As expected, the Seattle City Council approved rules to make it harder for people to park near neighborhood businesses:
To wean people from their cars, encourage new small businesses and add greenery, the Seattle City Council told businesses and developers Monday they no longer need to provide parking in some areas but must plant more shrubs.Car-haters approve, and wonder why a free-marketer like myself wouldn't applaud the relaxation of parking regulations. But not so fast. Businesses cause predictable externalities of traffic and parking. It's a legitimate function of local government to mitigate these externalities with prudent zoning and management of the traffic and parking. If the city doesn't require to individual businesses to provide customer parking, some businesses might decide it's in their best interest to provide their own parking anyway. Others might prefer to freeride and assume their customers will park in other businesses' lots (a form of theft, really) or park on nearby residential streets, to the detriment of residents. In the absence of adequate parking, some businesses will simply move. The Council's expectation that enough customers will start walking and busing to the same stores to which they are used to driving strikes me as unrealistic:
"This looks to the future for a vision of a city that is less auto-dependent," said Councilman Peter Steinbrueck.A more realistic assessment from someone who will be affected by this:
"It's very business-unfriendly," said Dan Wiseman, the second-generation owner of Wiseman Appliances in the Admiral area in West Seattle. His customers, he said, "are going to go to the big-box stores that have the parking."Indeed. More driving to distant stores, fewer local businesses. Utopian social engineering at its worst. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 12, 2006 12:03 PM | Email This
Ahhh, yes. The liberal utopia!
Posted by: Right said Fred on December 12, 2006 12:10 PMIf I pull into a 7-11 and park while I go to the dry cleaners across the street and then get an mocha at the Tully's next door, I hardly consider it "theft" unless there is a sign that says "7-11 customers only".
Of course, truly visionary downtown planners realize those people that spend big money aren't assorted leftists taking the bus and provide adequate free or cheap parking for customers. When downtown is a shopping destination instead of a place to be avoided at all costs, you suddenly reap a lot of tax revenues.
Posted by: H Moul on December 12, 2006 12:33 PMI have long wondered whether, in your dislike for the Seattle City Council and King County Council, there was anything they could do that you would approve of. With this post, I am getting closer to an answer. If the City Council had passed an ordinance stating that all businesses had to provide offstreet parking for 5 cars, I assume you would be screaming about the added regulatory cost imposed by the business-hating Council. I mean, you could certainly complain about the "green" aspects of the ordinance (which even a treehugger like myself thinks are stupid), but bitching about eliminating a requirement to provide offstreet parking? C'mon.
And as for Mr. Wiseman, competition sucks. I don't think there is anything in the new ordinance that prevents him from providing parking for his customers.
Posted by: Steven Donegal on December 12, 2006 12:45 PMFor businesses who don't have adequate parking, the businesses around it will be forced to defend its parking so that their own customers will have a place to park. This could create ill-will to that business who tows someone who might have gone across the street first and then intended to come back to the business with the parking. No one likes getting towed, and that person will certainly never go to the business that towed him after that.
Bottom line is that there is alot of freeloading that will occur because of this rule. It's pretty unfair to the existing businesses with parking to have to defend its own parking from those freeloading businesses who chose not to build any.
Posted by: Palouse on December 12, 2006 01:06 PMDo these idiots who oppose "sprawl" really believe this kind of thing is going to do anything but push more businesses to the Eastside?
Say, wasn't it Sound Politics that discovered that Steinbrueck is the heaviest (drives the most) driver on the council? And that his greenhouse gas emitter of choice is a large SUV?
In the spirit of looking "to the future for a vision of a city that is less auto-dependent" I will once again propose: Make it mandatory that all government employees (to include the grandees on the city council) must take public transportation to and from work. This will instantly relieve Seattle streets and freeways of a major contributor to congestion and long commute times. This will also let that little hypocrite Peter put his time and money where his mouth is.
The parking situation near the post office is terrible and going to get worse with all the new buildings going up. Many of the condo owners not only have two vehicles (space is usually only provided for one), but the builder is allowed to put in "compact car" type spaces to meet the minimum requirements. So if you own anything larger than a Civic or Corolla, you park on the street. And people are using the buses for commuting, not shopping or a night out.
All council members should be immediately forced to give up their vehicles for the duration of their elected term. If Steinbreuck thinks this is going to help businesses or the environment, then he has been inhaling too much alternative greenery. What a hypocrital moron!!!
The Seattle City Council shilling for Wal-Mart?
Posted by: sro on December 12, 2006 02:30 PMIf you think zoning is a legitimate government function, Stefan, sounds like you're behind in your reading of Richard Epstein. Back to the books!
