I'll admit that I don't know how much parking a builder/complex should allocate. Given that these days that most families have at least two cars. Maybe as you suggested, 1 or 2 cars per unit with 10 or so more for visitors and future residents. And anyone who moves in with more than two cars should be instructed that if they have more then "X-number" of cars that THEY need to find alternative parking arrangements on their own. To include the possibility of a person with 1 or no cars being able to sell their unused space(s).

Think about it, in NYC commercial parking costs as much if not more then for a lot of peoples homes.

Then why are you still following and posting to it?

Uh, if I'm not mistaken thanks to "Eminent Domain" it can. I'm sure that you've heard the stories about people having their property seized and given to private developers. I and many people do not agree with it, but it does happen. Such as the cars of convicted drunk drivers being confiscated and sold at auction, the cars of convicted drug addicts also being confiscated and sold at auction, or the cars of people soliciting for prostitution. There are countless examples of peoples private property for either the "betterment" of either the public or the private sector.

That's also a good point. A&S seems to be perpetually populated with nutjobs who believe that cyclists can do no wrong whatsoever and never can think of the universe beyond their front wheel. They'll sit around and think of all the wrongs that they've ever experienced (usually perceived instead of actual, btw) and spend the rest of their free time googling for the phrase "cyclist killed" or some other morbidly depressing headline.

No amount of reasoning will ever get these jokers to think otherwise. They're too addicted to their sadness.

Hell, if it were up to me, I'd shut down A&S altogether. It's probably more counterproductive than even Foo.

fify

Chris516 and Digital_Cowboy make denizens of P&R, also Trollheim look very, very sane and reasonable.

That's so scary.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you thought that ALL private property should be subject to confiscation at the drop of a hat or just cars. You now state that you don't agree that it should. Does this mean that you think that only cars should be subject to such confiscation? Exactly what classes of private property do you think should be subject to confiscation by the government? Only cars or is there something else?

So then on-street parking is a bad idea on on that road. It doesn't mean it's bad idea everywhere.

'Cause it's like an aching tooth.

On-street parking doesn't necessarily work everywhere. But to argue that "it doesn't work everywhere" therefore "it doesn't work anywhere" is clearly illogical.

Sure, that makes a lot of sense. If you have a space you don't need you can rent it to someone who has a car with no space. But even if you allow 2 cars per property in an apartment block you need either a high rise parking facility, or more land for the parking than for the apartments.

Even then, on-street parking can work well if its a residential road as it slows down all traffic.

If only. I live on a residential urban road with cars parked down both sides so there's single file traffic down the middle. It makes it fun when cars meet cars coming the other way and someone has to reverse into a tight space to let the other pass. We still get the odd idiot come flying down the road like it was their personal racetrack.

Yes!! Today, I stopped at a stop sign before making a right turn to cross a pair of railroad tracks. As I proceeded to cross the tracks, the SUV behind me, nearly knocked me off my bike. When they suddenly passed me within less than the length of my arm!!!

Street parking on streets barely wide enough for two-way traffic, is just plain stupid.

That is the existence of my neighborhood. The streets are barely wide enough for two-way traffic.(Dumb town is stubborn about the roads)

Doug,

If you go back and re-read my posts you'll see that that is the sort of on street parallel parking that I was primarily talking about. The other place that I have a problem with on street parallel parking is when it is right next to a bike lane.

However IF the road is wide enough to SAFELY accommodate on street parallel parking AND traffic (both motor vehicle and bicycle) I can find that more accepting (doesn't mean that I like it as it is still a "long" term storage type of situation then just driving on the road) of it. And I still think that people should have to use public space to store their car(s).

Please show me where I've ever said anything like that.



Then shouldn't that suggest that there is something wrong with "the system?" As I've said before look at the parking in NYC. From some of what I've read in the past some people there pay almost as much rent to be able to park their car(s) as they do to "park" their arse.

And again, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the property owner and not "The State" to provide parking for their tenants/customers/clients? If that means that they need to build a "high rise" parking garage then so be it, or to build smaller buildings in order to allocate enough land to parking then again so be it.

But people shouldn't expect that "The State" is going to provide them with "free long term" parking.

True up to a point. But what about when that on street parking creates a pinch point that makes it dangerous for two cars to try to go down the same road at the same time? And forcing one car to have to back up and look for someplace to temporarily park? Or even worse when the on street parking makes it impossible for first responders to get into a residential area and provide lifesaving services?

On my normal route I've seen narrow residential roads with on street parking on both sides of the road that has forced cars to have to back up, I have also seen on street parking going around blind and semi-blind curves. Hell on one road I've even seen cars parking in the bike lane very close to the signs that indicate that it is a bike lane. The irony here is that just across the road there is on street parking that they could have used. Except for the fact that they'd have had to do a little walking to get from the on street parking to the house.

No, it's "better" that they park in the bike lane thus forcing cyclists out of it then to park across the street.

Agreed, and/or they get impatient when they see a cyclist on the road in front of them.

Agreed, that ranks up there with the arseholes who feel the need to swoop around a cyclist and "beat him/her" to the stop light/sign.

Those are the roads that I am primarily talking about. Followed by roads with both on street parking and bike lanes that end up in the door zone.

It would depend on the situation, but if one demonstrates an inability to safely use their private property i.e. in this case cars they should be confiscated and sold at auction. IF the seizing of one's private property truly benefits the community as a whole, while I may not like it I can at least in theory support it. I do as I said have a problem with "The State" seizing someone's property to give to a private contractor to build high priced housing for a small percentage of the population.

If "The State" is going to seize someone's property they had other then the cars of drunk/impaired unlicensed/uninsured drivers they need to show just cause and provide adequate compensation for doing so. In the case of drunk/impaired unlicensed/uninsured drivers they should be able to seize the vehicle(s) and sell them at public auction as that is for the betterment of the general public.

Why is it so stupid?

I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding Digital Cowboy's canards. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Cowboy is tricky and complex. To plunge right into it, pudibund conformism is Cowboy's quiddity. Cowboy may mean well, but many members of his polity believe that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. Even worse, almost all of his functionaries believe that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that you shouldn't let Cowboy intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Cowboy.

What if we collectively just told Cowboy's helpers, "Sure, go ahead and make a cause célèbre out of his campaign to cast dissent as treason and criticism as espionage. Have fun!"? That would be worse than heartless; it would lionize prissy parasites. If we let Cowboy alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others, then greed, corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. If you think about it, no man who values himself, who has any regard for sound morality, or who feels any desire to see intellectual progress made certain, can rightfully join his addlepated, lamebrained attempt to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture.

Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: Cowboy believes that cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities. Of course, there is a lot of debate on this subject but the best scholars feel that he has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances Cowboy conveniently overlooks the fact that he maintains that the Earth is flat. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Cowboy knows it. Why is Cowboy deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that Cowboy needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that he likes campaigns of malice and malignity that make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his prevarications. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to quash other people's opinions. Before you read this letter, you might have thought that Digital Cowboy's endeavors are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Now you know that Cowboy cottons to antipluralism.

I think that may just be the strangest post I've ever read on BF. Closed