The Current
District should eliminate parking minimums VIEWPOINT HERB CAUDILL
O
ne of the most controversial changes proposed in the District’s zoning rewrite is to eliminate parking minimums in areas that are wellserved by public transportation. Parking minimums are a well-intentioned policy that seems to make complete sense at first glance. A developer who wants to put up a new apartment building is required to include a number of parking spaces per unit. Without that requirement, the thinking goes, the new residents would park on nearby streets — further stretching an already-scarce public resource. So the developer should be forced to internalize the cost of “spillover� parking instead of burdening the public with it. The controversial parking-free redevelopment of the Babe’s Billiards site in Tenleytown was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the new residents wouldn’t be eligible for residential parking permits. I’d suggest that we’re looking at the problem in the wrong way. In a city that is growing, we’ll always have increasing demand for housing, parking, schools, transportation infrastructure and drinking water. None of that is a development company’s fault — it’s creating more housing, which is part of the solution. So it’s not fair to penalize a firm by forcing it to build parking as well. We don’t, after all, ask developers to build new schools or buy more Metrobuses. That’s what taxes are for. And it’s not fair to penalize the newcomers by depriving them of rights that the rest of us enjoy. They pay taxes just like we do and shouldn’t be secondclass citizens just because we got here first. So we should get rid of parking minimums everywhere — not just in “transit zones� — first and foremost because they’re unfair. But they’re also ineffective and come with unintended consequences: ■Parking minimums don’t work. You can force a developer to build parking spaces, but you can’t force a renter to rent them. If you had the choice between paying $100 per month to park in your building, or $35 per year to park in the street, which would you choose? We’ve had parking minimums for decades,
Letters to the Editor City needs improved upkeep, politeness
Calling all window washers! I hope the D.C. government does a better job of maintaining the West End library and fire station when they move into upscale quarters. Both facilities (along with Pepco’s “dungeon of doom� at 22nd and M streets) are glaring neighborhood eyesores. The library windows in particular are a dirty disgrace for D.C. public space. Library employees should also attend mandatory training in cus-
but the problem of spillover parking is still with us, because it costs so much less to park on public land than it does to park on private land. ■Parking minimums make housing less affordable. The rent is already “too damn high.� Forcing a developer to build unwanted parking (1) makes it more expensive to build, by as much as 30 percent to 50 percent per unit; (2) makes some projects infeasible; and (3) forces a certain percentage of scarce real estate to be devoted to parking lots and garages instead of housing. The result is a lower supply of housing and higher prices. ■Parking minimums implicitly subsidize driving. About 38 percent of District residents live in households with no car. Parking minimums primarily benefit multiple-car households in desirable neighborhoods. The cost of forcing developers to build below-market-rate parking is eventually passed on to all of us, whether we drive or not — and the end result is higher car ownership rates and less walkable neighborhoods. So how should we deal with the added demand for parking? The root of the current scarcity is simple: The District gives away residential parking passes for $35 per year, regardless of demand. By dramatically underpricing a valuable resource, we’ve ensured that it will be overconsumed. If I have a clunker that I don’t really need, I have no incentive to get rid of it when I can store it on public streets yearround for a trivial cost. If I have a garage built into my house — as I do — I have no incentive to use it to house my car. Why should I, when I can store my car on the street and use my garage to store other things? The city is exploring ways to price parking more accurately, neighborhood by neighborhood. As the city’s population grows, the cost of residential parking should grow with it. That way, (1) demand will fall naturally, because residents will have incentives to own fewer cars or get them off the street; and (2) supply will increase naturally, because the private sector will have an incentive to create parking where it’s needed. This reform will put us on the path to solving the problem of parking scarcity in a way that is fair, that allows the city to grow naturally, that doesn’t subsidize driving and that doesn’t make housing more expensive than necessary. Herb Caudill is a Cleveland Park resident.
tomer service, which is severely lacking at the West End branch. Samuel Augustus Jennings Dupont Circle
Foxhall home’s sale will benefit trust
I am writing to share information that was omitted in the Jan. 16 article about the home at 2207 Foxhall Road [“In Foxhall, uncertainty over fate of 1850 home�]. The property is presently in an irrevocable trust that Mrs. Sylvia Shugrue established in 2008. She did not “sell� the property. This trust was set up at her behest after exploring other options. She wanted to be able to provide for her son
9
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
and his needs and felt this would be the best way to accomplish her goal. The plan put in place at that time was for the property to be sold and the proceeds used to fund the trust per her instructions. At the time Mrs. Shugrue set up the trust, she also requested that when the time came, she would like for the process to be handled appropriately, but privately. Upon her death last fall, the trustee began the process of seeking a purchaser to fulfill Mrs. Shugrue’s wishes. I am currently working with the trustee to facilitate this process. Diane Adams Realtor
Letters to the editor The Current publishes letters and Viewpoint submissions representing various points of view. Because of space limitations, letters should be no more than 400 words and are subject to editing. Letters and Viewpoint submissions intended for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, The Current, Post Office Box 40400, Washington, D.C. 20016-0400. You may send email to letters@currentnewspapers.com.
. ' !$# ( " & ' #( )# &'( # # & %!, $)( ( !! # ' # $)& (, ! ( %&$" ' ($ ! # *$ $& & $&" # $)#( ! (, $# ( $)# ! / (& &
"
! $& , (& & # ! $ $+ (- & ')& & ( ( ' # ($#
% (& % (& " & $"