Firstly, well done on innovative thinking and kite-flying random, creative ideas. That is how the world gets improved.
My concern is that street parking spaces are public property, worth as you say, tens of thousands of pounds. Why should a few lucky homeowners get control over them? If I were a homeowner, why would I not just make myself loads of free private parking spaces (ie. basically I get free ownership of government land!)? That is the most likely outcome.
Should they not be exploited so as to maximise everyone's benefit? If they are owned by central government surely the government should maximise the benefit for everyone in the country? and if owned by the local council, maximise the benefit for everyone in the council district?
To take the analogy further, we would not hand control of entire roads to locals, because we all own and pay for them.
There’s a good point in your comment and I have a suggestion that might satisfy you at the end of my reply.
Right now, residents (not just homeowners, tenants as well) already do de facto own them, and consider themselves to have the right more or less to decide what to do with them. The system basically agrees with them, as do, I would guess, most voters. No one would agree to a scheme where they simply had them taken off them.
What I am proposing is that we recognise this, but let them choose (if they wish) to use the spaces in a way that benefits society more.
On your question of ‘what about the roads’, we’ll it parallels LTN schemes where we actually do allow communities to close off their roads to through traffic that makes their streets noisy, polluted, and unsafe for children to play in. Historically most of the major trunk roads were built and kept up by fee charging turnpike trusts, while many city streets were private, or outsiders were excluded. There are still many private streets and toll roads around the world today.
The questions for these systems should be ‘can we make the world better’. In this case, recognising the fact that street residents already control parking could benefit society enormously by seeing spaces put to socially valuable use. But here’s a suggestion: if they sell them off or rent them out, how about we garnish 20% of the returns for the broader community (ie the council).
Interesting but who actually owns the car-parking spaces. Normally not the residents it’s the public Highways department. In our town they don’t care what residents want, they do as they see fit. Democracy and tax payers influence is dead.
Yes, as I understand it the parking spaces are owned by the local authority or roads authority. I am proposing we give locals an extra democratic power they don't currently have.
A very London centric topic. You really need to stop designing policies that suit London and nobody else, get out more round the country perhaps and put your brain to use solving real problems.
I take the point that the policy would only work in a range of relatively dense cities with relatively high land values but that is a decent fraction of the country.
I reject the idea that every positive policy reform must work for every part of the country. This idea is not supposed to be forced on anyone, communities have the right to choose for themselves. Where the policy is inappropriate - as you say that includes most of the country, especially rural areas and smaller towns - they can simply ignore it. I believe ‘every little helps’.
Out of interest, what do you consider real problems?
I like this a lot - inasmuch as parking space is underpriced compared to the market value, and I'd love to see more parklets, more bike sheds, more trees. I guess my concern is status quo bias. In particular the much greater loss aversion from existing parkers than the desire to change things... I guess there's a strong case that you can't legislate for that so you should just leave it to be people to decide/agree/coalesce. But curious if you have a view?
There’s a strong likelihood you’re right and that it will take ages to get people using these rights - even if they’re given them. But it’ll take even longer if we don’t give them any way of doing it, and I don’t see any strongly politically viable mechanisms for change other than this imperfect one.
Firstly, well done on innovative thinking and kite-flying random, creative ideas. That is how the world gets improved.
My concern is that street parking spaces are public property, worth as you say, tens of thousands of pounds. Why should a few lucky homeowners get control over them? If I were a homeowner, why would I not just make myself loads of free private parking spaces (ie. basically I get free ownership of government land!)? That is the most likely outcome.
Should they not be exploited so as to maximise everyone's benefit? If they are owned by central government surely the government should maximise the benefit for everyone in the country? and if owned by the local council, maximise the benefit for everyone in the council district?
To take the analogy further, we would not hand control of entire roads to locals, because we all own and pay for them.
There’s a good point in your comment and I have a suggestion that might satisfy you at the end of my reply.
Right now, residents (not just homeowners, tenants as well) already do de facto own them, and consider themselves to have the right more or less to decide what to do with them. The system basically agrees with them, as do, I would guess, most voters. No one would agree to a scheme where they simply had them taken off them.
What I am proposing is that we recognise this, but let them choose (if they wish) to use the spaces in a way that benefits society more.
On your question of ‘what about the roads’, we’ll it parallels LTN schemes where we actually do allow communities to close off their roads to through traffic that makes their streets noisy, polluted, and unsafe for children to play in. Historically most of the major trunk roads were built and kept up by fee charging turnpike trusts, while many city streets were private, or outsiders were excluded. There are still many private streets and toll roads around the world today.
The questions for these systems should be ‘can we make the world better’. In this case, recognising the fact that street residents already control parking could benefit society enormously by seeing spaces put to socially valuable use. But here’s a suggestion: if they sell them off or rent them out, how about we garnish 20% of the returns for the broader community (ie the council).
Interesting but who actually owns the car-parking spaces. Normally not the residents it’s the public Highways department. In our town they don’t care what residents want, they do as they see fit. Democracy and tax payers influence is dead.
Yes, as I understand it the parking spaces are owned by the local authority or roads authority. I am proposing we give locals an extra democratic power they don't currently have.
A very London centric topic. You really need to stop designing policies that suit London and nobody else, get out more round the country perhaps and put your brain to use solving real problems.
I take the point that the policy would only work in a range of relatively dense cities with relatively high land values but that is a decent fraction of the country.
I reject the idea that every positive policy reform must work for every part of the country. This idea is not supposed to be forced on anyone, communities have the right to choose for themselves. Where the policy is inappropriate - as you say that includes most of the country, especially rural areas and smaller towns - they can simply ignore it. I believe ‘every little helps’.
Out of interest, what do you consider real problems?
I like this a lot - inasmuch as parking space is underpriced compared to the market value, and I'd love to see more parklets, more bike sheds, more trees. I guess my concern is status quo bias. In particular the much greater loss aversion from existing parkers than the desire to change things... I guess there's a strong case that you can't legislate for that so you should just leave it to be people to decide/agree/coalesce. But curious if you have a view?
There’s a strong likelihood you’re right and that it will take ages to get people using these rights - even if they’re given them. But it’ll take even longer if we don’t give them any way of doing it, and I don’t see any strongly politically viable mechanisms for change other than this imperfect one.