Parking policies

Regarding “Parking headache” (Page B15, July 26), the editorial states that parking requirements are “low-hanging fruit” that politicians can target. It says removing these requirements will improve life for everyone and argues that parking requirements place an undue burden on businesses.

In the editorial’s zealousness to defend a business’ right to externalize its costs by using public streets for customer parking, it ignores the burden this places on the rest of the public. I am assuming in this deregulated, free market world that you envision, businesses will gladly pay their fair share of the added cost of using public streets for customer parking because wider streets will be required. Also, there would be added wear and tear on the streets and the inconvenience it would cause nearby homeowners when their customers cause congestion and take up most of the parking spaces on residential streets.

The market is only free when the total cost of doing business is actually accounted for.

I don’t believe any of the residents who live on streets where the customers of restaurants and other businesses park are offered payments from the businesses or a discounted property tax bill for helping provide business parking.

There are improvements that could be made to the city’s parking requirements that protect residents and help small and entrepreneurial businesses. Parking zones could be created and businesses could financially support the cost of building and maintaining centralized parking instead of providing individualized parking.

Current parking standards should be evaluated and adjusted to reflect current knowledge about parking needs and proximity to transit.

One purpose of city government is to provide a consistent set of regulations that provide for the well-being of all parties. Parking regulations must consider not only the needs of the business and their customers, but all of the residents of the city.

Mark Weesner, Houston