Parking Spot Squat

communitybuilder · May 2006

Pit,

Residential parking permit fee isn't "regressive" if car owners are wealthier than non. And if automobiles create billions in costs currently unaccounted for -- traffic congestion, honking, asthma, oil war, etc.

Yes, gas taxes pay for state and federal roads. But I was talking about NYC's roads and city-owned bridges. Those are paid almost qentirely from the city's general tax funds.

European cities have all kinds of great traffic calming features and quite aesthetically pleasing bollards. Rows of parked cars aren't the only way to make sidewalks safe. And it's not a very good use of precious urban space in many cases.

friendlypitbull wrote: Community I think you are mixing apples and oranges -

A residential parking permit fee is a totally regressive fee (sorry Stacey but sliding scale is a logistical nightmare and isnt going to happen); the more you charge for the fee (and therefore the more effective it is in removing cars from the street) the more regressive. Charge a high enough fee and only the wealthy (here I speak of actual wealth not reletive wealth that you mention) will be able to afford cars and use the parking for which everyone - rich and poor alike 'own'

So while the relative wealth of car owners vs not, is an interesting statistic (do you have a cite) it is irrelevant to the regressive effect of high parking permit fees.

BTW - I am not saying that b/c it is elitest/regressive it shouldnt be done - only that it is regressive and people have to be honest about that - especially the protesting crowd who often laments that NYC is becoming only for the rich.

Your points about auto owners getting a free ride is also a common fallacy - car owners pay for roads and parking in terms of city, state and federal gasoline tax and extra cityy and state sales tax, as well as registration fees and toll fees (remeber are roads and bridges are often paid for and maintained with city, state and federal $).

You of course may have an argument that drivers dont pay enough relative to their societal cost but it is utterly false that car owners pay nothing and and are simply sycophants on the motoring system. And considering that 99.9% of those societal costs come from car operation and not 'parking' - if we are going to tax anything it should be usage (best measured by gas consumption)

Finally I believe you are wrong about parked cars as a buffer - benches cannot acted as a buffer since no one is going to want to sit next to moving traffic anymore than they want to walk next to it ; bollards besides being ugly simply do not provide the necessary distance that cars do; finally trees/landscaping can be effective but is honestly not practical on a mass scale anyway. If you want to create an active and safe urban street life retaining the street wall (with buildings) and having a lane of parked cars has been found to be the most effective method.

anonymous · May 2006

Subject: Re: Residential Permits

SlopeGuy wrote: Residential permits could be free to residents, or there could be a charge. Non-residents could park for a lmited time - say one or two hours, max - using a Muni-Meter, and the price for that parking could be set at a "market rate," or at least some higher rate than is charged currently. 100% of the parking revenue could be earmarked for mass transit or improvement to the local infrastructure: benches, planters, better signage, more street upkeep, etc.

a. I think that makes a lot of sense. Cars should totally be subsidizing public transportation. But I don't think the permits should be sliding scale nor exhorbitant. A fair price--what that would be I don't know but a couple hundred bucks per car per year would help the city. But you have to have a muni-meter system because people like me have to drive to the slope to go to the pediatrician and to use essential services. Normally I do stand in the freezing cold and take a bus but not with two children under three. I am sure that the merchants want people to drive into the neighborhood to use the stores and restaurants too.
b. the city and state totally subsidize cars as we see by how rarely the bridge and tunnel tolls are raised.
c. We are not rich but have a car because we have two young children. So charging an exhorbitant amount would favor the wealthy. Charging a flat fee to everyone would make sense.

Good luck with that idea though--if it looks like a tax or smells like a tax it is sure to be shot down instantly!

findcate · May 2006

communitybuilder, wouldn't we have to maintain NYC's roads and city-owned bridges for commerce/taxis/emergency vehicles etc anyway?

Plus, Americans would never execute billboards in an aesthtically pleasing manner. Aesthetics are just not deep rooted enough here. Look at all the ugly wires hanging all over the place, in europe they are mosly underground for aesthetic reasons. Here the bottom line is king, not aesthetics.

"I do have a kid, and when he is old enough, I will let him play all kinds of games in the street. I promise."

Jamzer, just teach them to watch out for car service/taxi drivers! They are really crazy...

steveo · May 2006

stacey wrote: Thanks Community but I would still like to know how they came up with this. Not doubting but l still find it hard to believe because like I said most people I know dont make a lot of money but own cars. $15,000 more a year can not be called "more affluent". But like the article says there are exceptions. I would just like to know how many Thanks for the link too I will be reading it in more detail

Stacey,

Here are the pages that explain how the $15,000 number was arrived at:

http://www.bridgetolls.org/whowillpay/wwp7.htm
http://www.bridgetolls.org/data/Toll_Progressivity_Calculations.htm

(Actually, it's $14,300 and it only applies to residents of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island who commute via the East River bridges, since the analysis was preformed for a report on East River tolling, called "East River Bridge Tolls: Who Will Really Pay?")

Steve
Webmaster, www.bridgetolls.org

drano · May 2006

Jamzer wrote:

Why is it that no one is talking about how these people allow their kids to play in the gutter?

Isn't that a little disgusting, even to protest the horrors of free car parking?

You know, I thought that about a dozen times but I didn't get around to posting it with all the other discussions going on.

