In my New
Year’s resolutions for 2014, I committed to delving deeply into a pair of urbanist
topics of personal interest, senior living and parking. It took me much of the year to get around to
the senior living issue, but I finally tackled the subject in a number of posts
in September and October. (This one and this one were the most popular of the senior
living posts.) My coverage wasn’t
complete, so it’s a subject to which I must return in future posts, but at
least I gained a foothold.
I didn’t do
as well on parking, which is a shame because it’s a subject that’s at least as
important to urbanism as senior living.
(I continue to be stunned when I ponder the sea change that occurred in
the 20th century, when the concept that customers would only patronize a shop
if a free holding space was provided for their 3,000 pounds of steel and
plastic. As other observers have noted,
the 20th century was the first time in history when we gave greater
consideration to our machines than to our children.)
Nor will I
be able to embark upon my consideration of parking during December as I already
have a well-populated writing plan for the holiday season. But at least I know what resolution will be
on the top of my 2015 list.
However, I can
offer a parking insight today that will help set the scene for my 2015 efforts.
A
significant change that has begun to take hold in the world of parking is a decoupling
between homes and parking. Twenty years
ago, virtually any new home that one could buy would be bundled with a parking
space or two. Both zoning codes and the market
demanded it.
But
gradually the idea took root that some buyers no longer wanted the parking space
and would prefer to purchase a home that didn’t include the cost of the parking
space.
In rough numbers,
a surface parking place has a cost of $5,000 to $10,000, which includes both
the land cost and the pavement. For structured
parking, the cost would be at least $20,000, with much higher number possible
depending on the structure.
Including a $20,000
cost for a parking place, a similar cost for a car, and reasonable allowances
for insurance, gasoline, maintenance, and parking when away from home, a
homeowner could spend perhaps $300 per month on bus passes, ZipCars, Uber, and
the occasional car rental and still come out ahead. It’s a trade-off that interests an increasing
number of home-buyers.
So many recent
buildings in urban settings include two types of parcels, individual living
units and individual parking places.
Buyers can decide how many parking places to include in their purchase,
much like ordering sides for a meal.
It’s a very
reasonable and appropriate solution to parking in modern cities. Except when reason falls apart.
In recent years,
voter-approved parcel taxes have become a common approach to funding specific
needs through increased property taxes.
(Personally, I still favor ad valorem taxes and don’t understand the
lean toward parcel taxes, but that’s not today’s topic.)
In 2008, San
Francisco voters approved a $259 parcel tax for the San Francisco Unified
School District. And the County Assessor
began collecting the tax on residences and parking places. Someone who owned a home and a parking place
in a multi-family building with a modern, leading-edge approach to parking paid
for the privilege with a new tax that’s twice the amount charged to
single-family home with a three-car garage.
It would
seem to be fixable problem. And indeed
San Francisco City College when faced with the same situation found a way to
refund the second tax payment. But somehow
the Unified School District thus far hasn’t gotten to the same solution,
instead trying to pass the buck to the Assessor.
I don’t want
to paint this situation as another form of anti-urban bias. It’s fairer to describe it as an unintended
consequence at the confluence of property taxes and emerging urban
thinking. Even if legislative action is
required, I hope and expect that a remedy will soon be in place. But it illustrates the myriad unexpected challenges
to be overcome in moving to a more urban world.
Urbanism is
never easy.
Next time, I’ll
write about the “urbanist” solution being proposed for the former site of
Candlestick Park. The quotation marks
should offer an insight to my thoughts.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment