For those who have not heard, AT recently released a draft parking discussion document (PDD). The PDD has stimulated considerable discussion on parking issues in general and residential parking permit schemes (RPPS) in particular. In this recent post I outlined four reasons why I consider resident parking permits to be unwise, specifically:
- RPPS are unfair, insofar as they prioritise a public resource for a particular group of people based simply on where they live;
- RPPS are inconvenient, insofar as they make it easy to park your car in the area where you reside, but less convenient in other areas where you might travel;
- RPPS create poor incentives, insofar as they subsidise residential parking and thereby encourage residents to make inefficient use of on-street parking; and
- RPPS are not an enduring solution, insofar as they do not tackle the underlying problem (excess demand) and instead ration demand based on location (and often first-mover advantage).
In this post I will now list some of the opposing views which emerged in the comment thread to my earlier post. Ultimately, these arguments haven’t swayed me from my original position: I still consider (heavily discounted) residential parking permit schemes to be unwise. Nevertheless, I think it’s worth paraphrasing opposing views, if only so we can confront them head on. In the following sub-sections I present the most common opposing views.
View #1 – Respecting different definitions of fairness
Perhaps the most surprising opposing view was the suggestion RPPS were in fact “fair” because they provided inner-city residents with the same opportunity as suburban residents to park on-street for free in the area where they live. One commentator, for example, argued thusly:
” … They [RPSS] allow inner suburb residents the same option as residents in suburbs further away – a park outside your house.”
There’s a couple of interesting issues here, most importantly how one defines “fair”. In my previous post, I suggested RPPS were *unfair* because they restricted access to a public resource based solely on a person’s place of residence. Hence, I have defined fairness as everyone having the same opportunity to access on-street parking, irrespective of where you live and where you want to park.
In contrast, the comment above suggests an alternative definition of fairness, specifically paying the same price to access on-street parking close to where you reside.
So in essence, the fairness debate boils down to one of subjective values: If you think that everybody should have equal access to on-street parking across the city, no matter where they happen to reside or drive, then you will likely agree with me that RPSS are “unfair”. On the other hand, if you think everybody should pay the same (zero) price for on-street parking in the area where you live then you might support RPSS. Respecting different definitions of fairness is important, if only because it helps us to understand what people value (image source).
Personally I think the suggestion that everyone should pay the same (zero) price for on-street parking in the area where they live is somewhat unworkable. It would require on-street parking permits schemes in the city centre, for example, for which demand would quickly exceed supply. More generally, it rides roughshod over natural spatial variation in supply and demand and also ignores the potential for people to choose the area where they reside, and indeed the house they live in, based on their need for on-street parking. More on this below …
View #2 – Limited off-street parking
Several commentators suggested RPPS were warranted in areas with limited off-street parking. This argument goes something along the lines of:
- Premise: Suburb A has limited space for off-street parking
- Conclusion: Residents of Suburb A should have a parking permit scheme, which allows them to park their cars on-street for free.
The sheer weakness of this argument is overwhelming. Let’s try this for size:
- Premise: Suburb A has limited space for bedrooms
- Conclusion: Residents of Suburb A should have a bedroom permit scheme, which allows them to “park” their children on-street for free.
Imagine how popular that would be?!? I can see all the parents out there jumping up and screaming “right you little turd burgers – there’s no space for you here tonight. You’re out on the street.”
More seriously though, why are we prepared to cover for people’s inability to find somewhere to park their car? We don’t do that in a range of other areas of life. For example, if someone decides to save money and rent a house with three bedrooms when they actually needed four, we don’t turn around and say “hard luck Jim, why don’t we let you put a shipping container on the street for you to sleep in”. Seriously: Why are we prepared to dedicate space to provide subsidised car-parking, rather than subsidised housing? Surely there’s more need for the latter? As the infographic below suggests, the costs of providing free parking (on and off street) are enormous (image source).
