do you see how replying to “every city in WA except of Seattle doesn’t make it real easy to live without a car, and the city in the article is very much outside of Seattle” with “you can’t read, i was just talking about places that don’t need them” makes one think you’re saying that “the city in the article is not one of the places that don’t need them”?

can’t you just explain I’ve got no idea what you’re saying either

flippancy is just the progressive version of virtue signaling—it gets nobody else on your side

If you settle down for something as big as housing and will bring a car, you’ve hashed out where to park already. The true solution to environmental issues is a bike.

You have a point with most of these (I’ll concede on the ones I don’t mention) but East is not a freeway but a street with zebra crossings and a roundabout. North is not a residential neighborhood; Aria Apartments is the only residential I can see and the lot North of that is free.

And still, if you have enough money to get a car, you should have enough money for a jacket, a bike, and/or train tickets.

Giving people a place to live is more important than giving them a place to park, especially in a area with a bus system named North American Transit System of the Year.

once residential buildings go up, there won’t be anywhere to park

The pictured development includes a parking lot.

The development is also surrounded by parking lots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_D

unfortunately “thrust” is the accurate aircraft term 😭

are these causing oversupply that could be reclaimed for other things?

the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots. check out the very third photo in the article (the overhead view of a parking lot), its first example of a housing development benefiting from the change. notice how less than half of the spots and thus less than a quarter of the land was being used

plus, for housing, the parking minimum’s only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft². family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home

These people will still own cars

not necessarily

under capitalism governments need to have market controls to prevent products that only harm and trap users to enrich the producer

It’s like drugs.

i’ve found goodreads alright

You can try it right now, actually.

see also Letterboxd for just reviews

oh i thought you were referring to people saying it to illustrate how bad the system is and how important trump winning the election was lol. i definitely agree that it doesn’t justify what he’s doing (even if it legally stands, even if it legally stands, it doesn’t stand socially)

but it is not inaccurate to say nearly half of the citizens preferred him on election day. per the link, pew research shows 48% of non-voters would’ve voted for trump as opposed to 45%, with a pretty high validity.

it’s like gravity

(small objects don’t have (well, show, I guess but uhhh) it but large ones do)

NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted. I agree that substantial Trump voters disapprove of current events, but the truth is one in two US citizens preferred Trump over Harris on Election Day. Not to mention turnout was 64% not 42%, so it’s 30% not 20%

yeah that is indeed my last sentence. i’m pointing out that maybe this means capital can sort of back-and-forth this. anti-immigration to get into power and do pro-capital things, then be pro-immigration to get into power and expand labor force, repeat

it’s interesting you point out successful social movements are often aligned with capital, as the major totalitarian thing today, action against illegal immigrants, is action against expanding the labor force. it gets society invested in giving capital power though

i’m guessing those trans pride colors in the sign weren’t intentional then…

(like look at that these are like the only pastel colors)