[arjie]

Well, that just argues for a Land Value Tax. If you buy land in downtown SF and want to make that a parking lot, more power to you, but you pay taxes proportional to the unimproved value of the land, and so you pay a lot more with respect to the value you gain than if you were to use it for office space.

Publicly auction public parking spots and allow them to rise unboundedly in price.

These are all economically efficient approaches. Instead of shaming people, we should incentivise non-wasteful behaviour (and I think economic efficiency is a good guideline here).

[lmm]

Land value tax is the ideal end state, but it's difficult for one person to work towards that; doing it on a smaller scale by e.g. getting your own employer to introduce a scheme like this seems a lot more plausible. (Also things like letters to one's representative asking them to remove parking minimums from planning criteria)

(My current company has "free" bicycle parking in the basement with a years-long waiting list; meanwhile many of the spots are unused or have a bike sitting their permanently, and I'm paying for a spot 10 minutes' walk away. Maybe I should start asking them to charge)

[yardie]

Who came up with such a dumb scheme. Bikes consume almost no space. The idea that there is a "spot" for one just seems needless. My buildings bicycle parking is a storage closet with 4 racks. Last time I checked there were a dozen bikes, a few scooters, and skateboards in there.

[lmm]

Yeah this is a skyscraper; there are multiple bike racks with dozens of spaces, but still not enough room for everyone.

[closeparen]

If you presuppose that Prop 13 could be eliminated, then you probably wouldn't need a land value tax or any parking because all those single family homes would be sold and developed into higher-density uses.

Driving is a pretty minimally wasteful behavior compared to the low lot coverage and building heights prevalent here.