I’m generally flabbergasted by the temerity of the people who argue for residential parking permit schemes and minimum parking requirements. More on this in the following section …
View #3 – The eleventh commandment: Let there be parking
This is really a collection of “views”, which ultimately culminate in “more free parking reserved for me”. First I would like to quote from Oscar Wilde:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
In Auckland the “eleventh commandment” views are most clearly articulated by a group with the rather eloquent name “Auckland Inner City Suburb Parking Alliance” (AICSPA, which is pronounced with a hacking sense of disdain). Now when I first heard of this group I presumed it was the the new company resulting from the merger of Wilson’s and Tournament’s off-street parking businesses. But alas no, it’s a far more serious treat than a rapacious corporate monopoly. According to this recent presentation to Auckland Council, AICSPA is actually …
The AICSPA presentation lists the following issues with commuter parking:
- Destroying community amenity
- Stressing heritage streets not designed for public parking
- Reducing safe access/egress to homes
- Stressing elderly and young who don’t have access to off-street parking
- Compromising the economic viability of local commercial/shopping areas
Let’s tackle these issues in turn:
- Community amenity – This has absolutely nothing to do with commuter parking. If cars parking on-street are detracting from amenity, then reduce the amount of on-street parking. Cars owned by residents will reduce amenity just as much as cars owned by commuters (although I do acknowledge that members of AICSPA are likely to have fancy new European cars).
- Inadequate street design – Again, this has nothing to do with commuter parking. If the street is unsafe for parking, then remove on-street parking. You cannot argue one type of car is more dangerous than another. That’s just silly.
- Reducing safe access/egress to homes – same as above. If lack of on-street availability is the issue, then we can solve that with pricing. We don’t need to ban commuters to increase availability.
- Stressing elderly and young who don’t have access to off-street parking – pricing parking would free up spaces for everyone, including elderly and young. Again, this issue arises in instances of too much demand, where old/young people can’t park close to their house. In which case pricing is the answer.
- Compromising commercial/shopping viability – Seems to presume that commuters don’t contribute to commercial/shopping viability, at least not as much as residents. At the very least this argument is not supported by surveys of relative expenditure levels. My experience is that commuters (more commonly known as “employees” or “workers”) do spend quite a lot of money.
Too easy. In terms of underpinning principles, AICSPA seek: “Agreement that commuters to the inner-city must bear the full cost of taking their vehicle to the city …” Let’s replace the two words in bold in that sentence: “Agreement that residents and commuters in the inner-city must bear the full cost of taking their vehicle to the city …”
And a couple of slides later they start to be more explicit, and it’s not looking good:
The last two points provide the most significant insight into how these people “think”. AICSPA argue for securing “residents” rights, without acknowledging that commuters are residents too. The only difference is that the latter originate from other parts of Auckland. Their rights as residents of Auckland Council are no less relevant than yours.
Indeed, the dispersed, inter-connected nature of travel patterns in large cities like Auckland is one of the very reasons why AC/AT were formed (rightfully I think too). AICSPA need to realise that, from a transport planning perspective, integration across space is more important than integration across planning documents. In fact, I’d argue AT’s parking discussion document is, almost by definition, better integrated than what we have: Because what we currently have is a rag-tag collection of parking policies created by the former councils which is disintegrated across space.
And then the Moses punch: AICSPA want “sufficient on-site parking” in the city centre. What the flaming koala hell? Why?!? I live in the city centre and have done so for almost a decade. I live in a building with zero off-street parking. I have sufficient parking, i.e. none, because I DON’T OWN A FLAMING CAR. Requiring parking in the city centre is forcing people like me to live like AICSPA people. And I don’t want to. You people are crazy. That aside, my apartment was *cheaper* because it did not have parking. That enabled *me* to buy it. If not then I’d likely still be renting.
