Leave parking decisions to the market

Like it or not, most of California, especially Southern California, was designed decades ago to be car-centric. Compare these population densities: The city of Los Angeles: 8,304 people per square mile; New York City: 29,309, or 3.5 times as much. For comparison, Anaheim is 6,899 and Riverside is 3,878.

A lot of cars means people need a lot of parking spaces. Two bills in the California Legislature would reduce local control of the parking spaces required by law for new residential and commercial developments.

In general, we’re for reducing requirements placed on private businesses, in this case development companies, in what they decide.

The market, not government, should determine what is built. But the two bills bring new regulations of their own.

Assembly Bill 2097 is by Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Glendale. It has been amended a couple of times. But in its current form, the bill would prohibit local governments in counties with 600,000 or more people from “enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement” on projects within a half mile of public transit. And for counties with less than 600,000 people, or cities with more than 75,000, it would ban “imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement ... if the project is located within ¼ mile of public transit.”

Senate Bill 1067 is by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge. It would prohibit local governments “from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a housing development project ... that is located within ½ mile of public transit.” That sounds simpler. But it also would create exemptions if a project “dedicates a minimum of 20% of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities.”

And it would mandate not reducing or eliminating “electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities.” Which could mean, in an extreme case, only such spaces might be allowed in a new development.

The provisions in SB 1067 are social engineering at its worst. They even contradict each other. Low-income housing is favored, along with electric vehicle charging stations, but owners of the latter tend to be wealthier.

Both SB 1067 and AB 2097 clearly are intended to advance mass transit, even though, in most places, mass transit remains unpopular and impractical.

Meeting market demand is what keeps prices low because it joins need with supply. What’s needed is a bill that simply allows developers to determine the number of parking spaces based on market demand.

But that seems impossible in California, where everything is minutely regulated.