Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketsWork
My point has nothing to do with the amount of any subsidy, but with Newnan_Eric's insinuation that businesses should discontinue parking subsidies as a means to encourage their employees' use of public transit. Such attempted social engineering by a private business would be pointless and self-defeating unless attractive alternatives exist for its targeted employees. For the majority of those scarce workers, it does not.
|
I don't know if I agree. Certainly no one's (yet) (here) suggested that the subsidies should be illegal or formally blocked by the hand of a bureaucrat, but if a company, of its own volition (or under lobbying pressure from citizen groups) decides it wants to "socially engineer" its workforce by means of eliminating a parking subsidy, it would by no means be entirely novel. Large companies with big brands set up policies all the time for the PR/good-feeling benefit of "helping the community" -- consider donations to the Arts by Home Depot, or BellSouth's relocating their offices to the urban spine and building decks at perimeter MARTA stations, etc.
This also ignores the possibility that a business may have a vested interest in reducing its employees' reliance on cars for bona fide traffic/pollution reasons that directly impact the company. However, I agree that a direct impact of any substantial size would be rare except in the cases where companies have large corporate properties on the order of college campuses.
Anyway, I'll drop it here to get back to any Emory discussion that may take place.