Again to quote Oscar Wilde:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Anyone who advocates for minimum parking requirements needs to read that quote over and over and over and over again until it sinks in. Some people argue that removing minimums is actually removing choice. To which I say balderdash. Removing minimums does not prevent developers from providing parking if people want it. Hence, in a situation with no minimums people who don’t want parking don’t have to pay for it, while people who want parking can still get it. Everyone gets what they want, and what they pay for.
The moral of the story is that residential parking permit schemes and minimum parking requirements are unwise public policies. In the next post I’ll outline what I think is the better direction for Auckland to head in with regard to on-street parking policy … just so y’all don’t start thinking I’m an overly negative Noddy.
Processing...
AICSPA would appear to be an organised group of bludgers- wanting to extract benefits from the state to support their desired lifestyles, rather than providing for themselves.
I also wonder if their argument were to hold: why just in their streets? Why not K Rd, Ponsonby Rd, Queen St which all have residents in historic buildings would would love to have a free park outside their door?
Glad to know that the AICSPA are happy to pay for the infrastructure required for me to only pay $150 a month to have a park outside my apartment on Wellesley Street, with a rateable value of something like $15,000/m^2.
Fair is fair is fair right?
yes – consistency is often a problem for people who argue from a position of self-interest.
AICSPA’s proposed solutions are unworkable/unaffordable anywhere of moderate density, which is most of the inner-city suburbs they represent.
QED their proposals are not good policy in the medium to long run (even if they *may* work in the short run).
“stressing heritage street not designed for public parking” … missing the obvious fact they are heritage streets not designed for ANY car parking.
The make-up of that group shows just how mad it’s getting. The Business Associations have a great deal to fear from Resident Parking Schemes. If the side streets around Ponsonby Rd for example are locked up for residents around the clock then there will be fewer places for drivers to be able to stop and shop. No better and probably worse than having a hide’n’rider parked there for most of the day. Far better for the business association members is time limited parking which ensures turn over and more custom from drivers.
Discussed here: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/10/01/parking-in-ponsonby/
Of course they will have even more business if they focus more on improving the street environment for people walking [the only certain customers] and cycling and Transit access to their businesses.
Interesting research here from NZTA: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/530/docs/RR-530-Reallocation-of-road-space.pdf
As someone who drives (mostly due to unreasonable bus lateness) each morning and works at the K-Road end of a Ponsonby Rd sidestreet, I can say the biggest problem with parking on our street are the mechanics and panel beaters who move their current jobs out into the street at about 6am in order to free up space in their workshops or own parking spaces on-site. Although we did lose four carparks from our street with no reason – apparently Pollen Street needs a huge kerb for some reason 😛
I should add that there isn’t much of an uproar from the residents at the moment at the current situation, but that couldn’t have anything to do with a Mayor that doesn’t put their suburbs ahead of everyone else. Nothing at all.
interesting point on mechanics. It’s something I’ve noticed too, and seems to affect some areas more than others, e.g. Newton and Newmarket used to have a lot (the latter less so now Nuffield Street has been redeveloped). In an ideal world (such as the one I live in) these businesses would pay for the public on-street parking they use.
Though to be consistent if the ‘residents’ have their way the mechanics should be issued with resident parking permits too. Their businesses are resident in the area and deserving of the same level of provision. Unless of course it really is about the elderly and those with young children.
Oh yes, they can have resident permits – 1 or 2 per property, So yep they might store 6+ cars in their yard at night and not have 6+ permits to put them on the road the next day.
Thats fair they’re ot like paying 3 or 6 times the rates of the other properties are they?
I also see the same issue with car yards/car service centers in Gt South Road, using the side streets as their “customer and staff parking area” in effect privatising the street for their benefit.
BMW, and the Team Macmillan are two big culprits there but not the only ones.
To me the fix is priced parking anywhere there is excess demand, with limited (very limited) resident exempt permits for locals to park there if needed.
Yip. If the business isn’t viable if they have to pay for parking then that’s free market economics right? This should be the same for any business.
