I always thought the Scots were a breed apart. But this article tells me that they have been infected by the British Nanny State syndrome.
Here’s the deal. A developer is building some apartments and is offering free parking for the larger units, but if someone in one of the smaller units wants to park on site, they will have to buy a space. In other words, he is unbundling parking from the cost of the apartments. Larger apartments which cost more get parking, smaller ones don’t but if you want it you can pay for it. That saves money for the renter in the smaller unit, saves building costs (as he won’t have to build so many parking spaces) and the like.
Seems perfectly wonderful to me. A private developer makes a market based decision. And why not?
However if you look at the comments about the article, everyone sees some sort of plot in it. The theme is that parking should be provided and if its not, there should be some kind of investigation. After all, isn’t it written in the Magna Carta that parking should be free….
The tough Scots have gotten soft. All that English Nanny State baloney has jumped Hadrian’s Wall and flooded the country with a bunch of wimps.
JVH
As an aside — I think the spin put on all this by the developer is the wrong way to go. He says that he’s doing it to promote "family life" as larger families will rent the larger units and they need vehicles. That’s all well and good, however I think it would have been much more appropriate simply to say that people who rent larger units pay more and get a space, and those who rent other units pay less and don’t, but if they want one, they can rent one. Takes all the frou frou out of it and tells it like it is. Blatant Capitalism.
2 Responses
Or you could look at it this way: don’t provide adequate parking because it costs money to create. Let the people park in front of businesses or other people’s homes nearby. Saves the developer the cost of making parking, and the only negative is that the neighbors or nearby shop-goers now have to park in the next block over, taking away the parking for those businesses or homeowners. I think that is why we have building codes, which are laws, which state what a development must provide in terms of parking.
AH…but the deal is this — why should people who don’t use the parking garage pay for it. And why should taxpayers that don’t use the parking on street pay for it? If the builder didn’t build parking spaces the place would be cheaper to rent. Those that didn’t have cars could get a better place for a lower price and those that did could pay for the space in which to park them. What’s the problem?
As for on street — same applies. Lets charge a lot for parking in front of that store. Make the shop keeper either pay to park there or pay less a few blocks away. Same exact issue.
JVH