- Advertisement -
OTHER POPULAR CONTENT
Here Come 11 New Food Trucks
A Few Candidates Stand Out in North Seattle Forum
The Next Big Names in Washington Beer
30 Perfect Day Trips
Sawant Campaign has Relied on Contractors, Skipping Employee Taxes
Yes, Meat and Bread Has Finally Arrived
The Brief, Extraordinary Life of Cody Spafford
Pro Choice Groups Sting Insurance Providers Over ACA Rules
A Current Accounting of Popups Abound in Seattle
Behold, Cupcake Royale's Series of Chef-Designed Ice Cream Flavors
The 5 Best Mariners Promotions of the 2015 Season
The Top Things to Do This Weekend: April 16–19
The C is for Crank
Seattle Times: City Should Force Developers To Build Parking
The Seattle Times hates the free market.
That's the logical conclusion, anyway, from today's front-page story parroting a handful of neighborhood activists' belief that a proposal to lift government regulations on parking will make their parking problems worse. No data. (Actual, totally unbiased headline: "Parking around Seattle may get worse as city planners favor transit.") Currently, city law requires developers to build a certain number of parking spaces at new developments in most parts of the city; the new rules the Times hates, which I wrote about last month, would lift those minimum parking requirements for developments within a quarter-mile of frequent transit service.
Note that the change wouldn't force developers not to provide parking; instead, it would loosen regulations so that they no longer have to. Currently, the city forces developers in most areas to provide a certain amount of parking (typically one stall per unit), at an average cost of between $10,000 and $25,000 a stall; under the new regulations, developers who build near frequent transit service would have the choice to provide parking or not.
Not that you would know any of that from the Times' coverage, which features lengthy quotes from: One auto shop owner who says everyone in Seattle owns at least one, and often two, cars; a Squire Park neighborhood activist who asserts (without providing evidence) that all the street parking in his neighborhood is always taken; and 200 Queen Anne residents who signed a petition opposing a senior-living facility because it would include only 26 parking spaces for 66 senior residents. (In comparison, the story features just three brief quotes from transit proponents.)
That's a lot of assertions. So where's the data? Or, for that matter, the news? (As I mentioned, the city rolled out its plan to eliminate minimum parking requirements near transit service, along with other regulatory changes, nearly a month ago). Not in the Times' story, which---much like its story about Chinatown businesses' fears that longer parking hours will put them out of business, which ran earlier this month (and which also bugged me)---relies almost entirely on individual residents' feelings and fear of change.
I understand that stories about how the mean ol' city is going to take your car away make for attention-grabbing front-page headlines. But that conclusion simply isn't borne out by the facts. Unless the Seattle Times is seriously arguing that loosening regulations and reducing red tape for developers is bad---and that certainly isn't in line with their editorial policy on any other issue---then stories like this one are just fear-mongering via screaming front-page headline.
- Here Come 11 New Food Trucks
- A Few Candidates Stand Out in North Seattle Forum
- The Next Big Names in Washington Beer
- 30 Perfect Day Trips
- Sawant Campaign has Relied on Contractors, Skipping Employee Taxes
- Yes, Meat and Bread Has Finally Arrived
- The Brief, Extraordinary Life of Cody Spafford
- Pro Choice Groups Sting Insurance Providers Over ACA Rules
- Advertisement -
Most popularSlide Shows & Videos
- Advertisement -