XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: robert@nospam.bogus
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:14:28 -0700, in rec.autos.driving The Real Bev
wrote:
>On 08/16/10 19:29, dr_jeff wrote:
>
>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>
>> Or, alternatively, they are charging for the real value of the parking
>> space.
>
>The City requires some number of parking spaces per whatever, but I'm
>pretty sure that parking is just another profit center for the building
>owners.
It costs real money to provide parking: money to purchase the land,
money to pave the surface or build the parking structure, annual
property taxes (of course), and the opportunity cost of not being able
to use that land for other, more productive uses. How much do you
suppose the landowner would have to charge to simply recover those
costs, let alone make a profit?
>> If the cost is too much, take the bus or subway, walk or ride a bike.
>
>Yes, but the "Let 'em eat cake" solution isn't possible for everyone.
>
>Personal private at-will transportation is neither a crime nor a sin,
>but a highly desirable result of a prosperous civilization. I'm really
>tired of the smugness of the anti-car people, who regard ANYTHING
>personal or private as some sort of crime against society.
The costs of parking *will* be passed along to you somehow, either in
the form of taxes, higher prices for the goods you buy, or in direct
user fees. This is neither a crime nor a sin, and it's certainly not
"anti-car."
But I do have a solution for you: If you want free parking in
Pasadena, go ahead and purchase some land, pave it, paint some
stripes, and let people park there for free. If you can't afford to do
that, what makes you think anyone else can?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