Posted by: DJ on December 12, 2006 03:26 PMAnd now that King county has made its thoughts known on reimbursing citizens for government "takings," I hope they simply create greenbelts where parking lots used to be.
I also think they should standardize stream setbacks statewide and plow under every human improvement within 100 feet of a streambed (or former streambed) in urban areas.
A bad idea is when urban folks think things are too crowded and thus set aside more rural land.
If it crushes the economy of King county to impose their utopia, then so be it.
Perhaps then depressed counties will be able to draw some business activities.
Perhaps then the validity of economics will make sense to the fuzzy-headed utopian liberals and the urban business elites who smile and nod.
Is this for during business hours or if you count every hour in the day? Have you tried finding a spot at the Met Mktg on QA or Safeway? How about the QFC on Capital Hill or even the QFC at U-Village...even during the summer it's tough. Transportation Dept....what an oxymoron in this region.
How sad... may it rest in peace, Amen.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on December 12, 2006 03:51 PMpicture a sign...
100 PARKING SPACES! ... with only 3.5 available...
Poor dead SanFranSeattle.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on December 12, 2006 03:58 PMThey don't like kids....think Chitty Chitty bang bang
Posted by: Dengle on December 12, 2006 04:21 PMThis is just another step towards the city goal of banning all cars in the downtown are south of the ship canal and north of I-90
Posted by: Stupid is as Stupid does. on December 12, 2006 04:29 PMThat’s really going to be interesting when the feeding troughs attempting to be sidewalk cafes start adding The Factor and narrowing sidewalks even more. Wonder if Niles, I mean Pete, ever stopped to consider Americans With Disabilities Act requirements governing sidewalk space. He’ll think about it when the lawsuits start coming in.
I have had it. This year, we are breaking a 10 year family tradition of going downtown to enjoy the Christmas atmosphere (spending a lot of money buying presents, food, etc) because these people simply don't want my business.
It is going to Bellevue this year, and while Mayor Gridlock couldn't give a damn about my money, I'm sure the merchants of Bellevue will enjoy it for years to come.
These people are warped.
One look at who the county council just elected chair and "vice" chair (an apt title in the case of the latter) confirms your suspicion.
All can rest assured that there is going to be plenty of YouTube hilarity this coming year from both the county and city improv groups masquerading as government councils.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 12, 2006 06:41 PM
Granted these morons are totally off the mark in their intentions. The approach is more libertarian than anything.
I guess they didn't really think through how this might effect handicapped access or access for the elderly.
Posted by: Andy on December 12, 2006 07:16 PMSuch a beautiful city and a beautiful state, but I've never lived anywhere that is more backward then here!
Posted by: mimi on December 12, 2006 08:19 PMIf the council required businesses to devote their valuable private property to parking spaces against their will, that would be a taking that they should be reimbursed for -- right?
Posted by: Bruce on December 12, 2006 09:58 PMYou park in a 20-car lot in downtown Seattle, and you may well be within 150 feet of 20 stores. Whoever provided that lot for their customers, realistically, is providing it for the customers of 19 other stores as well. You park at WalMart, and you may well be within 150 feet of... well, WalMart, and that's about it. It's the "tragedy of the commons" all over again, but with cars instead of sheep.
And I define "taking" as government changing the rules of the game after you've bought your property, thus rendering it less valuable. If you bought your property back when it was required to provide x parking spaces for every y square feet in your store, you knew those were the ground rules going in, and nothing was taken from you by those rules remaining in effect.
Hats off to your libertarian instincts, but I think this is one of those legitimate places for local government to step in and prevent a free rider problem.
Posted by: TB on December 12, 2006 11:04 PMsame reason why certain commuters wont embrace busses--too much hassles with kids & commuting & other errands, etc.
this parking-shopping lesson happened in a big midwest city. main downtown shopping street closed. a mall for bus & walking. business dies. shoppers went to suburb malls. downtown reversed its parking/mall idea. downtown never recovered from that move. bettere stores moved out or closed. lessons were learned.
i sometimes wonder why urban planners just don't use some plain old (cheap) common sense & look around at what people are REALLY doing, not what they SHOULD BE doing.
besides, people now like shopping at suburban malls. why go downtown for anything one can get locally?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 13, 2006 05:27 AMThe free market just doesn't operate the way you say. With cost of land in downtown Seattle so high, you would never see a big box there with lots of parking. But, at least your side is trying to learn about business, free markets, etc..
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2006 07:19 AMIsn't that what people want, less government regulation???
It's social engineering to force businesses to provide expensive parking.
Posted by: Stephanie on December 13, 2006 07:52 AMMaybe next the Seattle council won't charge any impact fee's because the infrastructure is already built and we are simply utilizing it more fully. But hey the businesses are really stoked about not having to pay for adequate parking. Let us know how that works out for you.
