this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)

Uplifting News

19016 readers
204 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
wolfeh@lemmy.world
Flummoxed@lemmy.today
sga@lemmings.world
sga013@lemmy.world
plantmoretrees@lemm.ee
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
Aatube@lemmy.world
NickwithaC@lemmy.world
sga@piefed.social
39
Washington State’s Parking Reform Is Already Making Housing More Affordable (www.sightline.org)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Wudi@feddit.uk to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Average rent in WA is currently ~$2000.

So for you to not be rent burdened (30% of your income or more goes to rent), your household income needs to be ~$80,000, afer taxes, so more like ~$100,000 before taxes.

Median household income in WA is about ~$100,000.

So basically half the people in the state are rent burdened.

So no, no, this is not already making housing more affordable.

Maybe its laying the groundwork to eventually do that, maybe, if we also did a whole bunch of other stuff as well.

I'm not saying the revising parkings minimums is bad.

I'm saying a whole lot more needs to be done, for that headline to approach being accurate.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

LOL, I heard on NPR that housing affordability strategies now include multi generational housing... No, that doesn't mean that you live with your parents and gramps. It means you, Gramps and parents all work to pay rent.

IE. Not affordable housing.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Just like every other potentially meaningful and transformative concept... capitalism fairly quickly turns everything into a marketing slogan and brand.

Affordable Housing TM, brought to you by ... I dunno, Greystar, Lennar, whatever.

[–] TheGoldenV@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s similar to the tax breaks given to builders for making affordable units. Most of the units are rentals.

Plus why in the hell give any tax breaks to builders for building HERE of all places. They’re making money no matter what.

There’s space in town (aside from the area where the massive new warehouses are going in) to build. I'm all in favor of having a hard look at how much parking should be required. Not so much in favor of just letting each developer decide if they’d like to have parking or not.

Agreed on the BS headline.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Local jurisdictions in the state are actually at the point of turning away from industries and just want to build housing because it's the only thing that's reliable. Especially small rural towns. They can't do transit though so rural roads are getting jammed with more and more traffic.

And a lot of the business parks and warehouses that came up the last 5 years were contracts from years ago, often pre-covid, being fulfilled.

We've been sleepwalking a decade.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

"More affordable" by cutting out amenities like how McDonalds makes their burgers "more affordable" by using meat paste to make the patties. These people will still own cars and need to park them somewhere and I'm sure these wealthy developers are also building private parking garages on the side so that they can charge these residents a monthly subscription for something that used to be included in their purchase.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

the "amenities" eliminated are parking minimums, and you're assuming that the parking minimums aren't causing oversupply of unused parking lots. check out the very third photo in the article (the overhead view of a parking lot), its first example of a housing development benefiting from the change. notice how less than half of the spots and thus less than a quarter of the land was being used

plus, for housing, the parking minimum's only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft^2^. family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home

These people will still own cars

not necessarily

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots.

That's like "saving time" by not installing electricity or smoke alarms. What a boondoggle; especially in car-dependent America!

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

fastest way to not be car-dependent america is to remove the cars from places that dont need them. I've lived without owning a car for over a decade in the US. surprise! building parking lots in cities doesnt make sense!

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That seems entirely dependent on where you live. Some cities make it real easy to live without a car, but most don't and every city in WA outside of Seattle (2.5hrs from the city in this article) is just the same.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That seems entirely dependent on where you live.

reading comprehension is lacking.

fastest way to not be car-dependent america is to remove the cars from places that dont need them.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So it sounds like we're in agreement that they are needed in Vancouver, WA.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

reading comprehension is lacking.

you really struggle with this. dont put words in other peoples mouths.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you figure? You specifically bolded "in places that don't need them" in a reply to my "some cities make it easy to go without a car but most don't" which sounds like you're in agreement that some cities can do without cars. Vancouver, WA is not one of those cities.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You made an unsubstantiated claim about most cities and proceeded to then put words in my mouth asserting i agreed with you. which I never in way stated. 'where it makes sense' doesnt mean I agreed with your position on Vancouver. Which in fact I dont since its barely larger than my current city geographically. and crossing the city takes < 50 minutes on a bike and thats literally one corner to the other, a trip I almost never make. Its 5 minutes longer than taking the public train to the same location. and 20 minutes more than a car (assuming good traffic which is never assured).

About the only thing parking mandates do is increase urban sprawl and make the situation worse.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

do you see how replying to "every city in WA except of Seattle doesn't make it real easy to live without a car, and the city in the article is very much outside of Seattle" with "you can't read, i was just talking about places that don't need them" makes one think you're saying that "the city in the article is not one of the places that don't need them"?

