From JVH
Yes, we have a basic disagreement here – you believe that the “Rich” are evil and I don’t. That is fundamental. I’m not quite as good at explaining my position as others, but I would like you to take a moment and watch this 10 minute video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q&feature=player_embedded
It explains what about 60% of Americans believe, and why.
I have a friend who is from Cambodia. He was very poor there. He and his wife came to the US 30 years ago with nothing. He worked two jobs, saved, and was able to open a small donut shop a block from my house. He is in his late 50s and works every day, from 5 AM until about 2 PM, every day. His wife works with him. Over the years he has been able to buy a house, raise a family, put his kids through university, and just celebrated the marriage of his oldest daughter. He had no hand up, no help, no one who “gave” him anything. He just worked his ass off, and still does.
He is happy, healthy, and very proud of the fact that he is an American and that he has such a wonderful family. I doubt he has time to be political, but if he did, which side of the spectrum do you think he would be on. The side that expects something from the government, or the side that expects nothing.
Is he “rich.” I have no clue how much money he has, but I would guess he is more rich than you or I. He works, owes no one, and doesn’t whine about what he doesn’t have and what other “Rich” have. Some of his customers drive Mercedes and live in million dollar homes. My guess is that he is proud to have them as customers, just as he is proud to have the folks who mow lawns and clean houses.
I asked a movie critic once why most of his reviews were negative. He said, with a straight face, that it was much easier to write 17 inches damning something than praising it. And of course he was right. It is so much easier to complain, gripe, and find something wrong with everything than it is to do the opposite.
I have commented on your notes below…But most likely they fall on deaf ears – I do know the facts about parking, and you don’t seem to.
JVH
From Charles: numbered points are JVH’s –to which he refers in his comments. Those marked with an Asterisk (*) are my responses
|
One last time … point by point … I’ll try to give short answers:
<= It doesn’t matter how much parking exists if it is priced out of the range of people’s ability to pay. It might as well not exist at all. *Why would someone build parking and then price it beyond their customer’s ability to pay. It makes to sense in any way. Most of the garages built in LA, or other parking for that matter, is free. It is paid for by the employer, or by the company you are going to visit (validation). 99% of all trips people take in cars end in free parking. Sorry it’s a fact. 2. Why would a business that relies on parking not plan for it? <= Parking was not always a problem. Old buildings/businesses have grandfathered parking requirements that don’t meet today’s needs. While it seems reasonable to grandfather existing parking to a new owner, the city has allowed these businesses to expand without bringing their parking up to modern standards … further exacerbating the problem. Small businesses don’t build buildings, they buy or rent what they can afford. Compromises are made and adequate parking is not always the result. Again … the city is encouraging business with no regard for the local community. And, as counter intuitive as it seems to you, big projects often look to cut corners and limit parking to save money even though they know it will hurt tenants and local residents with the lack of needed parking. Case in point … the city considering apartments without parking, a level of craziness akin to wearing a swimsuit in a snow storm (I know we will have to agree to disagree here). *Your statement makes no sense. Why would a business build a building that is destined to fail? They would simply be out of business and that would be that. As for hurting tenants, it not only “hurts” the tenants that drive cars. For those that don’t, they are hurt because of the extra rent they have to pay for the free parking for those that have cars. Lets say we are a couple and have two cars. You are a salesman and need a car for your job. We find an apartment has one parking space. What to do, what to do. It is about what we can afford. You seem to say that the landlord should have built a building with two spaces, but if he did, We couldn’t afford the apartment. However since parking is limited, we decide to sell one of the cars, and move in. Why is that such a bad thing. Under your scenario, the landlord should invest and require more rent, so each apartment will have unlimited parking. In mine, the rent is lower, people can afford better housing, and they will have more disposable income.
<= Precisely because businesses won’t do it on their own. For the same reason the department of health polices restaurants, the environmental protection agency polices manufacturers, and the city has building inspectors … left to their own devices, businesses take shortcuts that are not in the public interest; like not enough parking for instance. *Certainly some regulation is good – like building codes and health codes. Mostly to keep businesses looking inward. The free market can fix those problems, but it usually takes longer and is more painful. The problem arises when the restrictions and codes reach the point where it becomes untenable for business to survive. California is a good example. We have 12.5% unemployment largely because of the unfriendly business climate in the state. Texas has better schools, lower taxes and a better standard of living than California because it is a business friendly environment.
<= Valet parking is a whole other can of worms. I personally hate valet parking, but that does not mean it can’t work. Unfortunately there are ongoing problems with valet companies. Many are claiming more parking than they actually have contracted to use and as a result the valets are monopolizing the parking meters after hours and illegally parking up the side streets. They block traffic, drive erratically, generate noise for residents, and are considered my many to be a public nuisance. Checkout 3rd and La Jolla … cars are parked so tight in the parking lot that they are hanging out over the sidewalk. *Sure, the city needs to ensure that valet companies have the same rules as any other business. Legitimate valet companies do follow the rules. I have friends who run them, but most are getting out of the business because the field isn’t level. They are under the watchful eye of the police commission, the rogue valet companies aren’t.
<= It is all part of the big plan … Congestion Pricing. If cities and states want the federal money, they have to have a congestion pricing plan that will take roads and parking away from the masses and allocate them to the rich … to the rich … to the rich … echo … *You really need to rethink your emotional issues…
<= See Number 1 … It doesn’t matter how much parking exists if it is priced out of the range of people’s ability to pay. *Most of it is free to the driver
<= You can’t equate a Laker Game to doing errands, shopping, and going to work. Daily parking is a reoccurring expense that will break the little guys financial back. We all will spring for a special event (I love ya Kobe), but daily driving is our bread and butter (at least until the city provides a practical alternative). *Most daily driving equates to free to the driver parking. Shopping centers, strip centers, going to work, virtually all have free to the driver parking.
<= And people without children pay for schools. There are some things that governments are responsible for … like roads … and bridges … and city planning which includes parking. The city doesn’t always have to pay for it. Businesses have responsibilities here. But if the city is looking to safeguard the quality of life for it’s citizens … if it is looking into the future … it has to consider parking as part of the equation … and by parking, I mean parking that serves everyone. *I’m not sure that we are getting our money’s worth from our schools, but that’s not the point. Virtually every business I know provide free or subsidized parking to the drivers. What are all those validations at the Grove, or Westside Pavilion (completely free) or at Santa Monica Place (Completely free). Virtually all of the companies downtown have subsidized parking. Where is all the expensive parking you are talking about? Gee I’m going to dinner at a tony restaurant on Third, I’m going to pay $75 for dinner for two, but I expect free parking. Most actually do subsidize parking at the valet stands. Conclusion: In the end, there will be mass transit. My (Charles’) vision is a system that is less expensive to use than your car, runs 24 hours a day/7days a week, easily handles commuter rush hours, and reaches out to the far corners of our city. And even with this dream come true, there will be a place for the automobile and a need for parking. *Your vision is super, but perhaps unrealistic. We live in a city that is spread over thousands of square miles – one of the largest on the planet. London, New York, DC, San Francisco, Paris, Rome, are tiny in comparison. We haven’t built rapid transit because it makes little sense here. Frankly why not encourage local neighborhoods with great shops, restaurants, and the like where people can walk to them, enjoy their neighbors, and live their lives without constantly getting in cars and driving to WeHo or BH or SM or Ventura Boulevard. We certainly have enough people and enough talent to make that happen, and it’s beginning to happen. Culver City now has some of the best restaurants in the city. There are areas of Venice Boulevard west of the 405 that have great coffee shops, and street markets. But then, if you are locked in to your car… JVH
|
