Why free parking is anti-poor …
I remember when I first posted this idea on Facebook around two years ago. A lot of my friends immediately asked “Why?,” even those who are well-versed in the discipline of urban and city development and transportation. It very well exemplified that famous quote of Stephen Covey, “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are, …” We are conditioned to look at parking as “free.” Reminds me of another story of my millionaire-friend who was at a P2,000-per-plate dinner-reception (something I could not afford and would not pay for even if I can). His dinner companion got very angry when he was asked to pay P40 for parking. “I shelled out P2,000 for a lousy dinner and you’re asking me to pay for parking?, — I could almost imagine the loud voice reverberating. But it’s not only him, it’s most of us. In this day and age where the car dominates man’s lifestyle, we are conditioned to believe that parking should be free. Or at the very least, almost free … That’s why in Cebu City, there was a City Council ordinance which pegs off-street parking fee at P20. And that was 13 years ago, never increased!
But why anti-poor?
Consider how is it today — when you are constructing a building. Depending on the specific area of use or uses of that building, both the country’s building code and the city zoning ordinance would require you to build a minimum number of parking slots depending a specific areas of use in each floor. So many slots per 50 or 100 of sq. meters of office space; so many slots per certain areas of commercial space; and so many slots for common public areas. For schools, it depends on the number of classrooms, and dependent on whether it’s elementary, high school, or university — libraries get their slots, too! For hospitals, it’s per doctor and per employee, too; per so many tables for billiard halls; per lanes for bowling centers, per court for Tennis court, etc. And all of these usually were legislated not because of careful studies but by copying and amending other countries’ or cities’ parking ordinances. And people expect these parking slots are for free simply because the government required them. So, you see all these building owners and contractors always arguing with building officials how many they should provide, almost always providing temptations for bribery if only to escape building a few parking spaces more.
But this is not about “parking minimums,” contained in our building codes and zoning ordinances, albeit without any rational reason for being, we can discuss that in another setting. This is about the cost of parking and who pays for it. Parking space is not cheap, it is a considerable part of the total building cost. That’s why the parking requirement is always a headache to those constructing new buildings, and is always a cause of arguments with and potential bribery in, the zoning office. You see, simply because parking is required by government wouldn’t mean it’s free — someone has to pay for all those spaces which are actually empty almost three quarters of the day. Consider an ordinary office building, say owned by a single entity or leased to several others. Usually, the parking, which was required by law, is allocated to the different leasees/sub-leasees who further allocate them to their employees who have cars. If there are not enough, naturally these goes to the boss first, then the sub-bosses, down the line, pity the car-owners who are lower in the pecking order — they just have to park somewhere. The provision of these parking spaces is always for free, I yet have to see a private office building which charges parking to their own employees, much less, the executives. Parking is free. Now the question that is NOT asked is — why is parking space provided free to those who have cars and not to those who don’t? If a company or employer gives free parking to their employees who own cars, isn’t that grossly unfair to the others who don’t have cars and have to commute by public transportation to get to work? At the very least, common sense dictates that a certain additional “allowance,” on top of their wages, should be given to non-car-owners commensurate to the value of the “free parking” enjoyed by car owners, and which will at least cover a portion of their “commute” fare. We are not asking this question, simply because we are taking it for granted, because we are conditioned that this should be the case. We believe on “that’s how things are” simply because we are conditioned to it.
“We see the world not as what it is but as we are . . .” — Stephen Covey
Not only is parking unfair to the poor (if we are basing this on the ability to afford a car), it is almost always charged to the poor. We are making the poor (those who can’t afford cars) to pay for the parking space for the rich car owners. How is this? Let’s look at a bigger commercial building, say a huge mall. Ten of the largest malls in the world are located in Asia! I know of one in the Philippines which was required to put up more than 500 parking slots, and it’s not even the largest. Now that costs a lot, maybe up to P1 Million per slot! A parking space, regardless of where it is, costs the same as the equivalent commercial space. So, if you are the mall owner, do you just throw that half a Billion Pesos away? That is a huge chunk of the investment cost! — to recovered through its revenue stream. So where is that cost charged to? To the leasing rates, of course! Anybody, any outlet or store, who leases in that mall pays their rental fees which includes the construction cost of the parking spaces (including their upkeep and maintenance, by the way). So, all lease rates of all malls, or expanding it further, all commercial buildings for that matter, includes the cost of the parking spaces! Those parking slots required by the government are not for free, these have to be recovered, and almost always as part of the lease!
Now, you’re the outlet/store owner, and you need to recover your investment and your month rental, and get a good return out of it, you then price all your goods accordingly. What this means is that every single good or service that is sold at the mall or department store is priced to include the recovery of the rental fee, which already included the cost of the parking space! Nothing is free, someone has to pay, and ultimately, the end-user pays unless you intend to sell that good or service again to someone else, in which case, that someone else get to pay the cost of parking. This is the same costs that every customer in the mall or store will pay, whether you are rich or poor. All customers pay the same price and all embedded cost in that price, including the cost of parking. Thus, all people pay for parking!
But wait, but who enjoys the free parking, if indeed the parking is provided for free? Oh — only those who have cars! If 5,000 people go to the mall and only 500 go there by car, all the 5,000 people pay for the cost of the parking. But only 500 people enjoys the free parking, the 90% who don’t own cars or who cannot afford cars, are actually subsidizing the rich car-owners. Every time the poor buys anything in a mall or store, he/she pays for the free parking of the rich who went there by car.
And you don’t believe free parking is anti-poor?
Originally published at https://medium.com on October 17, 2019.
