Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
No it is not. As I said, the businesses that get street parking are already paying more than the full cost of it themselves. The businesses that do not get street parking are not subsidizing services received by other commercial property owners but rather the services enjoyed by non-commercial property owners, who pay only a fraction of the rate of tax that businesses pay. Thus, it is non-commercial property owners that ought to be paying more, if anyone should.
|
Your statement in bold doesn't make any sense.
Businesses may choose to locate in an area that has street parking nearby, whether it be free, time limited free, or metered. They pay taxes based on the square footage occupied by their business, and nothing else.
They have
no right to expect that the parking they are located near be maintained forever. The city can change it from free to metered (which would negatively impact customer parking), or even eliminate it all together, during rush hour, or 24 hours a day to improve traffic flow. Or, they could widen the sidewalk, eliminate parking, and put in some benches, or, of course, they could eliminate that parking for a bike lane.
The bottom line is you are taking a risk relying on the city to maintain whatever is there, outside of your property, that you are deriving a benefit from. Hell, I know somebody who's front yard is being half taken away because the city is widening the road. But guess what, that property was never theirs according to the property boundaries.
Will people get upset? Of course. Do they have a right to be upset? Not really.