That's pretty damned disgusting. Here are just a few of the substances that I think that kid might be exposed to:

-Dog Piss
-Dog Squeeze
-Panhandler Diarrhea
-Drunk Puke
-Anti-freeze
-Motor Oil (used)
-Coffee Grounds (I hate those)
-Gasoline

I mean put a blanket down or something.

Edit: And oh yeah, I have a kid and I'm not uptight, but that's a little over the line.

anonymous · May 2006

Actually, you and the others all sound like totally neurotic germophobes.

Jamzer wrote: Edit: And oh yeah, I have a kid and I'm not uptight, but that's a little over the line.

anonymous · May 2006

Edit: And oh yeah, I have a kid and I'm not uptight, but that's a little over the line.

"Not uptight?" You're joking, right?

drano · May 2006

Subject: Re: Parking Spot Squat

SlopeGuy wrote:
Edit: And oh yeah, I have a kid and I'm not uptight, but that's a little over the line.
"Not uptight?" You're joking, right?

Definitely. Hey if you have a kid, let's set up a time. I'll crap on its face and you can show me how loosey goosey you are!

P.S. I shall eat Kinara first so you will be assured of only the finest ingredients.

Edit: Oh yeah. Register already.

anonymous · May 2006

Drano,

Register? I think not. After experiencing the friendly nature of the regulars, and their intellectual rigor, I think I'm finished here. The waste of time is not in taking over a parking spot; it's in spending time on this site.

And in parting, do you wear shoes in your house? If so, you're tracking all the same stuff around your house. If not, you're more enlightened than you sound.

Ciao.

drano · May 2006

Aw, c'mon. Don't be so uptight - obviously I don't want to crap on a kid's face. Hmmmmm....maybe if it was Bin Laden's kid...but anyhow...

The shoe thing is a good point. We don't wear them inside for both reasons you mention and out of consideration for our downstairs neighbors.

And although I was joking with some of the stuff I said and the way I made the point (the list), I seriously wouldn't let my kid play in a gutter. If that makes me an anal, uptight, germophobe, gentrifier, then so be it. If you let your kid play in the gutter, it's cool. I reckon we can agree to disagree on this one.

anonymous · May 2006

Olive branch accepted.

I do not have kids, actually. So I'll leave it to the parents to decide where it's ok for their kids to play.

And maybe I will register.

pitu · October 2007

They did it again (parking squat redux!)

<param><param><param>
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/parking-day-redux-in-park-slope-2007/

I never thought about the idea of parking being subsidized before these little actions, so I think it's pretty cool. Tish James stopped by and sat-in with them.

garfunky · October 2007

communitybuilder wrote: First off, I'm guessing you don't have a kid. Kids get dirty, parents have "wipes," and that street doesn't look any dirtier than any other outdoor surface in Brooklyn. The dirt helps build the immune system, god bless 'em. /

put the same parent and the same child in their own front yard.
a dog pees on the yard side.
parent goes berserk.
omg my BAYBEEE has to play here !!

"wipes" only exist when child plays in gutter ?
like no dog has ever defecated there ?

nothing personal mind you,
i just find it a bit nonsequitir and strangely amusing :?

dw438 · October 2007

Jamzer wrote:

Why is it that no one is talking about how these people allow their kids to play in the gutter?

Isn't that a little disgusting, even to protest the horrors of free car parking?

Shows you where these idiots prorities are.
How many dogs have shat/pissed in that gutter.
It's in front of a restaurant. How many rats ...
Lame, lame, lame.

eggcream · October 2007

Funny how the parents aren't sitting in the street. If I had seen this I would have left my car running blowing exhaust in their faces. It's not enough there are bike lanes now for these idiots who ride their bike in front of you going at a snails pace with their offspring trailing behind now they want to take over parking spaces. Lots of people rich and poor use cars/trucks for personal and business reasons. It's none of their damn business.

Why didn't they pull this stunt in front of the schoolyard. Guess all those vendors should haul their stuff on their backs while riding a bike. How about in front of Keyfood. All those deliverymen I'm sure can use a bike.

I'm so sick of these elitist liberals dictating how we should live our lives.
Al Gore is laughing flying around in his private jet.

chance · October 2007

Idiots... thats exactly where there child belongs. If you want to stick a couple quarters in the meter and suck on those fumes be my guest. If your bitter about the rent you pay for your apt, then pitch a tent in a parking spot, and stick it to the man. But you'll make more traffic/pollution/noise by taking away a parking spot. If your so concerned about pollution/noise/lack of space why are you living in the city to begin with?

Remember idiots, you got that coveted seat on the subway because an elite motorist decided to take his car to work. More cars on the road mean less people on the subway. Sick of paying highway taxes cause you don't have a car? How do you think that organic, fair trade, haf-caf, skim latte made its way into the concrete jungle?

restless native · October 2007

The sidewalk is one thing, but the gutter is called the gutter for a reason. It's where all the filth washes into the sewer, and letting your baby play in it is disgusting. Example #4080 of typical yuppie lack of common sense. :roll:

If my grandmother saw that picture she'd have a heart attack, like she always used to say, "STAY OUTTA THE GUTTUH!!" :oops:

Parking Spot Squat

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories