Ben’s posthaven

Cross-posted to the Seattle Transit Blog.

---

A few months back, Erica C. Barnett of Slog and our own Andrew called for parking maximum mandates for new construction in Seattle. Now, I can understand the appeal of parking maximums. After all, parking-induced sprawl ranks with pollution, gridlock and a more lethargic society as the worst effects of cars. However I'm more than skeptical of such maximums - not only does the evidence show we're making good progress without them, I suspect they're downright counterproductive to the mass transit cause. Surprised? Read on...

Big Bad Brix?

Erica gives the example of Brix condos' 1.2 parking spaces per residential unit as an example of development gone awry, being inconsistent with the supposed will of Seattle's people, who removed minimums downtown in 2006, and the lifestyle the surrounding urban landscape supports. But it's unfair and misleading to single out Brix's parking ratio when it's significantly lower than, for instance, Belltown's average of 1.5; and Brix was already under development in 2006, when the minimums were dropped downtown. Do we really expect them to redesign their building on short notice to serve an unknown market? Developers and their creditors are understandably somewhat conservative when putting millions of dollars on the line, but this naturally changes with time, as developers experiment and discover parking-free housing to be viable. And sure enough, if we look at more recent developments, we're seeing evidence of that change, with planned parking ratios as low as 0.9 in high-rise housing, and as low as 0.67 at "medium-rise" fare such as Moda.

Selling to Whom?

Erica goes on to say:

The problem with simply eliminating minimum parking requirements is that developers can still build as much parking as they want—”and that extra $20,000-$30,000 gives them a strong incentive to do just that.

The idea that the extra expense of a parking space is somehow an incentive to build it only makes sense if people are willing to pay for that substantial extra expense. If not it's just dead weight, and the extra expense will make those units less marketable and reduce the demand for that unit. It all hinges on how many buyers are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a cement box to put their car in. It's not hard to find evidence of developers looking to earn the housing dollars of car-free urban buyers such as myself: Moda here and The Civic in Portland, for example, build units with the express purpose of offering them at lower cost, without parking attached. Other developers, wondering where this sort of development can fly, are putting the question to the public. So again, added expense is not some irrepressible incentive. It's an incentive only to the extent that people are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have a place to store their cars. This willingness is dependent on the real needs and desires of people, including ourselves. The corollary being: the better car-free parking sells, the more examples of it we'll see in the future, and the lower parking ratios will go. As such, it's incumbent upon us to consider our own options when we make a move. Might you be able to find a better deal by also taking care to support your ideals?

Unintended Consequences

But Andrew here focuses on the areas around light rail stations. Isn't it reasonable that we should have less parking there? The answer, of course, is a resounding yes, and it's easy to predict that they will typically have lower parking ratios than buildings elsewhere, even without intervention, because transit serves them better so the buyers see less value in a parking space and aren't as likely to be willing to pay a premium for one. But even in this situation we should hesitate from putting maximums in place, because maximums can absolutely do more harm than good. If a maximum actually reduces the number of spaces that are built, it must also reduce the value of the properties that could be built there. If not, entrepreneurial builders themselves would build at those rates, once they understood the demand was there. But push maximums below their natural equilibrium and the value of development in the restricted area will be less because many people aren't willing to live the transit & car sharing lifestyle just yet, so those units will have more supply than demand. When you reduce the demand to live in a certain area by imposing restrictions on the ways those people can live there, you naturally reduce the builder's incentive to build housing in that region. So while you're "saving" space by not building parking, at the same time you're taking potential housing space away, because the builders won't build as high, or as quickly. When you reduce the amount of housing around these stations, you reduce the most obvious, frequent source of ridership. When you reduce ridership, you reduce the real value of the entire transit network. Fewer people ride, so fewer business pop up to serve the ridership. Fewer employees can easily use transit to commute to these businesses, and fewer employers settle along the line, because it connects them to fewer employees and customers. At the same time, it makes areas with unrestricted parking relatively more attractive, encouraging development there. It's a policy which encourages the city to migrate away from transit, not towards it. All because fewer housing units were built, because we were too eager to realize a future which will come on its own, in time.[1]

The Real Problems

So I'd say the problem is not that we need to force the evil developers to do what "the people" want them to. Nor do we need to discourage people from living around transit with inflexible limits. Parking maximums are unnecessary and counter-productive. But there are other great ways to help push the ball in the right direction. We can start by fighting to get Seattle to drop it's remaining minimum parking requirements. There's no good reason people should be forced to buy a cement car-box along with their house just because they don't live downtown. That's the ridiculous part, that's the part against the will of the people. It also happens to be the cause of a number of other problems, such as a higher cost of housing and the unimpressive architecture of townhomes.[2] Likewise, Erica mentions so-called "unbundling" regulations which require parking to be sold separately from housing. I think these are a great way to help transit users opt out of parking, while ensuring buyers are explicitly confronted with this car expense. Finally, we can keep fighting and voting for better, more responsive transit system. Rather than attempt to drag drivers out of their cars, why not entice them with a fast, frequent, reliable system which they want to use? IMO it's a much friendlier way to build a city, and the challenge forces us to create better answers.

---

[1] Another fundamental problem is that these maximums are inflexible, and reality often calls for flexible limits. For example, not all light rail stations are created equal. Some, more urban sections of the line will be more likely to be able to fulfill the needs of the residents, while a person living on a more suburban section of the line might have a life which does not fit so neatly around the station. Many of these people, faced with living a "complete" car-only life, or a new and different transit-only life, will choose the former. So residences at the end of the line should rightly have higher parking ratios, but how much higher? And how should those ratios change over time, as the city matures and grows? I don't know; does anyone, really? And that the problem. A city has to mature into a certain rate of parking. This takes time, and is contingent on having a useful, comprehensive transit system. Imposing inflexible limits retards growth in just those areas which are in transition, and slows their progress. [2] But let's say you really hate parking, so much so that you want to actively discourage people from having it. Let's say you have a good reason, like the costs cars impose on society, through the cost of infrastructure (which doesn't come close to being covered by the gas tax), or various negative externalities. If that's the case, the good way to combat these effects is not to institute parking Maximums. Economists have been studying externalities for a long time, and the answer they've come up with is the Pigovian tax. When something has social costs unborn by the buyer, a tax on the product itself can make the buyers act as though they would if they did have to bear that cost. Placing a Pigovian tax on the building of parking spaces would not only decrease the parking ratios of new residential buildings, but the local government collects money along the way. This money can be used to, say, finance transit, or pay for the roads which aren't nearly covered by the gas tax, or lower regressive sales taxes! Not only do you discourage parking, and collect funds which would otherwise have to be collected some more harmful way, but you do so in a flexible way. For people who didn't quite really need a car, $10,000 in taxes can tip the balance toward a life of transit and car sharing. People on the end of the line will still need parking space, and they can have it, it's just somewhat more expensive. But it's more expensive across the city, not just around the terminal, so there's no incentive to live outside of some small regulatory zone. A Pigovian parking space tax discourages car ownership across the city, rather than discouraging development where we want it most.

I received notice earlier today that a photo I'd taken was to be used in an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I'm glad to see my work (loosely speaking) get out there, but I had some issues with the editorial itself, and posted the following response:

---

As the taker of the photo (seriously), I have other thoughts on the subject. I don't agree that governmental health care reform is the way to go, without knowing more about the specific legislation. I looked up the one you mention, and found not a lot to like. Specifically, this is a big problem:

In exchange for all of this consumer support, the Wyden-Bennett plan would require individuals to have health insurance (an individual mandate), which must be purchased from a state-run purchasing pool that would require health policies to have substantial benefits (rich benefit mandates) and offer a choice of private policies. - source

This is a problem because health insurance itself is largely the culprit in our broken system. To make a Massachusetts-style health insurance mandate would only reward those who screwed things up in the first place, while perpetuating an inefficient system. My point in taking the picture was that insurance itself has got way out of hand, because it complicates the whole process. The key problem here is that health insurance isn't used as "insurance" per se. Proper insurance (fire, flood, car, &c) covers unlikely but potentially devastating expenses. But regular health insurance covers far more, and inserts itself into almost every health transaction, to our detriment:

