I think myself and the flagged comment (which was pretty reasonable, really) were trying to point out the oddity in thinking it's a problem that you can't use taxpayer land (so funds) for your private car storage. You can buy land where you can put your car, or if there's a shortage an entropreneur can do so and start a lot, but it's not a "problem" that nonresidents are parking there unless you feel a special right to what is a public asset.

If there's a shortage of places for people to sleep we don't demand free houses (well, the US doesn't) but once your car has nowhere to sleep that's somehow the taxpayer's problem?

You know, I totally agree.

I think everyone missed that the whole point was to provide a counter-example to "far-away restaurants with large parking lots" by describing my personal experiences with the exact opposite. Just because someone thought it was a big enough problem to get the city involved doesn't mean that I personally felt the same way, I simply quit giving them my money and called it a day. Well, also got rid of my truck (that I didn't drive for six years) so I had somewhere to park the work car that wasn't on the street because I didn't want to go get a resident parking permit -- problem solved without involving taxpayer funds...