Why We Need More (and More Expensive) Paid Parking

Seattle downtown vacancy rates are already at an all time high because of the high costs and business inaccessibility.

Probably many of the buildings in downtown could and should be razed to de-densify the Seattle Peninsula and bring its density into line with the exurbs.

This would create land for parks, greenery, free parking, and low rise building that are the norm for high tech and modern business occupations.

but… but… we already pay for those parking spaces through taxes

seriously, ihas anyone from the times editorial staff tried to find street parking downtown on a normal business day? sure, you can find it – you just have to navigate for a while. now imagine if it was free and unregulated – street parking would be EVERYWHERE! honest!

is it opposite week at the local papers, or did some clown get a parking ticket because with a sub-par douchenozzle IQ, he can’t set his nifty iphone?

Ooh! This makes about as much sense as ripping out the interurban did! The amount of energy wasted alone could never be recouped, even with uber green buildings down the road that would have to be built to provide workspace for when the economy isn’t total trash.

If you want lots of greenery, free parking, low-rise buildings and a ginormous energy/CO2 footprint, keep to the Eastside, please.

So you’re saying a park has a bigger CO2 foot print then a 20 story tower built in 1905?

So you’re saying a park has a bigger CO2 foot print then a 20 story tower built in 1905?

I saw this headline this morning and smacked my forehead. I remain amazed that Seattle, supposedly “America’s Smartest City,” has such an amazingly stupid newspaper.

No, I’m saying the suburbs and low-density buildings w/ massive parking lots that encourage the use of SOVs significantly increases CO2 output and energy costs, especially through transportation:
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/transportation-energy-intensity-buildings

If you want parkspace downtown, close off certain streets, turn them into pedestrian zones and keep the density for future generations. This isn’t detroit.

Razing temporarily vacant buildings for additional parking is as shortsighted and wasteful as they come.

How many 20 story towers were there in seattle in 1905? (a hint, there weren’t any: the tallest until 1911 was 14 stories)

We also all benefit from that parking by having people travel here, deposit their wealth, and leave.

In the case of Seattle, though, most parking is already free. According to the city, there are 13,500 paid parking spots in Seattle. According to the US Census Bureau, there are (at least) 400,000 cars in Seattle.

Right. Are you suggesting that all on street parking in the City of Seattle be paid parking. Not just the downtown area, but the entire city. You seem to be by quoting a “total” amount of cars in Seattle. So to follow that reasoning, the people in Laurelhurst, West Seattle, Central District would have to pay for parking in front of their house. Rather a Draconian measure. Unless you are a real car hater.

There’s discussion about making Lake City residents pay for parking. I would love to see Laurelhurst go first. That explosion of entitlement tempers would stall the whole business for years.

This Publicola editorial was sponsored by Northgate North, Westwood and University Villages, Simon Properties, and Kemper Freeman.

Just raise the gas tax. Solves all the problems for the least cost. Saying most parking is free, kind of overshoots the problem being discussed.

The Times is a Bellevue paper, as you can see from this article. Seattle no longer has a newspaper.

“Allow me to quote myself:

According to Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, the total subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 and $374 billion in 2002. ”

You didn’t quote yourself at all. Gosh you’re not very bright.

“Allow me to quote myself:

According to Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, the total subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 and $374 billion in 2002. ”

You didn’t quote yourself at all. Gosh you’re not very bright.

Yes, she did. She quoted her previous article about the Shoup book; she didn’t quote Shoup.

We all hate cars; we get that. Extremism here in 2010 is bad, unfeasible, and unrealistic. You guys are hitting this pipe far too hard lately, to almost villainous levels of twirling mustaches while leaving Joni Balter tied up and left on Light rail tracks.

Arbitrarily charging for all street parking is a stupid non-starter of an idea of now. What are we going to do with people in the deep residential neighborhoods like down off of Westwood Village, over by Roxbury, up by Carkeek and the Shoreline border? Many homes have no driveway. They’ll park on their lawns; I would if I couldn’t afford to pave a driveway. What’s the answer to that? Bar parking on lawns? Lawsuits the city WILL lose on that.

It’s 2010 and we’re an urban oasis in a sea of areas where you literally cannot live–be realistic–without a car; it’s frankly stupid to go to war like this is sounding. When is the last time you were driving somewhere outside of an urban area in King County? Snohomish? Pierce? Hell, even White Center? We need solutions rather than zealotry. You want an extreme action? Then there needs to be an agreed-upon division of the city upon regions. Start with the downtown core: Seattle Center at the North; I-5 on the East; Elliot Bay & the Duwamish on the West; say a few blocks past the stadiums on the South. Charge for street parking there, perhaps. Maybe charge for people to pay a usage toll of $1 to go south on the Fremont and Ballard Bridges in SOVs, or East on the West Seattle Bridge.

You need to be sure to separate SOVs from HOVs. A family of 5 in a car is never the enemy. A commercial vehicle moving goods is never the enemy.

But seriously, take a step back and don’t descend to the shitacular level of the Seattle Times, but on the opposite side. If they have a Conservative freak-out, don’t go all eco-warrior in response. Destroy them with facts and studies; clown them. Make them look like the fools they are.

You guys are better than this article.

Why does that make one a car hater? I don’t think residential parking should be as expensive as commercial parking, but why not charge a small fee for residential parking permits? I have a car and if I’m going to park it on public property, I should have to pay a small “rent” back to the city for that privilege. Nothing draconian about that.

You’re not very bright if you don’t know the difference between “quote” and “reference.”

This is one of those conservative-liberal battles where the left side is arguing for some market discipline and the so-called conservatives are asking for government freebies.

One effect of market pricing of parking will be to help private sector provisioners of parking: they no longer will have to face so much subsidized, below-cost competition.

Currently we have a great new rail system but we can’t use it because on-street-parking near the stations has been usurped by neighbors who are politically powerful in this town. It’s crazy, however, to have a nice rail line and then not allow users to pay to park near the stations on land the city owns dedicates to parking.

I realize in some cases this is going to be a tough sell, to the point it shouldn’t be carried to its logical extreme, but what hurts most is when commentators don’t understand this is a market-based reform–the oppositie of “socialism,” that will lead to greater efficiency, regardless of whether it’s popular.

Thanks,

jazzerciser

Utter horsepucky – please describe specifically how there is parking by LRT stations that you “can’t use” because it’s been “usurped by neighbors who are politically powerful in this town.”