"Insuring primary care is like insuring lunch. You know you're going to need it. You know you can afford it. Why on earth would you pay a third party to pay the restaurant on your behalf, adding overhead and taking a big chunk out of the money you pay—”and because of the process, have to wait a week to get a table and then have only 10 minutes to eat?" - source

As it is, some 40-50 cents on the dollar goes to wrangling with insurers about payment, this is wasted value which the consumer never sees, and which drives up medical costs. The alternative I favor is the system put forth by Dr. Garrison Bliss, which has 3 parts:

1. A High-deductible health plan, i.e., insurance which only kicks in for catastrophic problems, such as cancer or a bad car accident. The premiums are much lower because the deductible is much higher (on the order of $1.5k).
2. A Health Savings Account, which you and your employer contribute to tax-exempt, and from which you pay most of your medical expenses. You can afford to have money here because your premiums are so much lower.
3. An enrollment with a Direct Primary Care provider, such as Dr. Garrison's Qliance, where you pay a fixed rate (in this case ~$50/month, though it could go lower), and in return get real relationship with, and 24hr access to, a primary care physician, and other services (x-rays, labwork, at-cost pharmacy) which makes your primary care physician much more than just someone who refers you to a specialist after 10 minutes.

In this system, your Direct Primary Care provider (DPCp) can work unencumbered by insurance paperwork, and has a strong financial incentive both to keep you happy (and thus enrolled), and healthy (and thus safe at home, rather than in their office). In those cases where you need to go to a specialist (much less often than the status quo), your DPCp would act as an independent, knowledgeable advocate on your behalf, advising you on the necessity of procedures, and the reasonable costs of them. Here again, the DPCp does so because they want your continued business, not because they're hoping to wring out another unnecessary procedure. Meanwhile, different DPC providers can directly compete, on costs and amenities, for the business of available patients. Such a system would dramatically shift the balance of power back to the consumer and their doctor, rather than putting it in the hands of insurer overlords who get to decide your every medical transaction. People would have a real relationship with their primary care provider, who has a strong incentive to support them with ongoing preventative care. While competition and consumer choice work to push inefficiency out of the system, from top to bottom. To me, this sounds a good deal better than the status quo, and other options I've heard.

---

Just to be clear, in the above system, the cost-savings and added benefits work out as follows:

• By removing multiple rounds of insurer paperwork from each transaction you save a large portion of the 40-50% currently spent on administrative costs.
• By maintaining a close relationship with a primary care doctor, on an enrollment basis, you greatly reinforce incentives to engage in preventative care, thus in many cases avoiding major health expenses by nipping them in the bud.
• Many lower-level emergencies which might otherwise send you to the (expensive) emergency room can instead be handled by your DPCp.
• As your DPCp is paid on a monthly basis, rather than per-procedure, they have no incentive to cajole you into unnecessary tests or procedures. This cuts down on medical expenses in general, by reducing unnecessary ones.

The net effect is the patient and primary care provider at the center of health care decisions, while potentially providing a significantly higher level of care for the same cost.

I was reading up online and I came across this statement in an argument about the public finance of campaigns (which I happen to think is a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't cover here):

Money is not free speech.

My response: This is a troubling statement. I'll try to explain why... Speech is not just speech. It is a million little steps which translate one person's thoughts into corresponding thoughts in another person's head. Money is one path through which a person's ideas and intentions travel. For example, if I want to communicate in another language, I must have a translator. If one isn't available for free (i.e., doesn't volunteer), then I must hire one in order to express my message in that language. If the government limits my ability to give a translator money in order to speak for me, then they have limited my right and ability to speak. The same is true of other forms of expression which require a purchase, such as advertising. So ultimately, when I give my money to a group which I support, they are acting for me, and by proxy expressing my speech. I support Ron Paul, and he, quite literally, speaks for me in the Republican debates, and in his ads. If you legislate my right to act through him, you limit my very ability to express myself. IMO, liberals are taking the wrong approach by going for public financing. Other people, such as Lawrence Lessig, are doing a much better job of approaching the problem without potentially destroying our speech rights. The problem here is quid-pro-quo (whether it be votes or access), and as he cites, interesting work is being done to break that (quid-pro-quo) link, without limiting the speech that occurs through dollar-voting on the part of citizens.

