Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
It's a thinly veiled attempt at further taxing inner city owners, penalizing them for not living in the suburbs. Rather than looking at solutions through higher efficiency and sharpening of pencils, the path of least resistance always leads to increasing taxes.
|
It also allows a more true market approach to densification where other cost factors are taken into account. If there's demand for a building without parking (or with minimal parking), why shouldn't a developer be able to build it? If parking becomes an issue, then it should also be a market driven solution, by making people pay for the piece of property their car is taking up. Why should that be subsidized?
Let the market decide what the parking minimums are, not the government.