Parking Pass
Privatization gone wrong
Ordinarily, killing a government subsidy would be cause for celebration. But don't rush out to buy party hats for a purported parking privatization proposal in California. A quick summary of Senate Bill 518, introduced into the California General Assembly on February 26, makes it sound like a money-saving, taxpayer-friendly reform: The legislation would "require that state funds not be used, directly or indirectly, to subsidize parking services" after January 1, 2011. Yet a closer look reveals something more sinister.
In fact, the legislation encourages broader actions by anti-car politicians and bureaucrats to banish the automobile from normal travel. It forces landlords to charge separately for parking, requires employers to provide transit passes as an alternative to parking, and gives preferential treatment to mass transit by requiring employers and landlords to charge a minimum parking fee at least as high as the cost of a monthly transit pass. It also urges tight limits on parking in downtowns, shopping districts, and other places that planners believe should be transit-oriented. Local governments and state agencies will use higher mandated parking fees to push people onto buses and trains, even if it lengthens their commutes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp.
irtye
is good