Are you perhaps referring to a cursory RPZ that longtime neighbors managed to pry out of the city/ST when the Rainier Valley surface LRT alignment was inserted into that community’s orifices without their support? Do tell.

I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and bet that you moved into the Rainier Valley well after longtime communities of color were rolled over in the City’s drive to site the RTA light rail route through the neighborhood that both had the LEAST political power in Seattle and was most easily opened up to redevelopment/gentrification.

Whether you realize it or not, lots of longtime SE Seattle residents from communities of color were moved to points south in the name of the “efficiency” you are so fond of.

I hope you’re proud.

ECB wants Balter’s crown — queen shrill batshit harpy of Seattle. It only gets worse from here, not better.

Grant’s article is at another spot.

Streets and the parking spots on them are not owned by the city. The city has ROW easements with the adjacent property owners. The city maintains the streets that were built and paid for by the adjacent property owners. Property owners that have paved streets and sidewalks paid a higher property tax because their property is worth more because of the improvements they have made.

When I bought my house it was was worth more and cost more because previous owners had improved it by being part of the LID that built the sidewalks and streets. If there was no parking in front of my house I wouldn’t have paid as much for it because I value having it for myself and guests.

The street in front of my house has received almost no repair since I’ve owned it. From discussions with neighbors, it seems nothing major has been done for decades. The value added property taxes pay for any upkeep that the parking spots need.

If anybody should receive money from parking in front of my house, it should be me.

And on-street parking in Seattle is cheap—just $2 an hour, compared to $10 or more in private downtown lots. If anything, the city should increase the cost of parking to keep up with the private market..

Not that accuracy means much here, but parking is $2.50 an hour downtown. Private parking is around $10-14 for ALL DAY. One hour is about $5 and it goes down from there the longer one parks.
http://www.rpnw.com/seattle/locations/default.asp

The Downtown Business Association would be the first to bark if there weren’t street parking limits. The don’t want commuters clogging up the parking spots, they want shoppers.

And exactly what is wrong with the City trying to generate some revenue? How else to get streets repaired, traffic signals to work, snow removed? I must be missing something because it seems that the Times is against pretty much any tax or fee yet is the first to attack when things don’t go right.

Just more of the “my government owes me more but I don’t owe it anything” that seems to be all the rage these days.

“Hardly Raking in money”?? Name another city program that comes out $9 Million in the Black each year…

As for the unpaid amounts, haven’t you heard — it’s a “social justice” issue, and we can only go after the rich folks who owe money.

Reading the article, it doesn’t seem to me to even be about what you claim — it has more to do with the increase in enforcement and the high cost of violations.

What another crap piece from Erica — it is sad to see what she is turning into.

It’s not about facts. It’ about the Bertolets and McGinns and Publicolas of this city being “right”, and making sure that you know that they are “right” and you are “wrong”.

It may depend on exactly where, but at least in the older parts of Seattle I’ve looked at the streets and alleys were officially deeded to the city as part of the annexation agreements. In some cases (i.e., the “Pontius Addition”) the streets did not actually exist and were later built by the city, and in other cases they were unpaved. It would be interesting to figure out how much the city spent on the original road construction and paving (in say the 1920s) adjusted to current dollars.

Your point about the value of streets in residential areas is a good one. I don’t see any reason to charge for street parking in residential areas outside urban centers, though I do think RPZ permits should be more expensive after the first one. However, there is higher demand than supply for street parking in commercial districts; that was the original reason for requiring business to provide parking. The alternative would be to price the commercial district street parking so that people don’t leave their cars there all day.

To straiten things out a bit (or add to the confusion), Mr. X is correct that it wasn’t “neighbors who are politically powerful in this town” that kept parking out. They were the ones pushing for parking lots around the stations.
But his stuff about moving communities of color to points south is and always has been utter horsepucky. Him and his buddies just say that to drum up support, because they have so little on their own.

The long-time residents in the nicer parts of the SE are the ones with self-interest and business interests. They both want to see people park here and spend some money (understandable) and to be able to drive to the rail themselves. You won’t ever catch them on a bus, sitting next to someone of color. Or on a bike of any color.

But he is wrong about the newer residents. They’re younger, more liberal, a tad smarter. And much more likely to understand that the rail was not put here for the current residents, but for future ones who will live around the stations and might not need a car at all.

This means nothing to him, because it doesn’t benefit him directly; and he will never, ever, ever get it. Talk about density.

Don’t feed the troll.
The Information = John Bailo.
He has to keep changing handles to get people to respond to him.

Even better, leave the gas tax the same, but remove it’s exemption to the sales tax.

What in the article are you disagreeing with?

Hey dude, why should I susbsidize your free parking space outside your $600,000 home? What a freeloader. You’re getting a $200/month value for that public parking space you occupy, and let’s not even get into your second car and your Winnebago all stored for free courtesy of Seattle taxpayers.

Man, some people are so greedy, especially the rich who can afford houses.

Say you’re not into paying the $2000 a year you should pay, can’t you at least pay $200 a year for a placard giving you the right to occupy public streets to store your private 4,000 pound planet killing vehicle that spews carbon into the air and oil into puget sound? What are you some kind of socialist, you think we all owe you free public street parking? What is this, socialism for the rich again, paid for by all of us?

The answer is simple: an annual fee and a placard saying “yes I paid to have the right to take up public resources to store my private vehicle.”

Imposing a modest fee on your greedy usurping of public resources isn’t being eco warrior, it’s just asking you to take your damn hand out of our pockets!

great point about markets versus conservative freeloaders who want to keep their special antimarket rights.

Liberals should note that sometimes markets are progressive (when alternative is take from all to give to rich or a special interest, in this case, those owning planet killing devices called “Cars” which are unworthy of receiving this immense handout called free parking on publicly owned streets).

Actually the FIFTY MILLION subsidy to car owners who break the law, don’t pay, and ignore the courts includes many who’re rich with 2, 4 or 10 unpaid tickets and many who’re poor, too. But the poor can always make a payment plan, so there is really no excuse for not paying.

KIRO TV did a story on this. It found a guy with a BMW who owed like thousands of dollars in unpaid tickets. But there’s only one late fee, they don’t collect it, so he ignores it! KIRO showed how cities that use the boot get paid, pronto, no problemo.