In reply to your post Stu. Some key points because the ideas here can be subtle and prone to misinterpretation. My views:
– Parking on the street outside ones’ house is not a right. I’m quite happy for better street uses (e.g. protected bike lanes) to take the place of parking.
– However, if that street area is to be used for parking, I believe residents of high parking demand areas have a greater right to it than commuters.
– “Commuters are residents too.” But they’re residents of the suburbs they live in, not the suburbs they commuter park in.
– In CBDs the decision is generally made out of nececssity that no long term parking is available on street so CBDs are not directly comparable to inner city suburbs.
– Parking minimums and residents parking schemes are related but not the same thing.
– I support a limited form of residents parking scheme, I generally do not support parking minimums.
– Residents parking schemes need only take up a proportion of the available parking space. How much is very debatable but the decision speaks directly to Stu’s point about residents schemes preventing people from parking in the places they want to drive to.
– It does seem that parking minimums will clearly reduce demand for residents parking schemes. Residents parking schemes are generally desired in places that are old build with very limited off street parking.
– A note on residents associations: these are partizan lobby groups looking to get the best deal for themselves. They should not be looked upon as anything else. Worse they generally involve only a small group of shrill residents in in many cases do not advocate for a community view, only the view of their membership (which may be an extreme or minority view).
Thanks for the clarifications Simon – and I hope you tune in for the next post, in which I outline what I think should happen. I suspect you’ll find our views are more aligned than I’m perhaps currently letting on. My suggestion is to essentially create three overlapping policies for areas that experience high on-street parking demand:
1. Price on-street parking;
2. Implement a residents parking permit scheme *only for* people residing on the street at the time it switches from free to paid; and
3. Give anyone the option of buying a monthly parking pass for an area, essentially “pre-pay”.
In this situation, #2 essentially becomes a transitional measure for shifting from the status quo to pay parking. Permits are, however, non-transferable because anyone who moves into the street post-pricing does so in full knowledge of what they are getting into. Hence number of permits will decline over time. And #3 essentially becomes a more convenient form of payment for those who need parking in the long run.
The purpose of these first two posts was to argue from a position of principle, so that we have a good rationale foundation for subsequent policy development.
‘- A note on residents associations: these are partizan lobby groups looking to get the best deal for themselves. They should not be looked upon as anything else. Worse they generally involve only a small group of shrill residents in in many cases do not advocate for a community view, only the view of their membership (which may be an extreme or minority view).’
-clearly the case, same it seems with business associations.
So I live in Grey Lynn and completely oppose the support of the GLRA for this. What gives? Their website is not exactly overburdened with information around the decision making process that went into their support for this, more concern around whether the little grocer will be replaced with a cafe (that’s sure to bring undesirables into the hood).
Let’s all sign up and make this a group for moving forward.
Exactly – my apartment is on the corner of Queen Street and Customs street. I demand on street parking outside my door!
Me too! Me too!
I demand parking everywhere. For me.
After years of living in Grafton and then in Ponsonby I’ve found that most of the parking spots are taken up by residents not commuters – the streets are chocka with parked cars any time of the day or night. It’s multi-car households w/o off-street parking and flats, the humble commuter barely makes a difference.
Yes that’s also been my experience of living in Newmarket, Parnell, Grafton, and the city centre. Residents with too many cars left parked on street all week are *part* of the problem.
There is yet another position, although I’m not sure how much even I agree with it:
Residents do have a right to the street outside their home, in that they are entitled to build a vehicle crossing and thus remove an on-street space. So resident’s permits (one per property frontage, only if you don’t have off-street parking) can be a way to discourage excessive driveways that disfigure the street and make it less safe, without making any practical change to anyone else’s ability to park.
In fact, if we’re going to charge $X / year for an on-street space, to be consistent shouldn’t we charge the same amount to have a vehicle crossing?
Can you source this “right?” never heard of that.