In a moment of zest, I took a few minutes aside to write my local legislators about an issue which concerns me, which is our voting method. Few people are aware of the effects that our voting method have on politics, or even that there are alternatives. But there's a growing grass-roots movement of people who recognize the benefits of better voting systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting and Condorcet Voting Methods (such as the Schulze Method). Why should you care about the voting method? Well, one of the many good reasons I didn't discuss in my letter is that our voting method makes us stuck with choices we don't like, and it picks a winner who is often not the best candidate in the eyes of the electorate. For example, look at the federal landscape today. Not one branch of government has an approval rating above 30%. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have only the good Democrats and only the good Republicans, or how about someone in the middle? But you can't do that, you're stuck with just 2 choices, and there's a reason. At the core of it, is the Spoiler effect. This is what comes into play when a third candidate 'spoils' the election toward the least-preferred candidate, as Nader and Perot in these past few elections. Basically, a rising star builds up their momentum up until the moment when they split the vote enough to spoil the election, and at that moment, their very constituency turns against them. I witnessed this first-hand in Austin, where the liberals vilified and actively opposed Nader's efforts in 2004, even though they agreed with him, because they believed he had spoiled the election to Bush the Younger. This whole process is known as Duverger's Law, and this is the reason people speak of our system as a "two party system." This is, as they say, a bug, not a feature, that is, it's a flaw in our system, not something we've taken on by choice. Another way of looking at this is through the academics' eyes, who call this the voting criterion of Clone Independence. Basically, 'clone independence' is the question of what happens if you taking an existing race, clone one of the candidates, and carry on the race with the clone included. Different systems react differently. In our system, plurality voting, the clones together are less likely to win than the original on their own. For example, 2 qualified liberals or 2 qualified conservative are actually less likely to win than a single qualified liberal or conservative. In others, they may be more likely to win. The proper answer though, is that they should collectively have the same chance of winning as the original did on their own, and their are several systems like that. Including both Instant Runoff Voting, and my personal favorite, the Schulze Method, for which I prefer the name 'Full-Runoff voting.' In any case, for those of you frustrated with what's going on, I recommend you pick a subject which has local significance, because your voice is 100x louder when you speak to your local legislators, who have far fewer constituents. Go to your legislators, show your interest, and speak to them on the specifics which actually affect their constituents, which they recognize could affect their chances of re-election. As a politician once said, whether they agree with you or not, "when I feel the heat, I see the light."

Dear [Mr./Mrs. Legislator], I hope you'll consider supporting Instant Runoff Voting, aka Ranked Choice voting, ala [HB 2202/ SB 6000], which I'll refer to as IRV. If you're unfamiliar with IRV, it's a form of voting which allows the voter to rank each of the candidates according to their preference. At the time of tabulating the votes, if no candidate has a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and their votes are re-alloted to the second-choice candidates of those voters. Candidates are successively eliminated until one of the remaining candidates has a majority of votes. It may not be obvious from my telling, but IRV presents the opportunity to solve several of our problems in Washington at once. First of all it removes the need to limit choice through the restrictions of the pick-a-party primary. This is a problem which has been generating frustration on the local level across Washington, as evidenced by Pierce County's adoption of IRV to solve just this problem. Second, it ensures that all our elected officials must win the support of at least 50% + 1 of the electorate in order to be elected. Not the out-right support mind you, but enough to put them out ahead of their other major opponents. In many local races this makes a significant difference, for example at the Port of Seattle Commissioner election just a few days ago, Place 2 was won with just 33% of the vote! Only a third of voters supported that candidate (Gael Tarleton) and yet she won. Likewise, Redmond's mayor was elected with 39% of the vote, and had strong opponents with 36% and 24% of the vote. It's very possible that more of the electorate actually preferred the candidate who received 36%, but were unable to have there preference heard, because of our limited voting system. The principles of representative democracy suggest we can do a better job of forming a consensus for who to choose as representatives, and IRV can help us do that. I've spoken with a number of people about this, and just about everyone I've spoken to thinks its a great idea once they know about it. It's encouraging that Pierce county has voted to adopt this method, and it shows that there is a grass-roots movement growing up around the issue. I hope you'll be there to work with that movement. I'm looking forward to working with you on this issue, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Regards, Ben Woosley P.S. Another alternative to IRV, rather than eliminating the least popular candidate each round, uses the voters' ballots to run a "virtual" runoff between each and every pair of candidates, simultaneously. The candidate who beats each of the other candidates in this "virtual" runoff is the winner. In the rare case there is not a single candidate who wins all run-offs, IRV-style elimination rounds are used. This is known as Condorcet's voting method, and is technically better than IRV. Both are much better than our current system.