Why not take “parking infractions” and relabel them “parking charges” and add a $19 a month late fee for EVERY month and hand it over to a collection agency and give them a cut — that might actually bring in $20 million real quick, like within a year.

You could hire a lot of police officers with that.

Always willing to learn – could you give links for the ownership data.

From SDOT – What is a property owner’s responsibility for streets and sidewalks?
Streets and sidewalks are for everyone’s use. They add value to private property by providing access to the property and a way to get to other places in the city.

What some property owners do not realize is that they are responsible for maintaining part of the public right-of-way next to their property, including the sidewalk and planting strip, or the roadway shoulder if unimproved. Property owners are also responsible for maintaining unpaved alleys next to their property. .

so your point is that because your home got benefitted by being hooked up to a stret system, you should retain an exclusive right to park in front of your house?

Really, you need a more systemic view. The huge boost in value comes from being connected to an entire system of streets, so you gained with that far more than you (actually, yoru original developer) “lost”….such that today to say you retain some special right to the area in front of your property is rather fictious. I am sure when you bought your house you looked at the deed and title record showing the easement for public streets, and you noticed that nothing in it said “however, the owner of this house right here gets special rights to park his car or horse or mule in front of his own house.”

“Public” means you don’t have the right to exclude others from it, cuz it ain’t your’n.

Property owners built the street system. I think it works well as is. The cost of my home included the improvements, which included the paved street and the sidewalks.

The fiction is that parking is paid for by the current citizens of the city. Perhaps, when people move here they should pay for their share of the infrastructure found on arrival. I’m guessing that’s north of $25,000 per capita.

When I said I value having parking for myself and guests I didn’t say or mean exclusively. If the parking were removed, it would make my house of less value to me and the market. Since I bought it with the improvements that had been paid for by previous owners on land donated or taken by the city, I believe it would be wrong to tax me to park on it. I also think that it would wrong to tax others to park on it because the system, as is, allows mobility for the citizens of Seattle.

you didn’t buy the space in front of your house. it’s very clear in the property records: there is an easement for public use. you have no special rights to that piece of asphalt. BTW if you want to charge transplants for local infrastructure, say $25,000, why shouldn’t the rest of America charge everyone born in Seattle for the cost of creating the USA fighting off England ensuring Canada stayed above 48th parallel and devising this thing called USA which let the NW be settled and then form states? I mean come on, that was worth a lot. Not to mention the costs of Lewis and Clark, and let’s not even talk about the coulee dam or keeping Japan away in WW2. I’d say that birthright legacy is worth about a million per person, so please, refund the rest of us $9,975,000 thank you very much.

to alawp – yes an easement or even a deed was given to the city by the property and the owner at the time paid for the street including the parking portion. When Westlake Mall was built and a part of Westlake was closed the city had to give the then owners of Fredrick’s compensation because it was no longer going to be used for street purposes. So yes in a way I did buy the space in front of my house. I sure as hell have more claim on it than you do and I’m obligated to keep it up.

What makes you think my people didn’t pay their share of fighting the brits? I was only making the point that infrastructure has been built up over the years and to now act as if the current non-drivers are providing some huge subsidy is bs.

Have you noticed that some paragraphs are indented? That usually means they’re quoted from something. “References” aren’t indented.

Personal transit is far more efficient and green than mass transit.

Direct access means minimal trip distance.

Also, the suburban retail-warehouse model means the last mile of store to resident is extremely efficient.

Plus low density means more green space and fewer heat sinks.

Oh, so close. A house with on-street parking vs the same house without would have to have the same value (and pay the same taxes) in order for the this premise of “freeloaders” and liberal vs conservative to be true.

Can any body provide meaningful data on the compatible taxable value of these homes?
How about new “walkable” cubes of condos with and without available parking, free and pay.

This “conversation is remarkably short on data.
Erica looks like she has completely ignored what people do after they park.

This will sound strange, but, I don’t know anybody that lives inside Safeco Field (maybe I need to broaden my circle) but I do know that all of their parking has a 10% tax that is used to pay off those bonds. I have heard testimony in the state senate W&M committee from the Mariners about how many people come from outside of Seattle to dump their wealth here and leave. They would like to redirect that tax after the bonds are paid off to go into a capital fund for major maintenance. This both puts the source on the users, may from out of town, and away from the state/county/city general fund.
More of this should be done for these public/private entities, including the Seattle Center.
Some of that evil parking pays for these facilities to exist.
Enjoy your Sounders game.

Not ever parked car is driven by somebody that lives here, and those people contribute to out general fund in some way (outsiders).

What I would rather see is the free market set parking rates rather than the city. Limit the amount of surface area parking can consume. The rates would go up, lots would turn into profitable garages, reducing the amount of surface lots.

to above:
“in a way” you bought it” = you didn’t really. Nope, it got made into easement for public good, meaning in one decade that could be horses and they might ban motorized vehicles, in another decade SOVs and free parking, in another decade (perhaps this one) it will be an exclusive bike and bus lane…in all cases you benefit from being connected to this public thing called a “city” with “public streets” and of course in any decade you might prefer a diff. configuation or use but you have = rights to all other voters and no special rights from being landed gentry owning a house. BTW your equity argument is off as you ignore all social benefits from everyone being in same boat rather than everyone “owning” or as you suggest “morally owning” part of the street. You inherited and bought into a package deal IOW — you’re just cherry picking parts of it to make your case, ignoring other parts.

“What I would rather see is the free market set parking rates”

Damn, Master B. Nice post.

I don’t know how this thread turned toward residential parking (interesting as well), but thanks for bringing it back to its roots.

You are wrong. Go read up on what happened a Westlake. Landed gentry, please.

Tell people that can’t cycle that they are still connected to the city with bike lanes.

the point is the easement your predecessor gave was to the public, the use of that easement is thus thru political process and whatever the city council, mayor and SDOT determine, if they like your idea that homeowners get special rights, go ahead and propose it to them; if they like bikes, they can make it a bike lane (vote them out if you like); if they like using it for lemonade stands for kids, they can write regs doing that; if they want a light rail there, they can. whatever. it’s public.

(“landed gentry” = those who try to use the commons …..)

Even better, free us from all the Downtown Boondoggles like Light Rail and the Tunnel and let us spend our money on free choices such as cars and highways.

I was just at Southcenter Mall. It was packed — with happy people driving their cars there and shopping and eating and WALKING around the mall and having a good time.

Come Seattle — hop in the car and take a drive to somewhere fun on this sunny day. Some place with free parking!