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

yes. those are called assumptions. do you see how making assumptions and assertions about others peoples positions that they did not explicitly claim means your reading comprehension needs improvements? now kindly move on.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you didn't explicitly say anything we could go on either before yesterday's reply

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

Funny that. maybe it was intentional on my part.....

[–] Aatube@piefed.social -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

can't you just explain I've got no idea what you're saying either

flippancy is just the progressive version of virtue signaling—it gets nobody else on your side

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

sure, you dont need a car in the vast majority of cities. bikes work fine. fin.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

The people who need cars won't buy these. Not everyone needs every feature. That's like complaining about lack of an on site gym. If that's important to you, find a place that has it.

I can name five people who don't have a car and are happy. Can you name five people who don't have electricity and are happy? Or will you admit that your point is a bit exaggerated?

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Just because your lifestyle requires a car doesn't mean everyone's does. I would love less parking lots, less roads with cars on them, less car infrastructure in general. You can have your infrastructure in your suburbs, let us have ours in our cities.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's few cars in that lot because up until very recently there wasn't anything in the area worth visiting but a few hotels and restaurants under the interstate bridge. They are definitely making an effort to revamp it into something nice rivaling Portland's waterfront but once residential buildings go up, there won't be anywhere to park. The place is surrounded by river, train tracks, and an overhead freeway.

plus, for housing, the parking minimum's only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft2. family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home

That seems pretty backwards to me. 'Family housing' is going to be purchased by people with the most disposable income who can afford to pay for parking. The affordable housing folks are definitely going to be commuting a ways to work and will need somewhere to park. This area of Vancouver is pretty isolated and the city has almost no public transit apart from busses. The article does mention that a parking garage will be built at some point but I bet all those spots will be gobbled up by the 'non-affordable housing' people since its going to be shared amongst several tenant buildings.

This reminds me of NY where the governor just put a cap on car insurance claims to make car insurance "more affordable." Its just more fake Progressivism enacted by Neoliberals. The real winners here are real estate developers and car insurance companies not the poor.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Giving people a place to live is more important than giving them a place to park, especially in a area with a bus system named North American Transit System of the Year.

once residential buildings go up, there won’t be anywhere to park

The pictured development includes a parking lot.

The development is also surrounded by parking lots.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The parking garage will be built later as mentioned in the article, and there aren't any open parking lots in the area. The South and West sides are blocked by railroad tracks and the Columbia river, the East side is blocked by the freeway, and the North side is the very tip of a residential neighborhood.

I agree housing is more important than transportation, but you still need transportation in order to work and pay for this place. This isn't going be a free shelter.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You have a point with most of these (I'll concede on the ones I don't mention) but East is not a freeway but a street with zebra crossings and a roundabout. North is not a residential neighborhood; Aria Apartments is the only residential I can see and the lot North of that is free.

And still, if you have enough money to get a car, you should have enough money for a jacket, a bike, and/or train tickets.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes and no on your first point. The longer a car spends looking for parking, the more pollution it is dumpping into the residential area. And the stress of trying to find parking isn't great for people's health either. There is a balance to be had. But I don’t think they did the numbers to figure this one out. Theynof course could just get lucky and hit the balance. Who knows.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you settle down for something as big as housing and will bring a car, you've hashed out where to park already. The true solution to environmental issues is a bike.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You would think, but the number of people I have heard complain about the parking situation where they live and how they had no idea it was so bad... People just don't usually think of such details. Same with storage space in a house. It looks bigger without the storage space, so there is less and less storage space in houses. Most people are not detail oriented.

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

When I was looking at condos, I purposely steered away from buildings with a lot of amenities because we just pay for them in higher HOA dues.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It really depends on where these get implemented. If you want to live in a city, you don't really need a car as much. Washington apparently built the world's first floating train and appears to be leading the US in transportation infrastructure with trains and bikes. If anyone can pull it off in the US, it's probably them.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's true of Seattle but not Vancouver which is essentially just a suburb of Portland. They dont have jack shit for public transportation other than some busses, and the city is huge. This area is also formerly an industrial area along the Columbia River (just west of the I-5 bridge) thats pretty cutoff from the rest of the city.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because they consistently vote against it. Portland would love to expand the max there and has tried in the past

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

It'a supposed to be included with the Interstate bridge replacement but the sun will probably have run out of fuel before both sides finally agree to build it.