Mandatory Confusion?

Murky Outcomes for Proposed Parking Rules


If the city adopts parking requirements I hope they allow neighborhoods to grant a waiver in return for alternative design considerations. If a costly design feature is going to be foisted on a building let it be something the specific neighborhood wants, don't limit it to what Richmond wants.

Given the opportunity, some communities may find higher aspirations than a parking garage.
Why is the city subsidizing private car owners with free on-street parking?

Until the public right of way is managed via neighborhood permits and meters on commercial strips, our streets will continue to be used by local residents as "free warehouse space" for their personal cars.

I and many of my neighbors park on the street for free while our driveways are empty. If we needed a permit (and were charged a fee) to park on the street, many of us would park our cars in our driveways instead, and there would suddenly be more parking available on the street.

Others who rarely drive their cars might well decide to sell them, and instead rely on transit, bikes, their feet and a car-sharing service.
If the developers put in a 40 unit or larger apartment complex in your neighborhood without providing any parking, you can become a capitalist and start renting out your driveway, after donating your present vehicles to a tax-deductible "charity."

At any rate, if a big apartment, sans parking, comes to your neck of the woods, there will BE NO "city subsidized parking" to be had. Think New York City.
This article reminds me of a 30-year-old's birthday! Swag!