Is that some sort of joke I’ve failed to get? Being allowed to build off-street parking at all comes hand-in-hand with building a crossing to access it, as part of the same resource consent.
There’s a few places where the district plan restricts otherwise (retail frontages, for example) but almost every property in the city that has on-street parking in front of it would be allowed to add a driveway, if they didn’t have one already.
No joke. Serious question to this statement: “they are entitled to build a vehicle crossing” I’d like to see where this is written besides Ecclesiastes. (that last part is a joke).
Don’t know about Auckland but in Christchurch not only were you allowed by right to have (at least) one, but you were **required** to build a crossing (at your expense) if you drove a vehicle onto the property by other than the approved crossing more than 5 times in a year or something odd like that.
I know thats the case as my parents got “made” to put a crossing in (actually council built it and charged them for doing it). The rule was you can’t drive across the footpath/berm without a proper vehicle crossing (sealed to council standard of course and all that) and therefore you “had” to have one if you had a car and parked it off-street.
This was to fair one of the (now) Red Zoned areas so “Suburbs”, but you gotta wonder.
Have a look on page 25 and 26 of this, gives an outline of the current Auckland City rules that still apply.
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/central/pdfs/part09b.pdf
You’re generally entitled to drive a car onto any property from a road, unless it’s a motorway or limited access.
You don’t have a “right”, in the American, constitutional, from my cold dead hands sense, to actually build the crossing as a formal driveway. And people are allowed to park in front of your property until the driveway actually gets built. But as Greg says, the dynamic normally goes the other way – the council can and does require you to build a crossing, rather than just going straight over the footpath and berm. (There’s a few exceptions in the district plan, like arterial intersections and retail frontages).
There’s an element that I do think is missing from the discussion, with all the “rah rah, how terrible, people storing private property on the public streets”. Off-street parking is uglier and more space-hungry than on-street, and it’s less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. It’s also less flexible, in that every house would need to provide for its own peak usage for the whole time the household is there. Woe betide your kids move back home for six months, or you change jobs and now both need cars. Particularly in denser areas where it would be expensive or difficult to add an extra off-street space, on-street parking gives you an option besides moving house. It’s a flexible middle ground for car parking, rather like car-share is a middle ground for car ownership.
I don’t think that necessarily means “a right” to long-term parking on-street, free or otherwise, or that we won’t need to price parking in some situations, or that preferential treatment for residents is generally necessary, or that off-street parking shouldn’t be a big part of the mix. But it’s worth bearing in mind what effects on-street parking policy has on off-street parking and land use!
Perhaps as I said, we could help keep the balance by combining charging for on-street parking, with charging an annual fee for vehicle crossings. (I assume this would require some major law changes, but you could potentially sell it as a revenue mechanism as well, to fund transport improvements).
And, in the spirit of the Super City, let’s use a non-ACC plan for once: the Waitakere City District Plan.
See Rule 7, on p15. Vehicle crossings are a permitted (or controlled, in a few zones) activity, for the first crossing on a site. There’s various conditions the council can impose on the design, but ultimately, you’re entitled to do it.
The Auckland one has more relevance, I’m not aware of any call of provision of resident parking areas in the old Waitakere area.
We applied for a crossing several years ago and had no issue getting one (the second one on that frontage). We had more trouble removing an unused garage to rebuild as an office. In this area you aren’t current allowed to remove garages (reduce the amount of on site parking) as of right (despite having offstreet parking for 2 cars over the other crossing).
Steve D,
>> Woe betide your kids move back home for six months, or you change jobs and now both need cars. Particularly in denser areas where it would be expensive or difficult to add an extra off-street space, on-street parking gives you an option besides moving house.
Assuming, that is, your kids must also be driving. Or that you both need cars to drive to jobs. Even in denser areas.
Not driving also gives you an option besides moving house. It ain’t the end of the world.
>> It’s a flexible middle ground for car parking, rather like car-share is a middle ground for car ownership.