Whereas you’re always the same, and no one wants to respond or talk to you…ever.

BURRNNNNNN!

You talk about the cost of free parking — but what about the value and benefit!

Think of all the retail shopping that can be done if the consumer doesn’t have to worry about parking.

Think of all the money businesses can save and give to their employees if they are not burdened with parking.

There is nothing more efficient or green than going point to point in a Personal Transit System and being able to park near the destination.

The only places where “street parking” is an issue is with obsolete city grids…that are highly inefficient and don’t fit the 21st century paradigm.

All modern exurbs recognize the efficiency of personal transit systems. The technology is such that within 10 years we may have auto-pilot vehicles that can act as taxis in place of “mass transit”.

Grids need to be turned into beneficial culs-de-sac and cities need to de-densify to match the surrounding suburbs.

Free parking is general societal benefit that makes commerce and shopping better.

Trying to get public facilities to fund their own maintenance and capital needs through user fees like parking taxes at their facilities is one of my hobbies. It was that, or immerse myself in late ’80′s hip hop and grow a Kid’n Play haircut.
You’re welcome, Seattle.

I do not want our public facilities to go the way of Seattle Center.

Shut up John. Three names in one thread, why do you do this? What do you get out of it?

Paid parking is exactly a free-market capitalist’s dream. Land is at a premium in downtown with limited parking capacity. What’s so socialist about charging money for limited parking supply?

I do.

Every shred of the idea that making people outside the proper urban core for parking is a good idea. It’s a stupid idea without merit, support in scientific studies, or common sense. Raising fees for inner urban parking? Let’s talk. West Seattle, Crown Hill, places like that? Dumb.

Whoever you are, you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about and you’ve done nothing but toss anti-city talking points.

Where exactly are you supposed to put all those people that would be displaced with your mad schemes?

If communities ultra-aggressively went after tickets, to the point of suspending drivers licenses, this would be a good thing. Driving, regardless of what loonies say, is a community-granted priviledge, and not a right.

Where in the article did you get that idea?

John Bailo, The Information, The Question, The Riddler, Cave Man, jbailo, T. Undretti, and a handful of others that I have forgotten.

As I said upthread, people start ignoring one name so he switches between them.

I think the numbers were used for effect, not really to suggest every parking space in the city should be metered. Just that where they are most sparce and most wanted, maybe they could charge more.

I wanted to walk along the waterfront the other day and hoped to park for free near the port end. But the only thing I could find was $2.50/hr, and I didn’t want to be staring at my watch. So I went to West Seattle and parked along Harbor Ave, had lunch at the dock, then walked to Alki.

This was nice, just as John the Info Caveman says.

The reason I couldn’t find a free place downtown was that there were so many others that wanted to be there, too. More than I did. And plenty of people who would, could and did pay for parking. And would gladly pay more to be able to park near their destination.

Nothing against Kent, but they would have to pay me to park there. And if South Center had two or three times as many people wanting to be there as they had spaces, they would start charging for parking.

Supply and demand works.
It would even be better, now with all those electronic parking machines, if we could be charged a different rate based on time and location, per minute.

I had this same complaint with my SE boys, and worked hard at trying to let people know what they were up to; adding links, pasting comments, even pointing out certain patterns and keywords.

The thing is, nobody cares.
They just tell you to keep the tinfoil on tight.

And there’s nothing you or I can do about it.

Not worth the effort. Besides it’s not like he hides it. All the posts are the same, Seattle too dense, it’s depopulating, hydrogen, Kent, PRT, tax-rapists, etc. etc.

“…you become numb to insults, particularly if you teach yourself to imagine that the person uttering them is a variant of a noisy ape with little personal control. Just keep your composure, smile, focus on analyzing the speaker not the message, and you’ll win the argument. An ad hominem attack against an intellectual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.”

Black Swan
by Nicolas Taub

What people? Seattle is depopulating. Downtown vacancies are above 20 percent and the trend continues…in 5 years the densest parts of Seattle might be Ghost Towns, 50 percent empty.

Well, if you’re talking to me, I live in an apartment ( it’s an ok apartment, and not in Laurelhurst). I have to pay for the parking I use. So… go rant at someone who could care about what you think.

John, you’re as valuable as anyone else; but you can see why you as an “intellectual” get picked on, can’t you? Always paraphrasing Yogi: “Nobody goes to downtown Seattle anymore. It’s too crowded.”

You obviously wish you could live or play downtown, but don’t have the funds. And you’d rather spend time butting heads with Seattle’s buttheads than with Kent’s. I like that. You flatter us.

But realize that Seattle has problems that Kent doesn’t. And we have to deal with them. You don’t.

Kent is growing, too; so you might consider spending your time and knowledge of city planning locally. Who knows…you could be mayor (of Kent) someday. I’d vote for you.
In the meantime, feel free to park in Tukwila, swipe your Orca, take the train downtown, and have a day of fun. On me (really).

I’m not following you here. You’re just making claims about efficiency that defy intuition without evidence or argument.

As for your last point, low density means more parking lots and less trees, rivers and other natural, undeveloped areas. Low density may mean more personal green space for the owner of the low density property, but it means less green space for the country and planet.

I don’t go to Laurelhurst much. Do people there actually park on the street or in 6-car garages? I know they don’t park their yachts on the street.

Who do you suppose would be able to run an errand faster (e.g. pick up some aspirin, grab lunch), the average Manhattanite pedestrian or the average Issaquah resident in her Lexus RX330?

Another question:

Who do you suppose has a shorter commute the average Manhattanite or the average Issaquah exurb resident in her Lexus RX330?

And after a very brief search, I come up mostly you as a SLOG-posting racist, with everyone and his brother mocking you.

But then this:

http://devcity.net/Articles/19/1/20020301.aspx

You obviously have something inside that doesn’t come across in your picture or your posts. But you ain’t showin’ it here.

If I can get beyond this PubliCola thing (never seen it before) and type what I see in the box, I can share this with all the people that love you.

Oh, boo hoo! Those poor “communities of color” in SE Seattle got the first access to a regional rail network (mostly paid for by Seattle residents in other parts of the city) that gives them speedy, convenient, cheap and safe travel to downtown Seattle, and soon to other popular spots.

You know, there are many communities devoid of color (and their colorful brethren) in Ballard, West Seattle and elsewhere that would love to have rail access like SE Seattle.

