“It’s not like the government is forcing you to buy a car!”

If you live in a city with parking minimums, yes they fucking are.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you already have existing transit it likely wouldn’t cost an exreme amount to add a couple stops. If your city doesn’t have any transit then someone should plan some.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Once again, who is gonna pay?

      The city can’t afford it without a bond, and voters will never approve an increase in taxes to remove parking and install transit that will increase local (e.g. Voter) commute times and invite the “undesirable elements” from the city they fled to the suburbs to avoid.

      We can’t legally force developers to build public infrastructure that isn’t directly required due to their individual business (e.g. traffic signal or wastewater line extension).

      Know what we can do? Force developers to build parking for their business through zoning ordinances with minimum parking requirements based on use. So a restaurant needs more parking spaces per square foot than an office building, which needs more than a warehouse.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Most cities cannot afford their extisting road infrastructure maintaince. Once built transit systems and walkability are far cheaper to maintain.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Great.

          Your still haven’t offered a solution for how to pay for it.

          Our roads are 30 years behind on maintenance, but we can patch them here and there and do one out two major projects a year. And when a street collapses it’s relatively easy to get a bond to fix it because the citizens want their roads back.

          We can’t patchwork a public transit system, and the citizens are overwhelmingly against it anyway. We tried buying a single bus to shuttle people around and we had a new city manager following that backlash.

          Planners aren’t kings. We’re public servants subject to the will of Council, which is made up of people who represent voters, who overwhelmingly don’t want more density, new people, etc. We have pretty much zero input on the direction of the city.

          Shit… we spend way more time reviewing swimming pools for code compliance than actually developing plans. When it does come time to do a new comp plan or transportation study, almost every city outsources that to a third party company.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            We pay for it by redeveloping massive multi lane roads into multi transit corridors when their major repair/resurfacing work is due. A few places have used this strategy to redevelop car centric areas into areas with better transit and pedestrian accesses.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              That requires a public process.

              And guess what voters and politicians want? More roads and more barriers to the “unwashed poor” who use transit.

              • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                25 days ago

                You are really just making excuses to maintain the same short-sighted status quo that has you so frustrated. The solution is offering education to those voters you are so vehemently concerned about. The money comes from managing existing budgets better and making cuts to public programs that are wasteful. You raise funds by implementing bonds and taxes. Voters will get the fuck over taxes being raised if they actually see some benefit from it. Bullshitting your way with the same tired-ass excuses just shows you should quit your job and let someone, who actually cares, do it.

                • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  25 days ago

                  Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

                  A few years ago, the planning director made a presentation at council about putting in sidewalks and bike lanes. The citizens freaked out and all complained to Council that the city would be invaded by the homeless if it were made more pedestrian and bicycle friendly or had bus stops.

                  2 weeks later, that planning director was fired.

                  Planners don’t actually get to plan cities. We implement comprehensive plans set by council, write code amendments when instructed to by council, review development plans for compliance with code, and enforce code.

                  My small department also handles building permits and inspections, oversees civil engineering (our actual engineers are third-party), and manages public works projects.

                  Pretty much no city planners actually make policy. The “planning” we do is pretty much scheduling the work that’s already been approved.

                  What about the comprehensive plan updates? We don’t really get involved with that because we’re too busy with everything else. When comp plan season comes around, cities hire outside firms to help them develop the plan.

                  • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    25 days ago

                    Oh shut up. You asked for an answer to how it would be paid for and how to implement. You keep moving the goalposts. Shut the fuck up.