At a forum last month, four candidates for DC mayor argued against a proposal by the Office of Planning to relax minimum parking requirements in transit-rich areas of the city. Andy Shallal and Tommy Wells didn’t address it directly, though Shallal argued for more parking capacity while Wells argued for reducing parking demand.
The Office of Planning (OP) is proposing changes to the zoning code that would let property owners choose the right amount of parking in the highest density downtown neighborhoods, including developing areas like NoMa and Capitol Riverfront. Elsewhere, the zoning code would require one space per three units in apartment and condominium buildings away from transit corridors and half that near transit.
This proposal is the result of multiple compromises by planning director Harriet Tregoning to satisfy opponents’ concerns. If the response of mayoral candidates is any indication, Tregoning’s compromises have resulted in only more demands for compromises, an outcome that many predicted.
At the forum, moderator Davis Kennedy, editor of the Northwest Current, asked the following question:
Some have criticized our city planners for reducing the amount of required parking in new apartment buildings in some neighborhoods and for allowing apartments in single family homes. The fear is that it will substantially reduce on street parking availability. Others feel if we did not reduce the new apartment parking requirements, as underground parking is so expensive, it would contribute to much higher rents. What do you think?
Kennedy asked a good question that fairly represented both sides of the issue. Here are the answers of each candidate, with the portions that directly answer the question in bold:
Bowser directly opposes OP’s proposal, then argues that expanding alternative transportation is the better solution:
I think that the Office of Planning got this one wrong, and that’s why I introduced emergency legislation that in some cases would limit the expansion of visitor parking. Walking in Georgetown neighborhoods, walking all around ward 2, people tell me that DDOT got it wrong and we stopped it working with your councilmember who joined me in that effort.
This is what I know: our city’s roaring. We’ll have 200,000 new people here by the year 2040 and not everyone will be able to drive. I approach our transportation system in a balanced way. We have to have excellent public transportation. We have to have excellent bikeshare or bike parking, bike lanes. And we have to have roads that work and the ability to park.
It’s very important that we approach our entire transportation system with a balance. We asked the Office of Planning not to eliminate parking minimums, because that was their first plan, but to look at a way to manage it in a better way.
This has become the standard way for elected officials opposing OP’s proposal to frame the issue, and Evans and Orange follow suit. But fewer parking requirements and more multimodal streets solve different problems. Reducing parking requirements prevents regulatory-driven overbuilding of parking, which induces greater demand for parking and streets and makes housing less affordable. Bike lanes won’t do that.
What’s also concerning is that she sees alternative transportation as needed because “not everyone will be able to drive.” Everyone I know who uses bike lanes, buses and so on also is able to drive and does whenever they want to.
Evans goes the furthest in opposing OP’s proposal, saying he would keep the 1958 minimum parking requirements currently in place:
The Office of Planning definitely got this wrong. I agree with keeping the parking requirements just as they are, and I’m joining with Councilmember Bowser and Councilmember Cheh to address that with the Office of Planning. Taking away more parking spaces in this city is a terrible idea.
What we have to do is focus on alternative means of transportation, something I’ve done in my 22 years on the Council. I served on the Metro Board and was the advocate for not only completing the 103-mile system that currently exists but for expanding Metro and someday we hope to have a Metro in Georgetown.
Secondly, bike lanes — we have more bike lanes in Ward 2 than in all the other wards combined and we will continue to promote bike as another alternative transportation. Light rail — again something this Council has supported, building the light rail system that will connect Georgetown to downtown and to the eastern parts of this city. So the alternative means are very important but keeping the parking as it is is also very critical.
He repeats Bowser’s framing by saying that “what we have to do is focus on alternative means of transportation,” taking credit for bike lanes in Ward 2 that everyone knows would have happened without him.
Reta Jo Lewis:
Lewis addresses the issue the least directly, offering general arguments for more parking. She says it would be “unacceptable” to “eliminate any parking inside of buildings,” but minimum parking requirements apply to new buildings.
I served as the chief of staff in the Department of Public Works when it used to be called DPW. I want you to know that parking is one of the most important things any agency does when it deals with transportation.
