable size of apartments near transit and along commercial corridors at the same time. (The city also imposed some very unlibertarian parking maximums in some areas.)
The combination of those two reforms has kicked off a small boom in the construction of smaller apartment buildings, with most of those projects being built with less parking than had been typically required under the old rules.
https://reason.com/2022/08/30/california-takes-on-the-high-cost-of-mandated-parking/
Last edited:
Now you are just bringing up reality. The reality is governments force developers to provide free parking spaces, and now there is talk of pulling back. Developers can still provide free parking spaces, if they want, but are not forced to.
Theywillneverlearn!
Verified User
Apparently you have never been to Boston.