When it comes to parking, we’ve already embraced socialism

Hi Bob! Thanks for reading and commenting. I say 'hypocritical' because I believe this is an example of where we embrace the state/government requirement for provision of a scarce resource that a free market would otherwise provide for (and price) appropriately if the government didn't force the issue. As example, though shall not develop a property on Broadway in Minot without providing parking in an amount correlated to the square footage of the building. The picture above is a perfect example of this... that's not a parking lot, that's a parking wasteland. And it's in Minot. Do you really think the developer of that property wanted to waste that valuable land on asphalt? I doubt it. It's my opinion that without the requirements provided by ordinance, that private developer would have done a more efficient job of determining what was needed for the successful operation of the space they developed. And if they didn't, then the free market would adjust the lease rates of those spaces accordingly. All that said, I agree -- in this case -- it's not purely hypocritical, for me. I think our government enforced parking requirements and the subsequent sacrifice of property to that purpose is analogous to socialism. And in this case of socialistic parking -- I do hate it. But I don't think everybody sees this the way I do. Mostly, I don't think people think about parking at all or what it costs us. Mostly, we think of it as free. Part of this article was to introduce the opposite idea -- that even though we don't usually pay each time we park, that doesn't mean we aren't paying at other times. Property taxes are good example of how we pay for parking without knowing we're paying for parking. How much more would that complex pictured above produce in property taxes if it weren't parking lot? Just some things to think about, again, thanks for reading! Josh Wolsky