I've never taken a side in the Middle East conflict, except to say that I codemn the violence perpetrated by both sides. Today we enter a sad new stage of the crisis. Just months ago, with the transfer of the Gaza Strip and the signing of the prisoner's agreement, I had hopes that the Palestineans and Israelis were finally taking the steps necessary to work for peace. Sadly, as evidenced by the Israeli invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, it seems I was mistaken. As before, I don't defend the kidnappings and killings perpetrated by Hezbollah and Palestinean militants, but when the reponse to 5 deaths is the invasion of Lebanon & Palestine, as well as the deaths of more than 80 Palestineans, including women and children, the response clearly excedes the boudaries of justice. Israel will never have the peace it claims to desire until it learns to love justice more than the gun.

My message to the Israelis, Palestineans and Lebanese is the same as it's alway been. Let's not be eager for retribution, let's be eager for peace.

I channelled my earlier frustration about the Blanton Museum into some social activism. Specifically, creating a Facebook group about the whole debacle. The result: "Herzog & de Meuron can make my Blanton any day!".

Spurred on by creating it, I collected a good amount of quotes surrounding the whole issue. I've put up a good deal, just from the print media available on-line, not even including architecture magazines! Anyway, I'll be putting up everything I've found there. For you, I have a collection of quotes:

But for all the time, money, and hotheadedness, the final incarnation of the museum is strikingly unremarkable, [...] The new Blanton is just a building, not a masterpiece. - Texas Monthly, 4/2006

Larry Speck on his Resignation:

The departure of [H & dM] was not a simple matter of personal difference, They were treated badly and were put in positions [...] that no top-flight architect should tolerate. - Larry Speck, Dean of the School of Architecture, in his resignation letter

The Regents:

I have a big problem with flat roofs, I've never seen an undulating roof, I am glad that they have [resigned] so that we can [...] select an American architecture firm that [...] understand[s] the cultural significance of the project. - Regents Rita Clements and Tony Sanchez, on rejecting the first and second H & dM designs, and in response to the firm's resignation

About Herzog & de Mueron:

One is hard put to think of any architects in history that have addressed [...] architecture with greater imagination and virtuosity - On H & dM's recieving the Pritzker Prize, the "Nobel Prize" of architecture (2001) The strength of our buildings is the immediate, visceral impact they have on a visitor. - Jacques Herzog

About the New Blanton:

[The museum] certainly won't go down in the history books. - Kevin Alter, associate dean for graduate programs in the School of Architecture (2001) For a building that's going to house famous artwork and because of its location on campus, I think the museum needed to be more prominent in design. - Tray Toungate, Vice President for the Architecture and Planning Council (2001)

I'm feeling rather sad at the moment for my soon-to-be alma mater, The University of Texas at Austin. 1998: Herzog & de Meuron are chosen, museum to be "an architectural landmark":

"Herzog & de Meuron is known for creating highly imaginative buildings that stand in harmony with their purpose, materials, and site," remarked President Faulkner. "The new Blanton Museum will be not only an architectural landmark for The University and the city of Austin, but a building that will engage students, faculty, and visitors from all backgrounds with the world's artistic traditions."