A-men! We should have laws to seize cars of drunk drivers, those driving without insurance, and to seize cars of those who are seriously delinquent in fines. We have got to send the message that driving is a serious responsibility, not a God-given right.

Good ideas…maybe I can get Kent to build a 5 billion dollar tunnel — and charge Seattlites for “cost overruns”. Until then, I feel compelled to pummel the charlatans, trolls and boondoggles.

People pay to park in Seattle because they have to pay…not because they want to pay.

The Downtown Syndicate has front loaded things by concentrating two stadiums, and government buildings there. Then they justify “transit” because of all the “traffic”.

So, you see, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Seattle creates a problem, then taxes the rest of the state to fix it. Many other cities, including New York, have gone through cycles of ridding the crooks, the charlatans and the liars out of Government.

But here in Seattle it’s business as usual. What’s even more disheartening, is that there’s a whole host of Apparatchik that are too dense to see through it all, and have set themselves up as some sort of Tribunal to quash any and all “data” or opinion that might force them off the Tax Payers tit.

Even more disgusting, is that when cornered and trapped, you all start disparaging the person and his name — all the while you attackers hide behind false and phony names that can’t be checked or verified.

I am calling all you out in public.

I am calling you liars.

I am calling you phonies.

I am calling you charlatans.

Show your faces.
Print your names.
Be a man, not a craven whiny simp hiding behind a pseudonym, cringing and cowering like a dust mite.

Your opinions rest and the strength of the person. So far, the only “people” here are cockroaches and vandals.

While your goal is good, we already have hosts of laws that are not enforced; we don’t even look at the enforcement side, we only praise the council for adding a new penalty; then the courts and the city attorneys simply don’t enforce the laws we already have. The parking tickets are $50 million in COURT JUDGMENTS and orders that are unpaid. Does Seattle muni court give a fig? Guess not, you can’t even find this data on their website. does the city attorney? well, it’s his job to …you know,….enforce the law….there’s $50 million in unpaid moneys. go down to kent district court and you can see judges letting 20 or 30 driving without insurance defer their hearing for the 2d 3d or 4th thirty day period, letting them try to find a job to buy insurance….of course we all know they’re driving to the courthouse where they say they have no insurance …with no insurance!

Seriously, focus on the actual enforcement, the courts, the fines, what happens when you’re guilty. Adding more penalties sometimes means adding more laws that are not enforced. And harsher penalties? the courts just mitigate ever so more. The $500 for DWOI doesn’t work because they defer it all, they never even impose the $500 penalty cuz after the dude gets a job and gets insurance they knock it down to something else then take a $150 admin fee (that goes right to the county, you see) and the guy who’s guilty never even pays the $500 penalty we already have. Adding more penalties ignores the other 90% of the pipeline where all the leakages are ocurring……

While your goal is good, we already have hosts of laws that are not enforced; we don’t even look at the enforcement side, we only praise the council for adding a new penalty; then the courts and the city attorneys simply don’t enforce the laws we already have. The parking tickets are $50 million in COURT JUDGMENTS and orders that are unpaid. Does Seattle muni court give a fig? Guess not, you can’t even find this data on their website. does the city attorney? well, it’s his job to …you know,….enforce the law….there’s $50 million in unpaid moneys. go down to kent district court and you can see judges letting 20 or 30 driving without insurance defer their hearing for the 2d 3d or 4th thirty day period, letting them try to find a job to buy insurance….of course we all know they’re driving to the courthouse where they say they have no insurance …with no insurance!

Seriously, focus on the actual enforcement, the courts, the fines, what happens when you’re guilty. Adding more penalties sometimes means adding more laws that are not enforced. And harsher penalties? the courts just mitigate ever so more. The $500 for DWOI doesn’t work because they defer it all, they never even impose the $500 penalty cuz after the dude gets a job and gets insurance they knock it down to something else then take a $150 admin fee (that goes right to the county, you see) and the guy who’s guilty never even pays the $500 penalty we already have. Adding more penalties ignores the other 90% of the pipeline where all the leakages are ocurring……

“People pay to park in Seattle because they have to pay…not because they want to pay.”

And I pay for toilet paper because I have to, not because I want to.

John, I completely agree that that you were not born a dick, but were made. You, at least in 2002, were someone who could write, think, program.

“The Downtown Syndicate has front loaded things by concentrating two stadiums, and government buildings there. Then they justify “transit” because of all the “traffic”.

What, you would rather the baseball stadium be in Chehalis, the football stadium be in Wenatchee, and the mayor’s office be in Spokane?

There is a value in all those things being downtown, and a tradeoff.
The tradeoff is you pay, or you walk, or you ride.

My girlfriend and I have a constant argument whenever we go any place we have to park. She thinks driving around for an hour is perfectly fine if it leads, eventually, to that coveted parking space near the door.
I, however, head strait to the empty back of the parking lot, because I value my time, and I think the longer walk is a bonus.

We all have different priorities, and have to work it out.

I know in Seattle it’s extremely hard to find some of the most basic stores.

Yes, if you’re in desperate need of a Brazilian cap with earflaps, you’ll probably find 3 stores on 45th street…but a drug store or a hardware store or anything that a modern person would want?

Yet, here in Kent, I am minutes away from both WalGreens and RiteAid — and they are big 24 hour stores.

Here’s proof:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=drugstore+near+98030&sll=47.374305,-122.197323&sspn=0.01148,0.027874&ie=UTF8&hq=drugstore&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington+98030&z=14

I do know some people that live in Laurelhurst, and can tell you that they are like anyone else. Their kids make messes; their houses need paint at the normal rate; and their docks need upkeep.

And you can park on their streets (plenty of space), and walk around the spit. Nobody will call the cops, or even glare.

The socialist part is using Government policy to force high density in the first place, then forcing people to pay for the “solutions” to the density.

This is the current racket of all Democrat politicians.

John, have you lived here long enough to have a special place (not that special place) up in the mountains, on the beach, some special trail or lake that means something to you?

Imagine that place being covered by sprawling beige houses as far as the eye can see. It sucks. We need to do something about that.

And that’s density. Sounds bad to you, but it leaves a few rolling hills standing. A few hawks soaring.
If you never get out, it can’t mean much.

“If I can get beyond this PubliCola thing (never seen it before) and type what I see in the box, I can share this with all the people that love you.”

