XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: tscn@adelph.net   
      
   In article <23e7f86e.0404191205.2514134@posting.google.com>,   
    david_l_simpson@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson) wrote:   
      
   > [G]reg [B]yshenk (when will you learn correct English?) wrote:   
   >   
   > > >  If an "outsider" has "no business" in the neighborhood they would not be   
   > > >  parked there.   
   >   
   > > This is Local Parking for Local People. There is nothing for you here.   
   >   
   >   Mr. Mara was illogical (the act of parking does not "create" or   
   > define business on such a street or anywhere else), and your sarcasm   
   > is ironic.   
   >   
   >   Streets that are fully residential define business there obviously   
   > as activity on or associated with that street and interaction with the   
   > residents, period -- nothing else.   
      
   As long as we don't go overboard.  I don't get overly upset when the   
   nearby golf course, not the one i live on, has a tournament and some   
   overflow parking shows up.  The occasional inconvienience is less   
   intrusive than a large parking lot at their facility would be.   
      
   This goes to the larger issue.  Clearly everyone benifits with onstreet   
   public parking and it only becomes a problem when the municipality   
   attempts to exploit the capacity.  It makes no sense to design for the   
   99th percentile event.  Then again it is theft of QoL when rezoning or   
   land use mandates make demand routinely exceed capacity.  Thus your   
   following possible solutions.   
      
   >   
   >   Scarcity of parking is normally resolved by improving the supply of   
   > parking; it is not sufficient a response to say that because it's   
   > public, it is legal to park there for any use that doesn't harm   
   > others.  (That fact that it's scarce means that to take it up does   
   > harm others -- those who also want to park there but cannot, and it   
   > merits intervention when the others' needs may be more applicable more   
   > appropriate, and therefore more proper and more deserving for the   
   > street concerned.)   
      
   I disagree.  Since parking capacity is so rarely provided in response to   
   demand there's nothing wrong with the normal response of addressing   
   scarcity with lower demand.  Thus the death of CBDs.  It only becomes   
   necessary to allocate by either need or worth when there is a policy of   
   social engineering on the part of the municipality.   
      
   Parking shortages are normally addressed by anything BUT more parking.   
      
   >   
   >   This really shouldn't require explaining...   
      
   The public policy paradox.  If the people who understand were the people   
   that decided...  Interestingly this is a corralary to the liberterian   
   paradox.  A true Libertarian would never run for office.  Thus the   
   Republicrats were ensconced as the Janus' of American politics.  [Don't   
   worry, Dave gets it, everyone else can look it up.]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)