Rex says in his blog post "Parking is an amenity, like granite counters, that a homebuyer or renter should be able to choose, or not, depending on how much they are willing to pay for housing."

Problem is, the buyers in buildings without any parking won't be paying for the amenity of a parking place, but some of them *will* own cars and will indeed be parking somewhere nearby.

YAY LETS REHASH THE SAME DEBATE IN THE COMMENTS LIKE IT MATTERS TO ANYTHING YAY

MOAR GRANITE COUNTERTOPS

Yeah, the debate boils down to: Carshare, motherfuckers.

There are important process questions--like, why change a 20+ year policy because a few people are upset and why do it so fast?--but the bigger issue is what we will lose if we don't build a city where cars are better managed? The loss of farmland, increased housing costs, more traffic: all will result if we go backwards and mandate more paving. http://bit.ly/13qN5eQ

Citizen Rex is shaping up to be a pretty cool dude. Keep it up.

Todd, what is the problem if people in apartments park on the street? The only cost is to those competing for curbside spaces who made the exact same choice. Why should people be protected from the consequence of that decision, and if so why should the cost of that protection be born exclusively by apartment residents? Why should the resident of a 500 square foot apartment be made to pay for parking so that the resident of a 3 bedroom house doesn't have to?

Portland can do better than this.