I've been inside UW discussions on the proposed parking tax. Their claim that they would have to raise parking rates is not true; they can't raise their rate above $15/day for commuters, because above that point off-campus private lots will be more competitive. The university would have to absorb the increased tax and lower their internal rate to keep it at the consistent $15.

Wouldn't the off-campus private lots also ahve to pay the new tax?

thank god Alito will relieve some of the chronic price pressures on public services

No mention of either proposal's $60 tab?

They use parking to fund u-pass, huh? Then what the fuck was that 300 dollars every quarter for?

The "pragmatism" of David Freiboth et al is a pathology. They represent back room deal making that intentionally excludes any pretense of democracy.
Don't give a rats ass what they have to say. They're the problem.

@5,
The student passes are subsidized by campus parking, partly evidenced from a monthly pass for Metro for $2.50 fares is $90/month rather than $76 for 3 months.

Students have nothing but time on their hands and are not forced to drive anywhere. They choose to drive because parking is too cheap. If they are driving, then they are a part of the problem. So tax away. If you want to act like the bourgeoisie than you'll be taxed like the bourgeoisie.

"Students have nothing but time on their hands..."

except the returning moms and dads working, going to school, and keeping up with their family responsibilities. Or those working full or part time to help keep their loans at bay. Or those carrying a double load to get done sooner. Or those who come in from the suburbs.

NO parking is "too cheap", @8. People don't drive instead of busing because parking is cheap; they drive because it's the best, sometimes the only, way to get where they need to go. Like to work or pick up their kids or go to the doctor.

"The commercial parking tax has been absolutely misconstrued as a tax on business that would be more progressive," said Josh Kavanagh, UW's Director of Transportation. "It is a tax on people."

Holy crap that's stupid. It's a tax on people when they engage in a certain activity (just like all other taxes). It just so happens that storing cars all over town in an activity that the city could stand a lot less of, especially given how much and how many ways we subsidize car storage. It's an outstandingly sensible Pigouvian tax.

Between the two proposals, I have no strong preference, because Licata and Sawant tied the best tax to the worst one. I'd probably vote for their plan if it were up to me, but I don't care much.

NO parking is "too cheap", @8. People don't drive instead of busing because parking is cheap; they drive because it's the best, sometimes the only, way to get where they need to go. Like to work or pick up their kids or go to the doctor.


This is ridiculous. One reason driving is often "the best way to get where you need to go" is because car storage has been massively subsidized: the city devotes tremendous amounts of public property to providing the public with free or deeply discounted (relative to the value of the land) car storage. The city also forces many businesses and builders of residential units to provide parking, meaning those of us who don't use it are forced to subsidize our neighbors who do. Driving is often "the best way" in large part because the other people--often all of us, through government subsidy--are paying a large part of the costs associated with your decision to drive. Raising the parking tax to pay for transit is a very small step toward taking back just a sliver of that huge subsidy. When we say "parking is too cheap" it's not based on some vague opinion about how much we think parking should costs, it's based on the staggering imbalance between what providing all that parking actually costs and what you pay for it.

@12,
One reason driving is often "the best way to get where you need to go" is because car storage has been massively subsidized

I know what you're trying to rant about, but how does storing a car make it efficient to get from one place to another ? That's sort of like suggesting that sunlight is responsible for car headlights.

"Best way to go" inevitably involves some sort of cost/benefit analysis. There are many trips that would be faster by helicopter than car, but noone insists cheap helicopter travel is something they're entitled to, because they haven't had the opportunity to get accustomed to subsidized helicopter travel. One reason so many people treat a lifestyle based around cheap and easy car storage all over the city is something they're entitled to is because we've made it easy for them to believe that. It would be too disruptive to rip that particular bandage off all at once, but we should certainly start shifting incentives away from such lifestyles, and upping the commercial parking tax is a good start.

The best thing would be to sell the UW campus for residential property and move it someplace cheap like Yakima.

It would make a great centralized urban/greenspace for the public and command high values.

At the same time they could move the educationing of students to a low cost land area where dorm prices could be kept low.

@18 needs to be tossed onto the field during a Husky warmup before we take the Apple Cup and used as a chew toy ...

Neither.