Chat thread with a climate skeptic about charges

> * Start with $0.25 per day employee parking charges and $1.00 per day
> employee cashout. A cashout is where the employer pays employees not to
> park at the office.

This old dishonest "boil the frog gradually" approach is all the more
reason for us to agitate to kill the plan before it starts, and watch
and oppose the people who proposed it in everything they do.

> * Employees are assured that all parking charge revenue goes to fund
> cashout.
> * Charges and cashout increase gradually over time (to $2.00 and
> $4.00 per day) as other companies adopt the same program, ensuring that
> no Human Resources (HR) recruiting/retention disadvantage is created.

Compared to those particular other companies. But you're still robbing
the employees of large amounts of time without paying what it's worth.

> * Implement monthly employee reporting via a trust-based,
> self-reporting HR web applet (one Bay Area company uses this approach).
> Incorporate other employer commute benefits into this monthly reporting
> (Commuter Check - pre-tax transit passes, private WiFi express bus
> service, etc) to ensure that "double benefits" are not provided
> to employees. Self-reporting makes implementation very low-cost for
> employers. The company reports that 20% of employees are
> under-collecting the cashout, validating that company's trust in its
> employees.

Not only is it stupid to trust them, but now you've got the company
spending more to administer the program than it could possibly save
through alternative uses of the land previously used for parking.

> * Position "cashout + parking charges" as part of a
> comprehensive employer commute reduction program. Educate employees
> about the unique behavior-changing/demand-reducing properties of parking
> charges (23% commute mode shift is expected). Besides reducing CO2,
> this scheme will: a) ease severe parking shortages at some office
> campuses, b) create real-estate in-fill opportunities (by permanently
> reducing cars parked at offices, this scheme enables smart new in-fill
> on land that was considered to be "built out"), and c) motivate cities
> to reduce parking maximums for new office development.

If my company made me listen to that sort of propaganda, I would
look for another job.

> * Parking spaces take up valuable land. Employers have to pay for
> parking space land used by drivers. Employers save money when workers
> commute via green alternatives (transit, car/van pool, bike, walk, and
> telecommute) that do not require land for cars. Hence, Bay Area
> employers provide a hidden $7.59 daily subsidy to SOV commuters. This
> cashout + charges scheme reduces land consumption, increasing the
> economic efficiency of employers. Further, the current policy of
> subsidizing SOV commuting harms the environment.

Regarding that as a subsidy is a stupid attitude. Just as we now
accept that the handicapped are entitled to be able to get around
without needless barriers being placed in their way, the vast
majority of us need, and are entitled, to be able to drive everywhere.
The personal car IS the right to be mobile. To oppose its use is to
oppose our freedom. If you want to deter me from driving, you have
chosen to be my enemy. No matter what methods you would employ to
achieve that end.

> * Cities are hard-pressed to meet climate protection and traffic
> reduction objectives.

If they want to meet traffic reduction objectives, let them build more freeways.

As for protecting the climate, it has not been established that a
problem exists or that behaviors such as driving can make a difference.
But it IS already well established, by places like Mexico City and
Beijing, that having mobility is much more important to almost everyone
than clean air. I see no need for anyone to want to change, or buck,
that set of priorities.

> Because the cashout + charges scheme is so very
> effective compared to other policies, cities should reward employers
> that provide leadership on this scheme. "Charging for parking is the
> single most effective strategy to encourage people to use alternatives
> to the SOV" - Jeff Tumlin, Nelson Nygaard Associates.

It is not desirable to encourage people to use alternaives to the SOV.
Instead, how about an incentive plan to encourage all Greens and other
nanny-statists to MIND THEIR OWN F***ING BUSINESS?

> * Many companies and cities can cooperate to spread cashout + charges
> nationwide, reducing 51.7M tons CO2 per year. No credible plan exists
> to achieve Kyoto 2020 or California AB32 2020 CO2 reduction targets
> without large demand reduction such as cashout + charges.

It has not been established that achieving those targets, or trying to,
is even a good idea. Kyoto in particular was written to make the US
economy unable to compete with newer rivals such as China and India,
whom the treaty does not restrict at all.

> In the past, when parking charges have been implemented, carpooling has
> increased much more than transit. This isn't a survey trying to drum
> up support for specific new transit projects.

Straw man argument.

> Agreed that workers aren't stupid. This proposal evolved over 24
> months, based on input from employers and experts, so that it would be
> more palatable to workers. It uses a "Trojan Horse" strategy where it is
> hard to object to initial, low parking charges,

A form of dishonesty that needs the light of media coverage shined on
it as early as possible, to protect potential victims.

> and, over time, it also
> makes charges the norm, rather than the exception.

Which is reprehensible. The SOV *is* freedom and must remain the norm.

> From the survey
> responses so far (mostly from other list servs), we expected more
> vitriol about charges, but the survey's explanation of the pros and
> cons seems to have dampened the reflex. It's interesting to see
> responses such as "there will be some initial moaning and
> complaining, but employees will adjust."

The real purpose of the green movement is elitism -- taking things we
now consider it normal for everyone to have, such as living in a house
and driving a car, and putting them beyond the reach of all but the
super-rich. It's important for everyone to realize this and fight it.
The leaders of the movement are NOT out to "save the earth"; they know
as well as the rest of us that the earth has never been in any danger.
They just think they're better than you and I, and want sumptuary laws.
They're the old race-segregationist movement back with a new cover story.
Let's not let them sell it.