Let me double-down on a bolder argument. Removing minimums doesn't inconvenience vehicle users. It doesn't remove any parking spots that already exist. It doesn't bring in more vehicles than previously existed. If a new business expects to rely on driving customers, it will still build parking. If a new housing development expects to attract driving residents, it will still build parking for them.

There are plenty of people who don't drive and currently have to pay a slight premium for a parking space they don't use. The market currently cannot efficiently serve those people. I am one of those people. Removing parking minimums helps people like me, and honestly doesn't effect people like you. Just because such a change wouldn't do anything in particular to help vehicle owners doesn't mean it's going to hurt them either.

The worry that motivates parking minimums is, if your street has 1 parking spot per home, and my street has 0.5 parking spots per home, that car owners will buy homes on my street anyway, and they'll park on your street when there's no space on mine.

This is called 'displaced parking' and it's a pretty well known problem among parking planners. You'll get the same thing if, for example, the college campus starts charging $5 to park when students can park for free on nearby streets and walk.

You can get around this with parking permits and towing everywhere in walking distance - but you can't be timid and imagine the new street won't interact with other parking locally.

If a developer doesn't include parking spots in a building, can't you just not go there? It's their choice to not prioritize customers using cars.