That and the HOA / NIMBY crowd.

They hate affordable housing.

That means they make less money.

That means their property values go down if housing is just generally cheaper.

Thus, anything, literally anything that lowers construction costs is opposed by them.

...

They climbed the ladder over the wall, then they built the wall higher, and took away the ladder.

They will fight for every single possible, arbitrary costly thing that can be tacked on to make a 'bare minimum viable housing unit' as expensive as possible, because they are directly financially incentivized to do so, vis a vis their own wealth being reliant on property values never ever going down, in real or nominal or relative terms.

No public transit, no bike lanes, no rent a bike/scooters, no tax breaks nor subsidy programs for renters at anywhere near the scope and magnitude offered to homeowners, no solutions for food deserts, no tenants rights, no goddamned nothing that in a direct or indirect way might make their next home value on appraisal go up by too little, or their property taxes go up by too much.

They are demons, they want you to be broke and suffer so they can be rich and lazy, and they will lie to your face about this being their motivatiom, and they will hire others to do so.

Landowners vs non-landowners, tale as old as time, just looks a bit different in our particular setting.

Maybe, but one would think companies that build houses have a lobby too.

Because parking spaces in a garage can cost nearly as much to construct as the apartment itself. If we want plentiful, affordable housing we've got to loosen the grip on parking regs a bit

A bike room in place of a ramp is a good idea though

If there is plenty of free on-street parking, then the free-market was working properly.

Of course, I agree with you. I owned a car for some years (don't anymore) and didn't have a parking spot on the grounds of my apartment building at the time, I always needed to find a parking space on a public street (usually didn't take long, I usually managed to park next to the block I live in).

Read the article. This is about housing near transit. What use case would there be for a park-and-ride at their home? Are they supposed to be driving from their door to the far side of the parking lot?

It's also a bureaucratic change rather than functional. It used to be a permit you'd have to apply for, which added costs. Now it's just not required to build parking within a 5 minute walk of transit

@makyo @kresten The "data" used to create most residential parking mandates was collected in car-dependent suburban areas and is completely inappropriate for application to dense urban apartment buildings near transit where many residents don't own cars. Eliminating the costly mandate to construct parking that often goes unused on valuable land only restores choice. A developer isn't prohibited from building as much parking as their market research tells them they can profitably sell or lease.

In the best case it's gonna reduce the amount of cars.