> Why do we get to park for free on government land?

Because presumably, your tax money is already paying for it.

Right, except it's not my tax money specifically, but all of our tax money, even tax money from people who don't use street parking.

Free use of government property is a great thing when it's a public good, but parking is not one of those situations.

Exactly. The article I linked makes a pretty good case for why free parking is not a net public good: "Transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. Pricing parking, on its own, could make a significant dent in the nation’s carbon pollution, not to mention the terrible loss of life on the roads."

I don't expect private cars to ever disappear, but starting to line up the economic incentives to to disincentivize private car use makes a lot of sense if we're really serious about addressing global warming.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not a public good.

If tax money built the parking spot and tax money maintains the parking spot, then why should the government get extra income from the parking spot? Is my tax burden alleviated when I pay to use this parking spot?

The whole point of charging for the parking spot would be so that they wouldn't have to use tax money to maintain it.

It's not a matter of alleviating your tax burden, it's a matter of alleviating everyone else's tax burden so they're not subsidizing your car. You should pay for what you use unless there's a compelling reason for it to be subsidized, not the other way around. Roads are essential for freedom of movement and in any case are too difficult to toll on a massive scale, so it makes sense to subsidize them. Parking spaces are inessential and easy to charge for, so we should charge for them.

Nobody is subsidizing your car: as a car owner, you already paid 1) sales tax; 2) yearly registration; 3) yearly property tax; 4) taxes included in gas. Why car owners should be double-triple taxed?

Those costs are minor and not close to covering the cost of car ownership. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving...

Those don't come close to covering it all. Especially since I don't pay any (4).

Paying to store your car is not a "tax" so it cannot result in being double-taxed. It's a standard payment in exchange for use of property.

I don't see free parking as any less of a public good than a park.

Besides, last time I was in SF I didn't see any free parking. It was all meters and expensive garages.

Anyone can use a park. You can't use free parking unless you own a car. Cars are expensive, so free parking just subsidizes people with money.

Free parking is rare in SF, which makes it all the more unusual that the people on this street had it for thirty years because they didn't pay their taxes for it.

> Free use of government property is a great thing when it's a public good, but parking is not one of those situations.

Gonna need to provide some sources if you want to claim that public parking doesn't benefit society.

Public parking benefits car owners, and does nothing for non-owners. Do you dispute this?

Yes. You're working from an overly reductive perspective. Transportation, government subsidy, and population density are way too complex to cover with a simple "I don't use it, so why should I pay for it" argument.

I understand that with transportation in general. For example, roads are difficult to charge for and it's hard to draw a direct line between use and costs, so it often makes sense to subsidize those. Public transportation is worth subsidizing to free up space on the (subsidized) roads, help poor people get around, and other such things.

But parking at home? There's a straight line connection between the car owner who uses the space and the cost of the space. I shouldn't expect the government to pay for my parking any more than I should expect the government to pay for my house. In fact, paying for people's houses would be a lot more reasonable, since people need housing, but don't need parking.

Well, car owners can use the same argument: public transportation benefits only people without cars, why car owners should pay maintenance of train stations, buses, trolleys, repair shops for those etc?

Public transportation benefits drivers by taking traffic off the roads, and benefits everybody by reducing pollution. It also helps poor people get around, and they could use some help.

I can't come up with any such counterarguments for public parking. It doesn't benefit non-drivers in any way, and the people it does benefit mostly don't need public assistance.

Is public transportation more efficient per mile/person? Yes. Does it solves all the transportation problems? No: it's not covering even half of our needs. Just for reference: only 30% of NY population is using mass transit for commutes. SF is just 15% [1]. And in most areas in the country you can't go and buy some food if you have no car: there is not even a sidewalk, not to mention public transportation. So what you are proposing is to additional burden for the majory of the population for "storing their property" without providing any alternative.

Edit: who pays majority of taxes for road use? It's car owners. You have cheap buses only because car owners paid majority of the bills for road network maintenance and development.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit_in_the_United_Sta... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2017/

I am providing an alternative: pay for what you use. That's how most things work. Why should cars get special treatment?

Gas taxes don't cover all road expenses. I looked at Virginia's data (since that's where I live) and nearly as much road construction/maintenance money comes from normal sales taxes as comes from gas taxes. Another substantial chunk comes from the Federal government, and the Feds pay out substantially more than they receive from the Federal gas tax.