Flexible, perhaps, for the motoring residents of the day. It can be highly inflexible for the community as a whole or future tenants — including, for example, people who might want to ride bikes on decent infrastructure otherwise obstructed by parking provision, etc.
> Assuming, that is, your kids must also be driving. Or that you both need cars to drive to jobs. Even in denser areas.
Well, that’s exactly the point. If you have to park only off-street and plan out your off-street parking for years ahead, you need to assume you/they will be driving, since you don’t know for sure you/they won’t.
In fact, the less that people drive, the better the case for on-street parking over off-street parking. In a car-dependent city, you’ll almost certainly use the off-street parking, so it’s a better investment. In a balanced city, when you’re less likely to use it, on-street parking becomes more compelling. Rather than taking a big chance that your garage, after all the expense to yourself and inconvenience to others, will sit empty.
But those inner suburbs are built out anyway. Decisions about street width and setbacks have already been made. The more interesting thing is how you arrange parking in greenfield subdivisions – which may not be nearly as car-dependent in the future, but will still have a lot of driving going on.
> Flexible, perhaps, for the motoring residents of the day. It can be highly inflexible for the community as a whole or future tenants — including, for example, people who might want to ride bikes on decent infrastructure otherwise obstructed by parking provision, etc.
Even in countries with excellent cycling infrastructure, bikes do not have or need separated lanes on most streets. You simply have traffic calming down to 30km/h (or below). Indeed, on-street parking itself helps calm traffic. This is already the case in parts of a few inner Auckland suburbs (like Ponsonby), where narrow older streets make higher speeds impractical.
But having on-street parking still gives more flexible use of space. One you’ve designed a street for significant off-street parking, that’s affected the streetscape in a permanent way – the density, the setbacks, houses designed to incorporate garages and vehicle crossings. Particularly with denser developments that may need to provide for carparking through structured parking rather than just paving a bit of the front lawn. While on-street parking can be more easily removed if it’s no longer in use.
> The Auckland one has more relevance, I’m not aware of any call of provision of resident parking areas in the old Waitakere area.
I read Kent’s question as being generally about the “right” to install a vehicle crossing, rather than specifically any connection with resident’s parking areas. I just thought WCC’s was a bit more readable.
In any case, for places that might get resident’s parking schemes, you probably want the Isthmus section, not the Central Area section, which only applies to the CBD proper: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/aucklandcitydistrictplanisthmus/Pages/districtplantexthome.aspx
One of my neighbours has 5 driveways – one each unit in the block https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.824755,174.806188,3a,90y,138.88h,84.16t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7sIFHeG9h_Hrc2T2IOuOZg!2e0!6m1!1e1
A nice touch on the middle space – having the dropped kerb so you can drive straight in over the berm.
Wow that’s some front elevation; ah the price of freedom!
Well seems as waste not to have grass when a cars are only on it for 20 seconds each day. If there is big load of wet weather they driver can go via the more solid path
A fantastic article. I appreciated your humour at the end there – that’s the only way you can react to such hypocrisy.
Their arguments are so consistent with a conservative perspective. Oppose the use of the power of the state to help people unless it’s yourself.
Crony capitalism a.k.a corporate socialism at its finest.
Let the free market sort out parking – there soon won’t be much of it left.
thank you; such positive feedback is 1) uncommon and 2) appreciated.
And yes there is a nascent market for parking emerging already. You just need to jump onto TradeMe and you’ll find people listing car-parks to rent in these inner-city suburbs (hell I used to do it too).
Removing minimums and committing to demand-based pricing of on-street parking would stimulate this market even more. And once you have a liquid, thick market for parking resources people can sort themselves out quite well I would have thought.
Hi Stu, I echo Al’s comments as I have thoroughly enjoyed the parking articles (I can’t believe I actually wrote that) and the comments. I’m looking forward to the next installment. Cheers
This is an unusually nuanced issue to discuss. Kudos to Stu for tackling it.