Now this is weird.
I’ve only used one email address here, and it has my first and last name. Every time I’ve used it to communicate with PubliCola, they have addressed me by my first name (why not?)

But when I got this box I’ve never seen before, and typed what was in the box, I got an email telling me that I had requested to get emails from this thread (I didn’t). And it addressed me by my middle name (which I have gone by since birth).

How do they know my middle name?
Josh?

Historical government-backed suburbanization, housing policies, et al., and cumulative auto-oriented subsidies have added up to an amount that far exceeds anything that has remotely been in favor for urban density. Before our modern era, people demanded living in urban areas free from much government intervention– suburbs as we know them did not exist. You’re aware that suburbs are a government concoction? Without the policy and subsidy, they would be nonexistent.

I’m sorry, what was your real name again? And do you have a home page and picture that people can verify with? If so, your opinions have no weight here.

Otherwise, one can assume your a paid shill…screeching with pain as the modern 21st century takes hold and wipes you away…away into the past…

Haymarket Square, Chicago.

Pick up a book sometime, then maybe you can qualify for making comments.

A keyboard alone doesn’t make an intellect.

With all that police work, you should be able to reduce traffic so that the 5 billion dollar boondoggle tunnel isn’t needed. Let’s get on that…shall we?

In fact, can any self respecting anti-car Seattlite be for a 5 billion dollar tunnel?

It seems like a big contradiction… hypocrisy almost.

Right?

None of the exurbs have these problems. There’s scads of free parking in Issaquah and Kent. Somehow the streets are cleaner and better kept.

I’ve picked up many books in my lifetime, but if you’d like to use ad hominems, then I’d argue that that’s a better metric for whether someone is qualified to comment or not. Unlike you, I won’t pretentiously snipe at someone with irrelevant assertions– i.e., I don’t recall ever saying anything about making an intellect from a keyboard.

I know about Haymarket Square. Your point?

Sure, the original plats are online in the King County iMap:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx
Click on “Property Search” and then probably “Search by Address” unless you know the parcel. Only current addresses work. From there click on “Get Districts Report” and scroll down for scanned plats (which unfortunately throws a server error this morning but I’ve used it before). There are also the official quarter section maps which will show any relatively recent changes (past couple decades). The U-District quarter section map is particularly crazy. KC iMAP also has some cool options like Imagery which has Aerial Photos from 1936 and 2007. I learned most of this from the helpful flickr comments of Seattle Municipal Archives and tigerzombie (Rob Ketcherside).

Then we should also get rid of free public schooling then too, right? That $600K homeowner pays about $5000 a year in property taxes and gas taxes for their car.

the city does in certain locations: RPZs (residential parking zones)

uh, define basics, moron…

there are 2 hardware stores withing walking distance of 45th.
there are 3 pharmacies within walking distance of 45th.
there are 3 grocery store and 2 farmers markets within wlking distance of 45th.
there are numerous clinics within walking distance on 45th.
there are over 50 cafes and restaurants within walking distance of 45th.

a number of these are mom and pop stores with owners who care about their product AND their customers, unlike most crappy chains.

you can’t even walk through most of kent, due to lack of sidewalks.

also, if you want to go by simple numbers:
wallingford: 20,000pop in 2.26 sq. mi and more amenities within walking distance thank in kent’s 80,000pop in 26 sq. mi.

but keep on driving and wasting resources so you can buy that hammer you’ll never use at home depot.

John, you’re amazingly sharp. It’s like you’re onto all our plans. After we put in bike lanes and allow taller buildigns downtown, then we’re going to come out to Kent and round up the exurbanites and herd them into the taller buildings, stripping them of their SOVs as we do so.

And then the worst — we will FORCE you to ride a bike, and walk to a grocery store, and hang out at a pub that you walk to. That’s right we will shackle long trains of former exurbanites for “reeducation” by marching them up to Capitol Hill where we will force them to have a donut, then buy a book, then sit and read in Cal Anderson Park, and then (shudders) walk to a Thai restaurant for dinner and then (ohmygod) walk back down the hill to the condo unit we shall force you, socialistically, to buy.

You ability to perceive the camel behind the nose is amazing. How do you do it?

um,, try to be fact based. Suburbs have existed for thousands of years, it comes from the latin, suburban….romans had villas….english created commuting in 19th century….there’s no government policy saying “okay now you are allowed to live outside the city” once we’re out of walled towns in the middle ages….once again the enviros make up facts and history….it really damages the cred dude….rather than imagine that suburbs were forced onto people why not recognize it was a widely accepted social engineering choice to favor that, now we’re changing our minds and focusing more on denser places, but it’s all …. good? If the denser places werenot lower in GHG we’d want more less dense places….pls. stop fetishizing and demonizing…yoru statement that without govt. concoction suburbs would not exist is as wrong as a creationist saying god made man. they had suburbs before cars. you take a truth (govt. policies have favored sprawl and highways and cars) and take it so far out the window you lose it.

I think the problem is that ‘suburb’ is too broad of a word. Brooklyn was built as a suburb of Manhattan, yet it is about as different from a Levittown as you can get. At the time it was built, it was a streetcar suburb, walkable, with retail along the lines and then residential fanning out.

The difference’s between pre-war and post-war suburbs is so great that we really need two words.

That’s a great insight. I’ve thought along similar lines, and in some sense both suburb and exurb are demeaning terms because they are based on the root “urb”.

I would rather “small cities” or “right sized cities” or my personal favorite “town”.

I think of Kent and any region with a centralizing authority over 100,000 people as a town.

In my opinion, towns (and cities) become difficult to manage at 200,000.

My point is that 21st century technology will make the 100,000 town far more palatable than rebuilding the 19th century cities. Wimax makes cables, optical fibers and other wires moot. Hydrogen does similar things for the energy grid.

1. I already ride a bike and am a member of my town’s bicycle advisory board.

2. It’s a free country. People can choose to live in density. However, I would say 80 percent of the diatribe is not about how great (some people feel) density is — it’s about how terrible low density is! Yet, when I question people, they mostly have zero experience or appreciation for low density lifestyle.

3. I live actually live in the area of Puget Sound with the second highest density (according toe Arc Maps) — zip 98030. But I live in a 3 story garden apartment in a big complex amidst many, many other complexes of apartments and condoes. However, there is also a lot of green space. I live near a hub of several bus networks, and I take the Sounder train in to work.

Yet, I own my own car and enjoy driving to wherever I want on weekends …right now I’m in the Renton Starbucks because it’s one of the 11 stores that have the Clover brewed coffees.

I appreciate that my apartment complex gives way to single family homes and then to horse farms with acreage…I like being able to ride my bike to Southcenter mall on the Interurban and get food at Southcenter.

If I seem “over the top” its just that I think alot of you don’t give alternative perspectives fair shift.

As far as why do I care — I care at the point that something being decided in Seattle impacts me or my taxes…or that I might be forced out of low density into high density by laws, regulations, and taxes.

I think that America was designed to be nation of independent people, with businesses, land, farms, who could have political weight. The more we give up our hold on the resources and turn into “Mass Men”, the more the larger entities can drain our rights.

As someone else has commented about the grid system in Rome, it was designed so the Army could control the populace.

In the same way I believe there has been a dangerous process operating since the 1970s to force people off land and farms and to try and “break” the middle class so that it could not exert its political will and ascendancy.

Policies that are described as “good for the people, or the environment” are often thinly veiled efforts to increase taxation, to make the costs of being an independent person higher and to make people dependent on systems or technologies so they can no longer express dissenting or differing opinions.

Valid rebuttal on the ad hominem.

I wish more Publicola people would “come out” and use Disqus with a real name, photo and personal home page.

It might “humanize” the discussions here…

I would argue quite the opposite, that YOU don’t know what living a low density lifestyle is all about.

The suburbs are not free and independent, they by their very nature dependent on a city and are a mixture of rural and urban with the worst qualities of both.

This is rural:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmore,_Alabama

The suburbs are the enemy of rural lands the rural lifestyle. The large land needed for sprawling Levittowns, strip malls, freeways and parking lots sits on what used to be productive farm and timberland. Now it only produces smog and polluted storm water runnoff.

You actually made my point for me – the policy decision behind siting light rail as a surface alignment through the Rainier Valley was to attract a newer, more affluent, and – yes – whiter demographic to the area. In order to accomplish that something had to go – and that something was many of the longtime residents of the area (and T Chen – lots of those folks were renters who didn’t really have the option of sticking around after they were gentrified out of their historic neighborhoods).

As per Anc’s reply, one might want to define what kind of suburb we’re talking about. Villas hardly apply– they were mostly rural estates, far different from the American exurban bedroom communities that we know. Would you not agree that post-war suburban development would not be possible without highways?

So what’s your policy alternative? Complete stasis? Sound Transit’s Link network will be far less disruptive than the building of I-5 was. Why should a city not want to attract affluent folks who bring lower crime rates, and more tax revenue for parks, public transit, police, schools, etc.? And rising density (and dropping home prices) means more affluent people can come without necessarily forcing existing residents to disappear from the city.

Most people around here seem to generally like Vancouver, BC, and see it as a model in some ways. That city has been transformed in the last three decades because of an inflow of affluent Hong Kong immigrants and investors, thanks to Canada’s policies that favor wealthy and highly educated immigrants (compared to the US’s policies that tend to be more family-based, helping many low income populations). You must despise Canada and Vancouver, BC for such policies, no?

Oh, and by the way, “Barleywine” the SLOG post you cite was someone labelling me, not me posting that.

In fact, I am publically seeking an attorney at this point to investigate suing the person, and the publication and maybe Google as well, for linking my name with that terrible word.

It’s all the more painful, as the father of an African-American child, to hear such language directed at me.

Is Microsoft in Redmond “dependent” on Seattle?

I don’t see the connection.

Also, you should do some web research on land use in the U.S.

It might surprise you how very little of it is “developed”

Vancouver BC (which I do like even if I think it is quite overrated) has the ability to mandate affordable housing in a way that would mightily offend your (at least from what I can glean from your writing) are almost fundamentalist free market sensibilities.

Personally, I would have run the first regional light rail line down 6th and by the freeway to Southcenter (as former Mayor Paul Schell and others who did not prevail in the siting argument supported). Had we done so, light rail wouldn’t be 10 years behind schedule, probably would be a lot closer to the budget originally promised to voters in 1995, and would probably extend from Federal Way to Northgate by now.

As to Vancouver, I always drive when I go there (even though it is a mighty pain in the ass to get into town from I-5/99), and prefer the older midrise districts like Commercial Drive to the overpriced and overbuilt parts of downtown that are the stuff of “New Urbanist” wet dreams.

Actually, if you get to the more remote parts of Kent, there are still lots of places like that – and that’s not even considering Auburn, Black Diamond, or Bothell, or Issaquah.

(and by the way, I do hope you don’t share ECB and the rest of the Publicola/Slog New Urbanist echo chamber’s delusions that building new high-rises in Belltown or SLU prevent the kind of sprawl you are describing, because they categorically don’t).

People are not moving off of farms and into high-rise apartments and condos. The process of urbanization is a worldwide phenomenon related to greater agricultural productivity, increasing specialization of labor, population increases etc. It is not driven by government policies that force people off of their land and into Manhattan or Belltown.

Furthermore, let’s be real: Living in an exurb does not make one more “independent” than a person in the central city. Both residents primarily rely on grocery stores and restaurants for food, and from utilities for electricity, water, and natural gas. City residents may rely more on public transit for transportation, but suburban folks rely on government for roads, bridges, and highways.

Many sides in political debates claim to favor policy that are “good for the people,” whether it’s labor unions, Tea Partiers, road construction lobbies, oil companies, environmentalists, technology companies, etc.

How living in a city and a relying on a train or bus to get to work stifles dissent I’ll never know. It would seem that freeing one’s mind from freeway traffic might give one more time to foment dissent…

What are you talking about? Please provide evidence about your position or walk away from your keyboard.

“If I seem “over the top” its just that I think alot of you don’t give alternative perspectives fair shift.”

This is a nicely written piece, John. Thanks.
I think you’re right.

“But here in Seattle it’s business as usual.”

“But in virtually every modern urban environment globally it’s business as usual.”

Your bizarre advocacy of some suburban nirvana makes no sense, especially when you make up stuff wholesale. It’s a nice idea, but not feasible unless we kill off 40% of the human race.

I really wish that Publicola (and other sites) would take aggressive steps to force people to only use one name.

You wanna bet $5 that in 5 years Seattle’s densest area, Capital Hill, is just as dense?

