At the Seattle Times there is yet another story that seems to have written itself: parking in Seattle is vanishing! Mike Lindbloom authored a front page story in Sunday’s Times that presents data about the reduction of free on street parking spots in favor or transit, parks, and bikes as if it was a body count, complete with a map showing how many spots have been “lost” around the city. And what effect is this having on life in the city?

The push to improve mobility and livability leaves less room for cars along the curb. The quick drive to the dry cleaner, the five-minute run to the minimart, having a friend pick you up outside your apartment — simple parts of a daily routine all have become harder, sometimes impossible.

Lindbloom’s story makes this great parking loss seem as if it was accidental product of new development and a “conspiracy” at the City to little, by little eliminate parking spots. Lindbloom says this is only “partly true.” In a way, it’s completely true since it’s part of a plan. Here’s the parking statement from Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan:

LUG4 Establish off-street parking requirements for new development to provide parking for the occupants of the structure. Set off-street parking requirements to reduce reliance on automobiles, promote economic development, and reduce housing costs.
LUG5 Regulate the location of off-street parking and the size and location of curbcuts to reduce parking and vehicle traffic impacts on pedestrians and residential and commercial streetscapes, and to prevent obstacles to commerce and traffic flow.
LUG6 Encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles and the use of smaller, more energy efficient automobiles through the City’s regulation of parking, including the amount of parking required, design of parking, location of parking, and access to parking. [Emphasis mine]

There is it is, right there in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of not favoring parking on the right of way or requiring parking in new projects when transit is available is clearly stated City policy based on the best science and practice. Climate change is real but so are the impacts of impervious surfaces on drainage and lakes, streams, and the Puget Sound. And less parking means we can build more housing, and parking is an expense (there is no such things as free parking) usually absorbed by renters in the form of higher housing costs. When neighbors demand more “free parking” as they always do after a story like this, the only people that will pay are renters in the form of higher rents for off street parking spots. That’s why parking requirements have been relaxed and other options are eliminating on street parking.

What annoys many of us is the journalistic approach to these stories that blasts headlines about vanishing on street parking as if it was news. It isn’t. It’s established City policy. What is news is what I wrote about last week: the potential loss of many, many housing units all over the city because of a neighborhood appeal of one project in West Seattle. Somehow that isn’t dramatic enough. Lindbloom’s story even comes with the elderly lady who will be harmed by the loss of parking:

Lois Horn, 91, lost the three-minute load zone in front of her condo when the Roosevelt bike lane went in. She now walks four blocks to a hotel, wearing a clip-on red flasher in a crosswalk, when her family comes to pick her up.

“When I die, and my furniture needs to be moved out, they won’t have a place to park,” Horn said

I feel bad for Lois Horn, based on the limited information in Lindbloom’s story. And I park too, and I hate having to hunt for a spot when I am late or pay extra for off street parking when I can’t find a “free” option. But, as they say, “that’s life in the big city,” especially this city that has decided to favor other modes and affordable housing instead of publicly subsidized car storage for single-family neighbors. Trotting out a 91-year old woman’s suffering as if it was emblematic of the suffering caused by parking policies is, in my opinion, over the top and not accurate.

On Facebook and Twitter, I called Lindbloom’s story “lazy journalism.” Here’s what someone said (a person that has my respect) said in criticism of my assessment of Lindbloom’s story:

Roger, what the hell is ailing you? The story is 99.5% pretty straight reporting of a changing urban landscape, complete with statistics and quotes from a variety of points of view, only one of which is the changed situation of Lois Horn. Mike Lindblom is not a lazy journalist. He’s one of the best. Are you having a bad hair day?

and

I have been with it for 25+ years, and trying to support what you’ve been trying to do – serving on committees, councils, the legislature – arguing for more density, less regulation. Use whatever phrase you like directed at me … your post was a cheap shot. Mike Lindblom doesn’t get to choose either the cover shot or the headline, that’s another department

Well, I disagree. While Lindbloom does quote from people making the points I’ve made above he didn’t need the dramatic headline, the 91 year old woman, and the body count of parking spots to tell a story. He’s professionally responsible for the whole story because his name is on it, and this story cheapens the discourse by it’s maudlin tone about Lois Horn. My having to drive around the block 5 times and end up paying for parking is an inconvenience that is worth it because it is part of a sustainable strategy to sustainably grow our city and create more housing options for people of all levels of income. Instead of outrage, that story might channel the outrage into demands for more housing, more transit, and more alternatives to the car instead of angry e-mails to City Council demanding more parking.