who should decide how many parking spots are provided

[dead0man]

Rep. Robert Garcia (D–Calif.) has introduced bill Homes for People Not Cars Act of 2023.  From Reason.

On Tuesday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D–Calif.) will introduce the Homes for People Not Cars Act of 2023. The bill would give property owners "sole discretion" to determine how many parking spaces to include in new or substantially renovated buildings that are within half a mile of a major transit stop. This liberalization would apply to residential, commercial, retail, or industrial projects, provided the buildings are "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce."

<snip>

All things considered, it's a very straightforward, clean piece of deregulation. That should make free marketers happy. On the other hand, it is proposing to preempt local laws from D.C., which raises some serious federalism concerns.

"There is a deeply rooted sense at all levels of government that zoning and land use decision making is traditionally the province of local governments and ought to be the province of local governments," says Michael Pollack, a law professor at Yeshiva University.

Federal proposals for looser zoning restrictions have generally taken the form of financial carrots and sticks attached to federal grant programs, not outright preemption of local laws.

But while "higher level intervention into local zoning is rare," Pollack says, "it's not unheard of." The 1996 Telecommunications Act puts limits on localities' ability to deny cellphone towers. And the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000 forbids local governments from adopting land use rules that create substantial burdens on religious exercise without furthering a compelling governmental interest.

<snip>

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, agrees that under current jurisprudence, Garcia's bill would likely be considered constitutional. But "under the text and original meaning of the Constitution," he adds, "this would be very problematic."

Under an originalist view of the Constitution, regulating interstate commerce largely means regulating goods and services that are actually crossing state lines. That would exclude most inherently intrastate construction activity, Somin says.

On the other hand, Somin argues, an originalist understanding of the Constitution would consider parking mandates a taking of property in violation of the Fifth and 14th Amendment's Due Process protections. Congress would therefore be empowered to pass legislation to protect individuals' rights from these parking mandates—similar to how RLUIPA works.

[dead0man]

I meant to add that options 3 and 4 are just option 1, but for people who don't understand how govts work.

[John Dule]

Actually returning to an originalist conception of the Commerce Clause would be the best thing ever to happen to this country, but it's impossible at this point. No president will appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn Wickard, and even the most intellectually honest originalists like Scalia have been scared to touch decisions like Wickard or Slaughterhouse to engage with the original meaning.

As for parking, the parking requirements are especially disastrous in San Francisco, where homes are often required by law to have on-site garages. This results in thousands of homes being built with essentially empty first stories-- a major earthquake hazard. Of course, even without the parking requirements it's hard to say whether developers would actually build homes/apartments/business centers without minimum-calculated parking lots. In a nation without adequate walkability or public transportation, there's not much demand for places that aren't surrounded with several square acres of stupid asphalt.

The more I think about this issue, the more I'm sympathetic to the Georgist "tax on unimproved land."

[Torie]

There is a case for government to be involved in parking to service retail areas (e.g., to preserve short term parking), but that is about it I think other than to have zoning laws that ban huge open air parking lots.

[HisGrace]

olowakandi

[Mr. Smith]

I'd prefer parking maximums rather than minimums, but given how governments don't usually shift that way, the answer is 3.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

WI: whichever entity wants less parking.

[Middle-aged Europe]

olowakandi

This is pretty much the correct answer to everything.

[MarkD]

Peter Parker ....?

[Ferguson97]

John Dule