From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:40:24 GMT

In <jyc.724183527@Leland>, Jon Corelis writes:

>joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:

>>Haven't you figured out that socialism doesn't work in real life?

>   I read an article in the newspaper recently in which the author
>pointed out that parking in our society is supplied along the principles
>of Soviet-style centralized planning:  a central organization, be it
>government or a private employer, takes it upon themselves to try to
>supply the desired amount of the resource by fiat rather than by
>marketing it.  And the result is that distribution of parking in the
>U.S. encounters the same problems as distribution of sausages in Russia:
>continual shortages, and structural inequities in which the elite (party
>officials in Russia, corporate big shots here) are unfairly supplied
>with the scarce commodity at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, but who wrote the article?  It sounds like it was written by someone
with a crystal-clear political agenda.

If the land used for parking is privately owned, then the people who own the
land can charge whatever they want for it--including nothing--and give it to
whomever they choose.  If I own a parking lot, I'm not going to let people
park free unless it was in my best interests.  If I want to keep people away
(which is not a good idea for business), I'll charge $10 because it's in my
best interests to do so.  That is what the free market is--the freedom to
decide for myself what fee ($2, $5, $10, nothing, etc.) I wish to charge
according to my own best interests (i.e. that which maximizes revenues).

The difference is that the government says how many sausages to produce--it
isn't that private enterprise has decided that it's in their best interest
to limit sausage production.  That is a *huge* difference.  One is a business
decision and the other is government coercion.

>   There's a lot to be said for this idea.  I personally think that all
>public and private parking should be charged directly to those who use
>it at what-the-market-will-bear rates -- and I mean all parking,
>including public curbside parking, employer-provided parking, and the
>lot at your local Safeway.  The resulting fees would no doubt be
>apalling, and a damn good thing too:  people ought to be aware of what
>parking really costs.

Oh, really?  Let's FORCE Safeway to charge $5 for a parking space.  Let's
ignore the unconstitutionality of that for a moment.  What happens?  Fewer
people shop at Safeway, so then they must RAISE prices to make up for the
loss of business--if they want to maintain the same profit levels.  That is
the free market--unless we then implement MORE government coercion which makes
Safeway charge *less* for groceries, at which time they go out of business and
we then have shortages like the Soviets did.  It always comes down to the fact
that too much government meddling screws up the free market.  With apologies to
the big-government types, I can't reach any other conclusion based on the
evidence I've seen.

What will the market bear for a parking space?  Even if you're right about the
"hidden costs" in the food bill at Safeway, how long would they stay in
business charging $5 to park when Lucky charges nothing across the street?
If free parking wasn't in the best interests of a shopping center or employer,
would they provide it?  I think not.  We already have the free market at work
when *private entities* CHOOSE to provide free parking.  There is no law
MANDATING free parking.  Public facilities, on the other hand, should charge
for parking, but ONLY WHAT THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THE PARKING FACILITY.  It
should NOT be used to subsidize mass transit or other social goodies.  The same
is true of the gas tax.  I'd like a system where ALL roads and highways are
built and maintained with gas taxes--and if it takes exactly 65.33462 cents
per gallon to do this, then the tax should be *exactly* 65.33462 cents and
gas tax money should NOT be siphoned off to anything else.  Now I challenge
the mass-transit-is-the-ONLY-way-destroy-all-autos people to pay the full
cost of a mass transit ride through the farebox.  What do you mean you don't
want to pay $10 for a 5-mile light rail ride?

You say that people should be aware of "what parking really costs."  Should we
also figure out how much money we spend (from our sales tax) for mass transit?
Should we endeavor to see how much mass transit really costs?  Is your position
one of fairness and self-sufficiency or one with a clear political agenda?  If
you say "I hate cars and I want their use discouraged" like some auto foes do
here, you're at least being honest about your intentions.  Don't hide behind
the "end the subsidy" banner unless you want to abolish *all* subsidies.

>   Since many of the people who denigrate public transit on this
>newsgroup seem to be generally conservative, one might think that they
>would heartily endorse a proposal to end socialized parking and allocate
>this resource according to market principles.  But somehow I doubt we'll
>see this happening.  Like hope, hypocrisy springs eternal in the human
>breast.

"Socialized parking?"  What kind of drivel is that??  NO ONE is forcing
employers to provide FREE PARKING.  So why do they?  It's much easier to
attract workers!  Again, if providing no parking or forcing employees to
pay for it was in the employer's best interest, they would be doing it.  Why
don't they see it as a source of revenue?  Because it isn't good for business!
That, my friend, IS the "market principle!"

I will agree with the part about *public* facilities charging only what is
necessary to recover expenses and outlays related to providing parking.  Any-
thing which private enterprise does without government coercion IS the free
market.  Once again:  the government does NOT mandate free parking.

What I see as socialist is charging for parking by government mandate.  Why
don't you start a business, charge for parking there and see how many people
apply?  You'd probably only get the kill-the-car-at-all-costs types, which
gives you maybe 2% of the workforce to choose from.  Not the best way to pick
the best and brightest and remain competitive, is it?  No, it isn't.  So while
the businesses which provide parking "dock" workers of $1 or $2 per week in
order to provide free parking, the business that don't issue pink slips
because they can't remain competitive (obviously, downtown parking is not
the same because there the market WILL support charges for parking).  I'd
rather lose $1 or $2 per week than lose my job.

Oh, and hypocrisy?  Many of the car-is-the-root-of-all-evil types whine about
"subsidizing the auto."  If I'm not mistaken, most forms of mass transit are
subsidized *far* more when considering income per dollar of outlay (gas taxes
versus "farebox recovery").  In absolute dollars, yes, there is more of an
auto subsidy, but if you want to *eliminate* the entire "auto subsidy" in order
to subsidize mass transit even more, then YOU are the hypocrite.  Some of us
see the need for many forms or transportation.  I use mass transit often, but
I'm not complaining about EITHER subsidy.  I only complain about the hypocrites
who selectively complain based on their political agendas.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
 teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment