Fwd: Subsidizing Parking Structures

Interesting open letter from NorCal:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sherman Lewis <[email protected]>
> Subject: Subsidizing Parking Structures
> Date: June 27, 2015 at 2:30:08 PM PDT
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> 
> To: Strategic Growth Council:
> Ken Alex                     OPR 
> Anna Caballero            BCSH
> Diana Dooley               CHHS
> Bob Fisher                   Public Member
> Gail Goldberg              Public Member
> Brian Kelly                  CalSTA
> John Laird                   CNRA
> Manuel Pastor              Public Member
> Matt Rodriquez           Cal EPA
> Karen Ross                  CDFA
>  
> From: Sherman Lewis, Hayward Area Planning Association
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> June 27, 2015
> 
> Subsidized parking structures take money from housing and increase greenhouse gases. The SGC will consider funding three parking structures on June 30 without any information about their social, environmental, or economic problems. The 19th Street Senior Apartments, Hotel Fresno, and Riviera Family Apartments are slated to spend about $5 million subsidizing about 200 spaces.
> The underlying problem is a mistake in the Guidelines, at least it’s a mistake if you are trying to reduce GHG. The SGC parking guidelines are a step forward but still fall short in a thoughtless support for parking structures. People do not seem to realize the contradiction between funding parking structures and unbundling. If the unbundled price simply tries to recover the cost of land, construction, and operations, no one will park there—it will just be too expensive. Including external cost in the space lease would build an empty structure. As far as I can tell, this issue has never been studied.
> Structures are usually advocated in areas with greater density and higher land values, which are also the places with more walkability and transit. The SGC should not be locating projects away from locations with walkability and should support carshare/rental, taxi vouchers, parking management, remote surface parking, and other alternatives to cars.
> Local governments may require expensive parking but cap and trade money should not be used to increase greenhouse gases. The money should go to actual housing. It’s not as though there is a lack of projects with reduced and surface parking. 
> As I write this, the CalEEMod estimates for project GHG are not available for public review. However, the model inputs do not allow considering parking structures per se.
> Economically, subsidized parking structures provide as a public good something which clearly should be a private good, providing an incentive for waste, in this case more car use. Socially, they put tax dollars into housing for cars instead of housing for people and deter residents from less car dependency. Environmentally, they increase the many externalities of car dependency, of which GHG is one.  
> I see no leadership from staff or Council members to deal with this problem this year; the institutional inertia behind some counter-productive investment is too great. Council members should raise the issue. Staff should study it. Todd Litman has some amazing statistics on parking and MTC is working on parking. The SGC needs to catch up.
> -- 
> Sherman Lewis
> Professor Emeritus, Cal State Hayward
> President, Hayward Area Planning Association
> 2787 Hillcrest Ave., Hayward CA 94542
> 510-538-3692, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> www.bayviewvillage.us <http://www.bayviewvillage.us/>

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.SustainableCityNews.com
http://gridlogisticsinc.com
http://www.rickrise.com