While I grant that resident parking schemes do have some legitimacy (though perhaps not as a right), and can broadly support the provision of public space for it*, I don’t see why it must be assumed that the most convenient and best quality public space should be for the taking. A car user is not more entitled to proximate transport amenity than a bus user; if a bus user carrying four bags of shopping is asked to walk 800m from a bus stop, then why shouldn’t a car user taking public space? In other words, residents without off-street parking should have the option of entering a publicly-provided, exclusive parking scheme, but it may well be located a short walk away.
* Specifically, this can be useful as a pragmatic “exit strategy” from Motordom. Consider the possibility of AT moving (rather than removing) some on-street parking to make room for a bike path, on a medium-term basis (say, until tenancy nurns over), to an exclusively leased parking spot at a nearby location that’s out of the way.
> A car user is not more entitled to proximate transport amenity than a bus user; if a bus user carrying four bags of shopping is asked to walk 800m from a bus stop, then why shouldn’t a car user taking public space?
This, definitely. Although this is exactly why I think pricing is probably overkill for most of the inner suburbs just yet. It’s still pretty rare that you can’t get a free, on-street parking space within, say, 200m of your destination at any time of the day or night. Doesn’t work out so well if you’re loading or unloading, but in practice people just park on yellow lines or berms or in front of driveways, etc. (Or the footpath, if they’re dicks).
But there’s no reason why parking should be an obstacle to reallocating road space on, say, Dominion Road. There’s still tons of parking down every side street.
Having recently moved out of Grafton* into the outer central burbs, this is one fight where I am kinda happy I dodged the bullet at “having” to participate. Because I used to be a GRA member, and I would have opposed their participation in this totally, yet unsucessfully.
*(where I had two car parks despite having no car – due to ridiculous regulations during the time my apartment was built)
But yeah, this kinda stuff reminds me why I do still need to submit on this thing anyway.
Dude enrol for a course on logic. It is time you learnt what a weak argument is. It would be ridiculous to park your kids in the street ergo on-street parking is ridiculous, damn that made me laugh!
It’s an analogy mfwic, perhaps you need the course in logic as that is a fundamental element of argument?
Not sure I follow what you’re saying. The example used in the post is intentionally ridiculous, so as to highlight the logical weakness inherent in the argument that is put forward in favour of RPPS. More generally, the conclusion (i.e. we need RPPS) does not follow logically from the premise (i.e. we don’t have enough off-street parking).
Ok try googling straw man fallacy or the English sometimes call it an Aunt Sally. It involves mis-representing the original argument and knocking down the mis-representation and claiming that is proof you are correct. wikipedia offers an example as ‘ In a 1977 appeal of a U.S. bank robbery conviction, a prosecuting attorney said in his closing argument[11]
I submit to you that if you can’t take this evidence and find these defendants guilty on this evidence then we might as well open all the banks and say, “Come on and get the money, boys, because we’ll never be able to convict them.” ‘
A sailor you might think it fundamental to argument but it is still classed as ‘weak’ in logic.
No mfwic, this isn’t a strawman, it is an analogy, you could possibly argue a reduction to absurdity (I can never remember the latin). You use a similar argument to highlight the hypocrisy, strawman would be claiming that local residents want to park in the streets of every suburb for free and have it controlled for others and defeating that.
No Sailor Reductio ad absurdium means showing the opposite of your point is ridiculous or impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum . It is a straw man as he modifies the argument from parking to bedrooms as a parallel and then demolishes the that 2nd argument. Politicians use it all the time but it is a type of fallacy.
It’s a fact of life that when people have something they value and a proposed rule change threatens to either take it away or significantly reduce its value, they will grasp at any and all arguments they think may win support, regardless of how emotive and illogical. Colourful mockery by opponents is something they may try to use to their advantage.
Thanks for these posts Stu. Very relevant and some very good points.