Now I live right downtown, right on 5th and Mass. And I’ve watched everything get built. And what I’ve watched is not any more parking spaces coming on. And it would be unacceptable to allow our offices of administration to eliminate any parking inside of buildings.
What we have to do is continue to offer a comprehensive strategy, a comprehensive plan, of how residents, not just downtown, but in all of our neighborhoods, especially like Georgetown. In your 2028 Plan you specifically talked about parking. It is fair for us in communities to have parking spaces.
Orange, like Evans, specifically supports the existing minimum residential parking requirement of one space per unit. His unique bit of unhelpful framing is to pit new residents against long-time residents:
I also think that the Office of Planning got this one wrong. There needs to be a proper balance. If you’re gonna keep building units, then there at least should be a parking spot per unit. Clearly there needs to be a balance here in the District of Columbia. We’re getting more and more residents.
But also that balance has to include those residents that have been here during the bad times, to still be able to be here in the good times, and allowed to travel throughout this city and be able to find parking. So there has to be a balance.
I applaud those that really are really studying this issue, to make sure there are bike lanes, there’s light rail, there’s transportation needs being addressed by Metro and others. But there has to be a balance. And I believe that balance can only be maintained by when you build units there should be parking associated with those units.
It’s at this point that one notices none of the candidates have responded to Kennedy’s argument for reducing minimum parking requirements, that it promotes affordable housing that enables long-time residents to stay in DC. Bowser and others have complained about the high rents on 14th Street for example, but part of those rents are needed to pay for minimum parking requirements.
Shallal doesn’t address minimum parking requirements, but offers complaints about insufficient parking:
I agree there’s a problem, obviously, with parking. Owning a business in the District, it’s very difficult as it is. And when my customers tell me they’re having a hard time parking, it really makes it even that much more difficult to attract business and keep business.
It’s very interesting: often times I will get a lease for a space to be able to open a restaurant, and then all the neighbors get upset because there’s no parking there. I have nothing to do with the way that it was zoned and suddenly I am the one that’s at fault and needs to find parking for all the people that have to come in.
The other I think we can’t really address parking unless we address public transportation. I think that’s one of the major issues is the fact that a lot of people want to see the Metro open later, especially on the weekends. They want to see it later. Maybe we can go for 24 hours. A lot of my patrons and my customers, my employees, would like to be able to see that.
The other thing is that increasing the hours of the parking meters is not working for many of my customers and I think we need to bring it back to 6:30.
This is concerning given that Shallal has made affordable housing a central tenet of his campaign. His platform doesn’t include any positions on transportation.
His only position on parking that he offers in his response is that parking meters shouldn’t be enforced after 6:30pm. However, this a peak period of demand for scarce on-street parking, and pricing on-street parking according to demand would be a better solution.
While Wells is the only candidate to not offer arguments against OP’s proposal, he also doesn’t argue in support of reducing parking requirements. Instead, he uses the opportunity to argue for his bill to give OP the power to not allow residents of new buildings to receive residential parking permits:
I think that on something like parking, like everything else, we have to work smart. First thing is that if a building does put the parking space in there and everyone gets a residential parking sticker, we’re going to wipe out all the neighborhood parking in Georgetown if they have the neighborhood right to park in the neighborhood. We have to be a lot smarter than that.
You know you’ve adopted a plan in Georgetown that does say that there be a new Metro station here. We’ll bring in a streetcar system which I’ve been a champion of. As the city grows if our businesses are going to survive, and our local businesses, people have to come into Georgetown and out and they all shouldn’t come in a car.
One of the bills that I’ve proposed (which I proposed last time, and this Council killed, and I’ve re-proposed) is when we have infill development and we put a building in there and they want anything from the government they negotiate that the residents at the building will not get residential parking. We can’t build any more residential parking. And so, on the streets, we cannot add more spaces. So its more important to be smart.
While Wells’ bill is good, it’s disappointing that none of the candidates offered any arguments in support of scaling back parking requirements. Georgetown is a difficult audience with which to discuss minimum parking requirements, but if we are serious about affordable housing and not allowing our city to turn into a car sewer we have to address parking requirements directly instead of changing the subject.