I’m assuming you’re one of the unholy trinity, X, when I say that what you’ve been fighting most is not density itself but the non-profits and their low-income housing in the SE.
My neighbors of color, and most of them are, to a person love the rail, and the positive changes it has brought. They also voted for Nickels. And I think maybe they wouldn’t be pleased if they knew who was fighting in their name.

I’m all for charging the real costs of parking, but I like your sarcastic remark that “we already pay for those parking spaces through taxes” cause that’s what cyclist always say about their infrastructure.

I think that is a good point to consider cause it’s really tough to predict how people will react to somethings. We get irrationally, emotionally attached to things such as low-cost/free.

“People pay to park in Seattle because they have to pay…not because they want to pay.”

I think what John trying to say is that Seattle is such a great place that people will go there knowing that they’ll have to pay for parking as opposed to somewhere else, say Kent, where the parking is free.

morning and Mr. baker, thanks for talking some sense into us all.

You would be wrong about my view of nonprofits (though I don’t think they ought to be able to send their paid staff to represent them as members of the SE District Council).

There are two ways to reduce VMT. Build more density in Seattle so people can leave their SF homes in the burbs and stuff their kids and dogs in condos, apartments, and townhouses closer to work. Or, build more employment centers in the burbs closer to where people work. Most local architects who are big proponents of the former (who conveniently masquerade as greens to coopt that group) would never consider the latter.

When the group who does the lego density exercise each year scores the GHG emissions, any group who attempts the latter gets bombed because the GHG model assumes people driving to downtown, not the nearest business center concentration. It’s completely Seattle-centric.

A prior City Attorney tried this and was pilloried by the Stranger/PubliCola crowd for its “disproportionate” effects on poor people. Turns out rich people paid the fines once impounded, because they had the cash. Poor people didn’t pay the fines, had their cars eventually auctioned, and lost their way to get to work.

Go ahead. Bring up a program that impounds or otherwise makes the vehicle inaccessible and you’ll have the wrath of the lefty left on your head.

Public schooling is a social good decided by those at the time of our nation’s founding (and a bit before) to be an important prerequisite to democracy.

It’s hard to make the same argument for free parking.

What about the obvious…..? Where’s the $$ coming from to actually buy, or condemn private property and put it back into public ownership so these buildings can actually be torn down? Which, reducing the supply will obviously lead to a greater cost (unless there are plans to purchase ALL of the privately owned property to rent out to businesses, too) to businesses in the future in terms of increased rent because of reduced supply and greater competition (more businesses competing for the same limited space)?

Sorry – that was for Cave Man

Yeah, Southcenter is freakin’ awesome! I work down there and it’s a clusterf*ck orgy of traffic. That’s fine and all, but there really isn’t anywhere to walk to/from your car in the new south lot: no sidewalks, narrow traffic lanes, two more lights, etc.

Sure I don’t park in that area anymore as I’d rather walk a bit farther but, to be honest, it makes me yearn to be car-free. Took light rail to the Sounders game last Wednesday: I’m forever thankful to have that option. But also grateful to pay for parking in downtown Seattle when I choose to drive (which I would rather not).

It’s all about choices people. If I drive, I know I’ll be paying for parking. BFD.

John Bailo – print the names of your multiple personalities first

So, are you contesting that fact?

And while I am in the “progressive” camp in a number of respects and identify more with Democrats nationally than the nihilistic, cynical national Republican leadership, I reject this argument. It is related to the argument about the regressivity of taxes on soda, cigarettes, booze etc.

I operate from the premise that government should use policy levers to discourage behavior that is destructive to society to help reduce the behavior and to help pay for the costs to society. Some on the left seem to believe that if poor people disproportionately engage in certain destructive behaviors–even if they are avoidable and optional–we should not impose a tax on those behaviors because it would disproportionately affect them. I reject that.

What’s more is that the revenue from taxing these destructive activities often goes to help pay for the damage and disproportionately helps the poor. For example, I believe the taxes being collected on soda and candy is being used to help reduce cuts to children’s healthcare.

Similarly, a more robust enforcement of parking and moving violations would both help pay for the roads and could be used to help pay for public transportation improvements that would help everyone, but especially the poor.

Finally, a reminder: Drinking soda and booze, tobacco, and driving a car are not a right and not a necessity. In Seattle, that vast majority of the public has access to bus or rail service to major job centers like downtown Seattle and Bellevue, Northgate, U-District, and the greatest bulk of low-income housing is in the downtown area within walking distance of tens of thousands of jobs. Do we have work to do in improving transit service and walkability? Absolutely. But we won’t get there if we keep throwing the vast majority of our resources at SOV automobile use.

Would Microsoft be in Redmond if it weren’t for Seattle? Considering Microsoft likes to downplay the very fact that it is in Redmond and not Seattle (the side of my Zune has ‘Hello from Seattle’ etched into it) I doubt it.

Most of the undeveloped land is barren and useless. The good land has farms and timber on it, and these are the areas taken by developers.

Every person who moves into an apartment is one less person who moves into a bulldozed farm or forest.

Oh John.

Do people actually drive into downtown thinking that they’re going to get free parking? The idea of that seems ludicrous to me.

Why do you say that? A highrise for the McMansions, medium and low for the middle class.

Then you must be the better of the three, and you’ll never get to move up (like Neale didn’t). But hang in there, Tom.

All the best.

Now that the thorn has been taken been taken out of John’s foot, and he’s been proven to be a human being after all (but please, you’d be a whole lot prettier if you’d smile once in a while. New pic for the new John), maybe we could give him a break until he trolls again.
I’ve a comment about parking.

The worst thing about city parking isn’t the cost. It’s about having to guess how long you might be occupied. And the watch check.

The change to the Pay & Park system was a good thing because now there aren’t costly meters for every spot, you can use a debit/credit card, and you can use any extra time at any other spot.

But wouldn’t it be nice if it were tied into the Orca system, so you could tap your card, enter your plate number (maybe even have that pre-entered), stay out as long as you would like, then tap back in?

That 13,500 paid parking spaces stat doesn’t include the residential parking zones, for which you have to pay for a permit to park within during key hours.

A lot of Seattlites pay for parking one way or another if they do business in the city core and drive. Even if they don’t pay fees they waste gas and time pursuing an elusive free parking space.

I may have mentioned this already, but you have become my favorite commenter on PubliCola. I tip my hat to you.

You must be a fellow drunk.
We seem to find each other somehow.

Thanks, Dono.
If I hadn’t lost my hat, I would tip it toward you.