Yes, but why does the LAW require me to have a parking place? Parking space is not free for anyone: the owner (landlord) has to pay to have it, plow snow. Then there is the opportunity cost: that land could be used for something else.
I'm fine with landlords offering parking as a perk of rent - but the next landlord can offer an apartment to those who don't need/want a parking spot at a discount (how much discount is an open question). The law doesn't all the market to decide.
The law has to plan for generalities, not specific renters, and parking spots are not created ad hoc. And the law also has to allow for people who might elect not to pay for a parking spot but then want to use street parking, which is a negative externality for the surrounding neighborhood.
Then you charge for street parking permits, which you should if the street parking has value.
A lot of places do this, where they charge a few thousand a year to park on the street.
A lot of people don't need parking. And we are forcing them to pay for it. That's bad policy. My old condo had like $80,000 worth of parking attached to it with two spaces. I only needed one of the space.
Your very last sentence counters the rest of your point. A lot of people don't need parking... but you did. But only half of what was provided. How to plan for this in advance? The parking spots have to be planned in from the beginning, not created ad hoc, so requiring a certain number of spots per X building units is sensible. Ideally you get just to 100% utilization but no more. But that will vary depending on the mix of tenants at any given time.
on point: Japan doesn't allow street parking (or at least, it's very rare), but even the densest cities have parking available off street - charging market rates, sometimes using car-elevators, many solutions that more efficiently avoid the issues with using government-paved roads as free parking
Shouldn’t people who can commute by train have the option to live in a place that isn’t made artificially expensive by parking minimums? Should the law require non-drivers to subsidize parking?
Parking minimums in residential areas are one of the few times I think they can make sense.
Suppose there is enough on-street parking for other non-residential uses. You don't want these spaces being constantly used by car owners who are living in apartment complexes that aren't meant for them. As a local government, you have to play the game of not letting them park using parking restrictions while potentially also managing by-laws that allow residents to get parking permits that let them bypass some restrictions.
This doesn't really apply in high-density urban areas, but I could see it being tricky to manage in growing areas.
(Although, I guess from a non car-owner's point of view you wouldn't care about whether other drivers are being inconvenienced by a lack of parking, because the knock-on effects wouldn't affect you.)
If this was a suburb or mid-urban than no one would care. But the complaints are about parking minimums in super dense urban zones. Where developers are marketing them as walk to work, commuter friendly residences. The reality is the streets are desolate canyons of parking garages. Where parking is an additional expense that you can't get out of.
In my city all the parking is below the building on several levels below ground, ground level is all mixed retail/residential. It sounds like you've got a problem with zoning, not parking.
Otherwise the occupant of the address could just purchase a car, but have nowhere to park it. Then they park on the street. Or take a previous occupants spot. Pretty soon you have cars taking up spaces that were not previously assigned to them causing a cascade of parking wars.
By preallocating a parking spot for each occupant you prevent this problem.
Just because the person did not think they needed a car when moving into the home does not mean they will never want to get a car.
perhaps a better solution is to make each residence come with a parking spot - that is essentially owned by the resident. Then if they do not need it they could rent it out until which time they do need it (if ever).
I pay for parking at my condo whether I use it or not because of minimum parking requirements. Could you imagine having to also pay for landline service on your mobile plan?
If it's worth it to have parking I'd gladly pay for it. For the moment I'm renting it out just below my costs because this next generation of renters aren't even bothering to drive much less park. So there is more capacity than need.
To be fair, you're renting a condo. The one type of housing notorious for a large fee, on top of the cost of the mortgage. I guarantee it would be the same fee with or without the parking. In my opinion that's just how the fee is being justified to you.
I don’t think so. If the garage did not exist that is more space for apartments and store fronts that would become available. There is also the noxious gases and flammable liquids that have to be dealt with.
A parking space + aisles is basically the size of a microapartment.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/0...