aknowledgeableperson wrote:phuqueue wrote: There's really no such thing as "free" parking, somebody has to pay for it. If Nichols and whoever else in charge of the Plaza decided to offer free parking even in the absence of a legal mandate, that decision was still subject to market forces -- he saw some level of demand for parking and provided it as part of his development. I think that in some cases it's perfectly reasonable that a property owner will see good economic reason to cover the cost of parking at his property, but because he has that choice, it's fair to assume that he will provide only the optimal amount of free parking, and also that many other property owners will not make the same choice. Some business owners might see free parking as a way to lure customers, but that parking still has to be paid for, probably in the form of higher prices on the business's products; competitors may attempt to steal away business by not spending money on parking, thus allowing them to undercut his prices. The result is that you probably do end up with some free parking, which will probably be restricted (eg to patrons of that particular business) and will not be nearly as widespread as it is now. Under the current system everyone's got to provide free parking, so everyone just passes the cost along and we've got ample parking.
Let's see. I can go on the internet to the Best Buy web site and buy items I want. Or I can drive to astore and buy the items I want. I am going to pay the same price so how does free parking affect the price? And don't forget, I just might get "free shipping"with the internet.
Are you serious? Have you ever actually ordered anything off the Internet? The comparison of Best Buy's website to its brick and mortar stores isn't applicable since it's all one entity, but the whole reason sites like Amazon gained prominence is that they can sell for significantly less than traditional stores. Of course, not all of those savings are because they don't have to provide free parking to customers, but attaching a parking lot to a brick and mortar store is one cost that they don't have to incur (in addition to all the other costs associated with brick and mortar stores).
If there were "free parking" much like many of you seem to be saying then why can't I drive downtown to just walk around and park in any garage I want to and not pay? Or I can work for one employer downtown who pays for my parking or for another employer who doesn't, but will pay a portion of my monthly bus pass that I isn't feasibile to use because of where I live and my hours?
Nobody said
all parking was free, but if you drive downtown and can't find
somewhere to park for free, you're clearly not looking very hard. There's tons of free surface parking throughout downtown, generally in the form of unmetered street parking. Garages typically aren't free for any random guy off the street, although for instance the garage by Cosentino's is free for patrons of AMC Mainstreet (and probably Cosentino's itself and probably other nearby businesses, but Mainstreet is the only one I've ever used it for). You don't think the garage itself was free to construct though, do you? Nor that the land on which it was built was free to acquire? So how do you think the garage is paid for?
The point is minimum parking requirements causes free parking I just don't buy. Now, if the conclusion was "Minimum Parking Requirements An Oversupply of Parking Spaces Which Causes Lower Parking Prices" I could accept. But then that is probably not 'sexy' enough of a title. Or "Mimimum Parking Requirements Causes Too Many Parking Structures And Affects Building Construction Costs and Development" but then that is probably too long of a title for a paper.
This is literally exactly what I fucking said earlier in the thread! I'm not fighting your assertion that some places do offer free parking even without minimum requirements, but without a legal requirement that decision is ultimately market-driven. Meanwhile where requirements do exist they lead to an excess of parking, much of which is free, the rest of which is cheaper than it otherwise would be. I have literally made this exact point a few posts up. As usual you're too busy building up strawmen and then arguing against those to understand what's actually being said to you.
I am not a coffee drinker. In the past when we I went out for breakfast coffee drinkers received unlimited "free" coffee but I would pay a rather high price for orange juice and extra for a refill. Now one might have to pay for coffee but it is still unlimited and I pay a higher price for my one glass of orange juice. How a business prices its products is a decision that has many factors, much like how a business prices parking or offers employee benefits.
No shit, but every cost a business incurs has to be built into its prices. If a business offers "free parking," whether by choice or by government mandate, that parking has to be paid for somehow. Land isn't free, a garage isn't free, even a surface lot isn't free. If a store is offering free parking to customers, the cost of it must be built into its prices; if a business is offering free parking to its employees, that cost comes out of their paychecks, or maybe out of dividends to be paid to shareholders, or from somewhere. In no event is free parking literally "free." Everything costs money, including a parking lot. Some will choose to make that purchase even if they don't have to, many won't. This is really very simple.