• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Why do city governments need to provide free/subsidized storage for private vehicles in public spaces, now?

    It is not financially nor geometrically sustainable. It is a wealth transfer from the poorer to the richer. People who want cars can store them on their own property.

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Private vehicles are owned by members of the public. The public pay taxes.

      It not being “geometrically sustainable” is the result of poor planning - which the city council is responsible for.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Everything is owned by members of the public. That is not a clever argument.

        There’s no reason to be subsidizing this. It is not necessary nor helpful for the health of the city.

        Not being geometrically sustainable means that a city with good planning doesn’t lean into it. It’s not the “result of poor planning”. You can’t change the laws of geometry with planning. Cars are an inefficient and ineffective transportation plan outside of the countryside and cities should only support them the bare minimum necessary while encouraging other forms as primary - subsidizing them by providing free/mandatory parking is leaps and bounds beyond the bare minimum and can quickly put to death sustainable urban growth.

        When in the midst of a housing crisis we should not be devoting city resources to these intensely inefficient, regressive uses.