1999: Architects resign in frustration w/ the Board of Regents. Dean of School of Architecture resigns in protest:

"The tortured saga of the Blanton Museum of Art has a new and painful chapter. The latest involves Lawrence Speck, dean of the UT School of Architecture for the past six years, who resigned that position on Monday, November 22, in protest of the departure of prestigious Swiss firm Herzog & de Meuron Arkitekten from the Blanton project."

2002: Why did this happen?:

"I didn't ever see any [Herzog] designs that I felt would fit with the architecture of the campus," said Rita Clements, UT System regent and chairwoman of the System's Facilities Planning and Construction Committee. However, neither the campus' most noteworthy buildings nor those buildings surrounding the future museum are built in the campus master plan's style, said Kevin Alter, associate dean for graduate programs in the School of Architecture. The campus plan leaves room for architectural innovation for special buildings, Alter said. Alter expressed disappointment that the regents took a conservative approach to the museum."

2006: Regents choose a design for the Blanton museum which is "strikingly unremarkable"

"But for all the time, money, and hotheadedness, the final incarnation of the museum is strikingly unremarkable. Yes, its Texas granite base, epe wood overhangs, and sixteen-foot-deep arcades are lovely, but they're, well, decidedly traditional. The new Blanton is just a building, not a masterpiece."

Now how could that be? Let's review...

Those of us who aren't particularly fond of either Republicans or Democrats will sometimes refer to both of them, as a group, as "Republicrats". Suggesting that, though their adherants will claim differently, the two are equally bad. Tonight, I heard a similar term, in a much different sense. The word is "Repubocrat". That's re-pub-O-crat, rather than re-pub-LI-crat, above. The difference is, the person doesn't mean anything by it except that she agrees with neither and both. This was her way of saying that she was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a line libertarian folks have been pulling a long time to explain their position to "outsiders", with limited success. Unfortunately for libertarians, for many reasons, the little contact the public has with libertarians in a political context is sometimes not very good, and is almost never compelling. There are plenty of explanations for this, but the important issue here is that important ideas and positions are not being considered in part for communication problems. Looking back at the history of how political ideas gain traction, one that has appeared several times over the past hundered years, is to change the dynamics of the conversation by changing the language. An example is the word "Liberal" in America. In most of the world, "Liberals" are those arguing against greater state power and for greater freedom, whereas here the name is used by those who elsewhere would be called "Socialists" or, since that name has been sullied, "Social Democrats". In fact the name Liberal here used to have the same popular meaning, before it was coopted by people sympathetic to socialist movements abroad and in the U.S. So Enlightenment thinkers, or "Classical Liberals" as they are sometimes now called, coopted the word "Libertarian" from the Anarchists! So I suggest that sensible libertarians start looking for a new banner to march under, and I think Repubocrat is a reasonable first consideration. The appeal is that it carries the essential meaning that we hold some views in common with each party, that we agree with both and neither. Also, the name will seem familiar and friendly to those who have settled into our supposed "two-party" system. One, hidden bonus, I think, is that extreme libertarians will be loathe to call themselves Repubocrats, because the close association it draws to the existing parties. Some would say that's the most important bonus. Perhaps if we could only shake them, we'd be just fine.

One night in Cali, Stephanie and I were out to see a show, when we noticed something strange. I won't go into details but we saw something that didn't seem right, and my first instinct was to call the non-emergency police services number. It took a lot of trying, but I pretty quickly got on the phone with a dispatcher and rattled off the details of what we'd seen. While I was still on the line, still answering questions about specifics, two cop cars zipped around the corner, speeding off in the direction we'd just come from. In a matter of minutes I got a call back from the dispatcher thanking us for calling it in. I'm guessing there was in fact a crime in progress, and thanks to the accessible communication afforded by cell phones, we were able to get the word to the right people in a very short time. It's my hope that we saved someone from frustration and violation felt by someone who suffers a crime without finding the perpetrator.

On an even more serious note, It's this kind of thing which encourages me not to worry about the prospect of governmental missuse of technology. As lines of communication are shortened, the people's power to associate, work together and aggregate information increases at a level comparable to the convenience afforded the government, perhaps in some cases more so, as the people are not so easily tied down by governmental bureacracy. This convenience helps keep the balance of power somewhat level, and guards against minor tyrannies.