[flagged]
You are the one who chose the house. if you have a single family house with no driveway you self selected to not having a car. its not the other citizens in the city who forced you to buy that house and then buy a car where you had nowhere to park it. Even if there was adequate parking before and now there isn't, what gives you perpetual rights to a shared resource?
Why should other people in the city suffer for your lack of foresight?
Sure. They chose a house which at the time had shared on-street parking available, a situation which was not guaranteed to persist forever.
But if they had shown "foresight" and insisted on a suburban house with a drive and a garage, resulting in more yardage of road for the taxpayer to maintain and low density reducing walkability increasing car traffic - has society been improved by their "responsible" decision not to depend on the shared resource?
The person who wanted a single family house with easy parking moves out of the way for other people who don't have those requirements and frees up more space for businesses and apartments who prioritize being in the center as opposed to living in inefficient single housing with a car.
I don't get the argument that its some type of right to have a single family house in an urban center with a place to park your car in front. Thats a luxury.
I lived in a single family house in this sort of scenario for about 15 years in a neighborhood that was experiencing rapid commercial development. (The street one away from mine went from a sparse arterial-through-light commercial zone whose most prominent offerings were a plumbing supply store, a pet hospital and a dental clinic to a bustling thoroughfare of dense resturaunts, shopping, and bars).
When I moved in only 3 houses on my block had driveways and off street parking. It was easy to find parking on the street any time. As the area developed it became as I described above, with mostly residents parked on my street at night and ample turnover during the day for the neighboring businesses.
When the properties behind my house became four story apartments the parking situation began to change on my street and, like you suggest, people started moving out and selling their houses.
But the buyers didn't immediately tear them down and put up 6-story apartments, instead they all got individually replaced or bones-down remodeled into more massive and luxurious single family residences. And they all got driveways.
After that it was impossible to park on my street without a motorcycle or a smart car. All day long people would try to cram in between adjacent driveways where they didn't quite fit and my rich neighbors would come out and leave passive aggressive notes on their windshields.
I was the last house on that street without a driveway, but I worked nights so the spot was pretty much defacto mine. Eventually I sold that house and the next owners scraped it and built a > $1m residence with a driveway. Over ten years later and the situation there remains the same.
It's possible that eventually all those houses will give way to multifamily then high rises, but for the current investment I imagine it will be a while. For how many generations will the parking in that neighborhood be dysfunctional?
Maybe it could've been avoided if developers and planners just ponied up for more underground parking and transit connections, who knows?
On one hand, you don't own the street in front of your house. It's public and anyone can park there. And that's very fair.
On the other hand, I've lived in suburban neighborhoods without enough parking, and they look so run down and shitty--every street looks like Fast Eddie's Used Car Lot. If I was looking for a suburban home to move into, I would probably skip a neighborhood with streets blighted with parked cars everywhere. And definitely taking a lot that used to be zoned for a single family home and dumping a 14 family apartment on it will quickly turn a neighborhood into that street parking blight.
Poorly _maintained_ (cleaned, resurfaced, policed) streets are ugly. Streets are poorly maintained when the property tax base is insufficient.
Increasing density can amortize the cost of maintaining the streetscape over more households.
1. The right to live in it as long as you pay your property taxes.
2. Not have its use as a residence ruined by allowing industrial or farm activity near enough that sounds or smells would affect you.
Housing is housing. If someone buys up all the lots around you and builds apartments, they should have that right. The willingness to invest that much money is a signal that people need to live there.
Homelessness in my town is also detrimental to my experience of living in my house.
Burn it all!
Anything that matters is already regulated at the state level if not permitted there too. Basically nothing even slightly controversial isn't permitted locally. We could just get rid of basically all zoning and it would be mostly fine. Nobody wants to put a toxic waste processing plant or strip club in a classy neighborhood anyway because those people make poor neighbors for such an operation.
And "change" is like squeezing a balloon. If you stop it in one way, it bulges out in other ways: unaffordable housing for instance. Change still happened, just different from allowing the physical form of buildings to change.
That's the part I don't understand at all, and I've had people try to explain it to me in person. The anger, anxiety, and affrontedness of seeing somebody parked at the curb in front of one's house... the neighborhood ruined... I can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voice, but can you explain it? For context, people frequently park on our street because of the proximity of a couple of commercial streets a few minutes' walk away, and we get completely parked up for events at a church down the block. The worst thing that has ever happened as a result is that our dogs have woken us up barking at someone retrieving their car. I blame that on our dogs, but I guess I could blame the people instead?
I actually did. When I bought a house, we had parking minimums around here. And I'm also legally responsible for maintaining the PUBLIC sidewalk in front of my house.
Now the minimums are gone, and density went up. We have a couple of new slum boxes that are supposed to be "transit enabled", and of course most of people there have cars. Without parking. And so now the street parking is gone.
It's good to see how you honestly view apartment buildings: with condescension.
There's nothing in urbanism but misery.
By "gone," I think you mean "used."
My local government _brags_ about the number of parking spaces eliminated in favor of bike lanes.
I wouldn't want to live on a street where the street parking is always crowded. Some cars parking some of the time is fine; having people storing stuff on the street or being overcrowded is annoying.
People think they own the entire neighborhood, and should be able to block any development that affects them, including businesses moving in or those poor people who live in apartments/condos taking up their parking spaces.
“It shall be the duty of the owners of lots or portions of lots immediately adjacent to any portion of a public street, avenue, alley, lane, court, or place to maintain the sidewalks and sidewalk area, including any parking strip, parkway, automobile runway, and curb, fronting or adjacent to their property in good repair and condition. This duty shall include removal of any unpermitted structure, including but not limited to unpermitted public pay telephones installed in the sidewalk adjacent to the property. Any person who suffers injury or property damage as a legal result of the failure of the owner to so maintain the sidewalks and sidewalk areas shall have a cause of action for such injury or property damage against such property owner. The City and County of San Francisco shall have a cause of action for indemnity against such property owner for any damages it may be required to pay as satisfaction of any judgment or settlement of any claim that results from injury to persons or property as a legal result of the failure of the owner to maintain the sidewalks and sidewalk areas in accordance with this subsection (a). Failure of the owner to maintain the sidewalks and sidewalk areas as set forth in this subsection (a) also shall constitute a public nuisance.”