Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

DC Councilmembers Take a (Soft) Stand Against Parking

By

DCist reports that DC city councilmembers Tommy Wells and Mary Cheh proposed legislation that would allow the mayor to designate apartment buildings where residents would not be allowed to purchase residential parking permits. This innovative legislation would mark a sharp turn away from typical municipal policies that enforce parking minimums for developers.

According to the DCist, building owners would be able to seek this designation for their properties only when no units are currently leased. I contacted both councilmembers to find out more information on this proposed rule — such as whether developers will be incentivized to achieve this designation or if this designation would be voided when these buildings sell — but have not yet heard back.

My first thought on this legislation is that it has low potential for costs or unintended consequences and certainly marks an improvement over parking minimums. However, I also can’t imagine that this legislation would have a significant impact on the number of people parking on DC streets. Because people would self-select into buildings designated as parking-free, those who choose to rent in these buildings will probably be people who don’t have cars anyway.

A more effective solution would be to raise the cost of residential parking permits to the revenue-maximizing levels, varying these rates across neighborhoods in accordance with demand.

  • Well, unfortunately this leaves too much 

    I see this being employed at the Babe’s site Tenleytown. I’m not so sure giving the executive more power to appease NIMBYs is the best way to go about this. When do we get to simply “no minimums”?

  • I don’t understand… why move immediately toward not letting people buy parking permits, instead of starting from letting the mayor abolish parking minimums for new developments?

  • How is this a stand against parking?  It’s a give-away to NIMBY RPP parkers who don’t want to deal with ‘spillover’ parking from high-density infill development.  Likewise, it only reinforces the idea that, through RPP, residents are entitled to on-street parking (and cheap on-street parking at that). 

    I also don’t see how this is at all related to parking minimums – those are in the zoning code.  

  • Stephen Smith

    In theory it would make neighbors more likely to accept parking minimum-less development, since there wouldn’t be any spillovers…right?

  • Sure, in theory – but the long-term answer there is to simply get rid of the minimums and allow that kind of minimally parked development by right.  

    NIMBYism uses the shotgun approach, they’ll throw everything at an issue including the kitchen sink, and will see what sticks.  Their critiques don’t have to be logically consistent or coherent.  So, will it actually reduce NIMBY opposition?  I don’t really think so. 

    The larger point is that there really isn’t a spillover problem.  Spillover is only a problem if you begin with the premise that you’re entitled to park on the street.  I’d reject that initial premise, and that’s why I don’t like to see a policy like this tacitly endorse it.   This kind of policy does nothing to address the real issues of parking minimums (which will change when the new zoning code is finalized) and the absurdly low prices of RPP stickers. 

    And just on a fairness point, the idea that some residents are allowed to park on the street but others are not strikes me as inherently unfair. 

  • Pingback: superbroofers.net()

Meta