Posted by: Huh? on December 13, 2006 08:47 AMWhy would Bartell's have to hire people to protect their parking spaces if it was 'guaranteed' people would respect their privacy, no trespassing and all that?
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2006 09:07 AMInteresting you used the word 'bus' Cato. Buses are more mobile than the preferred rail lines. I think more buses, better designed buses and more routes are a better solution than rail. Agree with my 80-20 split?
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2006 10:26 AMLook, I like the car-free urban lifestyle when it's practical. I lived in some great urban neighborhoods in SF. I liked that I could walk to stores, entertainment and restaurants and that I could go for days without having to get in my car. But (1) I was childless most of that time, so it was a lot easier than it is for me now, and (2) the geography in Seattle, at least here in the north part of town, is a lot more spread out and getting around without a car is much less attractive than it is in San Francisco.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 13, 2006 10:44 AMHuh??? The Muni is a really good way to get rolled or stuck. I don't know what part of town you were in but I think maybe you weren't aware of the high rate of crime, esp gang related, on the muni bus system. I know its easy to miss that kind of thing, but there's been significant problems in SF with muggings of the bus drivers, let alone passengers, to the extent that its been a union bargaining point.
Posted by: bc on December 13, 2006 11:28 AMSure, some people will avoid stores without "free" parking, but nothing is really free and this seems like a reasonable choice to leave to the businesses.
Posted by: Bruce on December 13, 2006 12:38 PMI wouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 13, 2006 01:19 PMBruce: "I still fail to see why the free market can't solve this."
Oh, the free market will solve this, in the form of more customers shifting more of their business away from neighborhood stores and driving to suburban malls and big box stores that offer more convenient and predictable parking.
I'm not really complaining about the outcome, only pointing out that the consequences of this manoeuvre will be other than what its sand-for-brains promoters have intended.
There used to be quite a few spots on Seattle downtown streets where you could find a free spot. It was kind of nice, and put you in a better mood for the rest of the day. Sadly, those days are gone. They have even taken away the joy from getting to a spot with some time left on the meter. We used to shop downtown alot more than we do now.
Posted by: Palouse on December 13, 2006 03:36 PMNow you have to deal with one of those idiotic, annoying parking kiosks, or park way up on a residential street and walk through a bunch of drunken, agressive panhandlers. Or use the city's preferred alternative, ride bus #72 and make a half hour trip into a 2-hour odyssey complete with smelly crazy people. We said the heck with it, it's much easier to drive to the Northgate QFC.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 13, 2006 04:10 PMWhen I'm in Seattle on occasion, and I feel the need to stop along the way to pick up something to eat, I definitely do not stop for places that look to have zero parking available. Some small businesses are going to pick up and move because of this. When they start getting fewer customers AND have to spend money for more plantings, they will just up and leave.
Have you had enough, yet, Seattle businesses? Will you stop voting in these economic know-nothings who are trying to hurt you?
Posted by: Misty on December 13, 2006 05:36 PMSo would this be their thought process? "Hmmm. No one is coming to my business because there's no place to park. I don't want to provide parking. Maybe I'll move to someplace else where I'm forced to provide parking."
Posted by: Bruce on December 13, 2006 06:41 PMHey Bill, if you can't handle sticking a quarter in one of those parking kiosks, how on earth do you manage to get onto the internet?
Posted by: Bruce on December 13, 2006 06:45 PMThe root problem, Stefan, is that urban property is more expensive than suburban property. That's why you don't find malls with lots of free parking downtown. And why is urban property more expensive? Let's go back to Econ 101: Because more businesses want it. And why do they want it? Because they can make more money from it.
If fewer people shop in urban areas, the property value will decline to the point where it's worth putting in free parking. But currently downtown businesses can make more profit by using the space for sales and other activities than by using it for free parking. Obviously those sales must be to people who got there somehow. Some drove and paid for parking, some took the bus or train, some biked, and some even walked from their downtown homes.
The city's rule change reflects the reality that some Seattle neighborhoods are approaching downtown in density and property values, and this is pricing out small businesses. Therefore they are allowing small businesses the option to use their space as they wish, without requiring parking.
If you want to question the rule requiring shrubbery, go ahead. But I can't believe you want to require free parking. Is there really a free lunch?
Posted by: Bruce on December 13, 2006 07:02 PMBruce, I thought you were a above stooping to the snotty kinds of personal attacks liberals are so fond of. Evidently I was wrong.
I believe the minimum you can get away with is $1.50 at one of those lovely kiosks I was referring to.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 13, 2006 07:32 PM