South San Francisco, CA May 7, 2021 Submitted by Livable California
This has a negative impact on our senior and disabled neighbors, as well as those with young children
###
Comments:
**Translation: Parking costs money that developers prefer not to contribute. Square footage dedicated to parking = $$$$$.
Historically, housing developments were required to provide some off street parking and those of us who built additions were required to provide additional off street parking to accommodate increased occupancy and additional cars. Now, politicians and their benefactors, the developers, have decided to legislate to eliminate parking requirements under the guise that it will increase housing affordability by saving a stated $30,000 – $75,000 per space. This assumes they will pass the savings on to the end user. Of course, the developers could build parking if they desired but are not required to do so.
Does anybody see the flaws in these variables? In the end, should there be a predictable parking need, public transit or not, and an inadequate availability of spaces, the need will be satisfied by utilization of public streets owned and maintained by the taxpayers.
In effect, the street in front of your house might just become an extension of a private developer’s project. Sounds like a “win, win” for the developers and a little somethin’ somethin’ for the campaign coffers of the politicians that let them help write the bill.
-Cory Alan David
**those leftvwing, special interests whores in sacramento, are going to
ruin this state
-Mel Perry
those leftvwing, special interests whores in sacramento, are going to
ruin this state
Translation: Parking costs money that developers prefer not to contribute. Square footage dedicated to parking = $$$$$. Historically, housing developments were required to provide some off street parking and those of us who built additions were required to provide additional off street parking to accommodate increased occupancy and additional cars. Now, politicians and their benefactors, the developers, have decided to legislate to eliminate parking requirements under the guise that it will increase housing affordability by saving a stated $30,000 – $75,000 per space. This assumes they will pass the savings on to the end user. Of course, the developers could build parking if they desired but are not required to do so. Does anybody see the flaws in these variables? In the end, should there be a predictable parking need, public transit or not, and an inadequate availability of spaces, the need will be satisfied by utilization of public streets owned and maintained by the taxpayers. In effect, the street in front of your house might just become an extension of a private developer’s project. Sounds like a “win, win” for the developers and a little somethin’ somethin’ for the campaign coffers of the politicians that let them help write the bill.