I am 18 years old, cannot afford a vehicle, or rent in PHX. I know that the original TA (before PC's changes) should be common sense since it is based on facts & has indisputable evidence in support. Required parking minimums are expensive, excessive, & based on no factual evidence. Excessive parking worsens the already extreme heat island effect, makes our city less walkable for people who cannot afford vehicles, & it makes it challenging for low income individuals to afford living in PHX.
As a resident of downtown Phoenix, I support this measure to reduce parking minimums. We have a beautiful city that looses a bit of its charm and affordability with each new parking development. Lowering the minimums will improve our transit options, offer more space and affordability for residents, and maintain walkability.
Please support staff's original TA. We have an enormous amount of taxpayer funded street parking that is underutilized in most of Phoenix. Stop requiring property owners to subsidize parking with these outdated parking requirements that do more harm than good. This parking reform TA is in alignment with Phoenix's climate action goals. We should encourage smart & sustainable growth which will benefit our communities economically and lead us to being less car dependent. Phoenix deserves better.
I support this parking reform. I’ve been a downtown Phoenix resident for 5+ years and I recognize the importance of affordable rent, walkability, and more opportunity for constructive development, which will ultimately increase consumer spending. The city is providing more opportunities for multi-modal transit to support reforms like this one. Please vote yes. Thank you.
As a homeowner in Encanto Village and a longtime Valley resident, I support a reduction in parking minimums. The current minimums are excessive and increase property development costs. The current minimums also reduce walk ability of neighborhoods. I hope this is another step toward making alternative transportation easier to implement and use in Phoenix.
This is a phenomenal proposal. I live in Tempe but frequently work in Phoenix, and have had many clients who live in the area but can't afford a place. Many of those people (as well as friends and family who are better off) would love to make the tradeoff of less parking for more space or affordability. This proposal is a no brainer.
I oppose red light cameras becaus does not address the problem of poor and unsafe street design. Proposing red light cameras to make streets safer is like
I support this parking reform. The current excessive parking requirements increase the cost of housing, reduce walkability, and inherently make it more difficult to allow for good transit options since there is more space required for parked cars. Especially as Gen Z is getting their driver's licenses at lower rates than any generation in decades, it's time to start building for a future where fewer individuals will own cars. Please vote yes per the staff recommendation. Thank you.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Please vote in favor of this common-sense reform. The current policy results in unnecessary expenses and excessive parking lots, making our city less walkable.
I'm in support of original TA; I'm opposed to PC recommendations, which on record support market driven development until Aug 2023. Also on record are VPC members who oppose past policy b/c they "don't not want to burden the developer" however Jul 2023 they opposed policy that would alleviate "burdens". These poor decisions are without credibility. Today's decision is for future generations. Parking reform changes are slow to take effect and this TA's positive impacts will take years to occur.
I own a business along lower grand avenue and a home (SF zoned R-5) two blocks up the street. I’m from Arizona and have lived in downtown for 10 years next month.
Parking minimums need to be reduced and has clear use cases in almost every growing major city and as a business owner in a dense area I am extremely proud that what little parking we have is hidden and out of view.
Please consider affordability and density for the sake of walking, ecology and the urban fabric via reduced parking.
Please vote yes on this common sense reform. The existing policy creates arbitrary and excessive expenses to developing housing. The existing policy has made our city hotter and less walkable by creating huge empty parking lots. Let the market decide the number of appropriate parking spots needed. Please vote yes and reform this policy per staff’s recommendation.
Please vote yes on this. This is a great proposal. We do not need so much parking in this city, adding to the heat island effect and remaining unused for the vast majority of the time. There are far better uses for the land
Please vote yes on all of the parking reform ordinance. Arbitrary parking requirements make housing more expensive and are not rooted in evidence or data. Multiple independent studies show that parking mandates add 15% - 17% to the cost of rent. Rent is too high and we need every tool to reduce the burden on Phoenicians. This is especially important for transitional and low-income housing so we can reduce construction costs and use more land for housing, not empty parking spaces.
This is a win for the free market. Parking will always be a part of multi-family development but this will allow developers to decide. It also gives freedom for car free renters to not subsidize others using parking.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Do not take action on Agenda Item #8. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because multiple people living in multifamily and affordable housing have multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Please do not take action on Agenda Item #8. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities
voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against the communities in this area.
Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
I am 18 years old, cannot afford a vehicle, or rent in PHX. I know that the original TA (before PC's changes) should be common sense since it is based on facts & has indisputable evidence in support. Required parking minimums are expensive, excessive, & based on no factual evidence. Excessive parking worsens the already extreme heat island effect, makes our city less walkable for people who cannot afford vehicles, & it makes it challenging for low income individuals to afford living in PHX.
As a resident of downtown Phoenix, I support this measure to reduce parking minimums. We have a beautiful city that looses a bit of its charm and affordability with each new parking development. Lowering the minimums will improve our transit options, offer more space and affordability for residents, and maintain walkability.
Please support staff's original TA. We have an enormous amount of taxpayer funded street parking that is underutilized in most of Phoenix. Stop requiring property owners to subsidize parking with these outdated parking requirements that do more harm than good. This parking reform TA is in alignment with Phoenix's climate action goals. We should encourage smart & sustainable growth which will benefit our communities economically and lead us to being less car dependent. Phoenix deserves better.
I support this parking reform. I’ve been a downtown Phoenix resident for 5+ years and I recognize the importance of affordable rent, walkability, and more opportunity for constructive development, which will ultimately increase consumer spending. The city is providing more opportunities for multi-modal transit to support reforms like this one. Please vote yes. Thank you.
As a homeowner in Encanto Village and a longtime Valley resident, I support a reduction in parking minimums. The current minimums are excessive and increase property development costs. The current minimums also reduce walk ability of neighborhoods. I hope this is another step toward making alternative transportation easier to implement and use in Phoenix.
This is a phenomenal proposal. I live in Tempe but frequently work in Phoenix, and have had many clients who live in the area but can't afford a place. Many of those people (as well as friends and family who are better off) would love to make the tradeoff of less parking for more space or affordability. This proposal is a no brainer.
I oppose red light cameras becaus does not address the problem of poor and unsafe street design. Proposing red light cameras to make streets safer is like
I support this parking reform. The current excessive parking requirements increase the cost of housing, reduce walkability, and inherently make it more difficult to allow for good transit options since there is more space required for parked cars. Especially as Gen Z is getting their driver's licenses at lower rates than any generation in decades, it's time to start building for a future where fewer individuals will own cars. Please vote yes per the staff recommendation. Thank you.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Please vote in favor of this common-sense reform. The current policy results in unnecessary expenses and excessive parking lots, making our city less walkable.
I'm in support of original TA; I'm opposed to PC recommendations, which on record support market driven development until Aug 2023. Also on record are VPC members who oppose past policy b/c they "don't not want to burden the developer" however Jul 2023 they opposed policy that would alleviate "burdens". These poor decisions are without credibility. Today's decision is for future generations. Parking reform changes are slow to take effect and this TA's positive impacts will take years to occur.
I own a business along lower grand avenue and a home (SF zoned R-5) two blocks up the street. I’m from Arizona and have lived in downtown for 10 years next month.
Parking minimums need to be reduced and has clear use cases in almost every growing major city and as a business owner in a dense area I am extremely proud that what little parking we have is hidden and out of view.
Please consider affordability and density for the sake of walking, ecology and the urban fabric via reduced parking.
Please vote yes on this common sense reform. The existing policy creates arbitrary and excessive expenses to developing housing. The existing policy has made our city hotter and less walkable by creating huge empty parking lots. Let the market decide the number of appropriate parking spots needed. Please vote yes and reform this policy per staff’s recommendation.
Please vote yes on this. This is a great proposal. We do not need so much parking in this city, adding to the heat island effect and remaining unused for the vast majority of the time. There are far better uses for the land
Please vote yes on all of the parking reform ordinance. Arbitrary parking requirements make housing more expensive and are not rooted in evidence or data. Multiple independent studies show that parking mandates add 15% - 17% to the cost of rent. Rent is too high and we need every tool to reduce the burden on Phoenicians. This is especially important for transitional and low-income housing so we can reduce construction costs and use more land for housing, not empty parking spaces.
This is a win for the free market. Parking will always be a part of multi-family development but this will allow developers to decide. It also gives freedom for car free renters to not subsidize others using parking.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Do not take action on Agenda Item #8. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because multiple people living in multifamily and affordable housing have multiple cars to accommodate the living style.
Please do not take action on Agenda Item #8. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities
voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against the communities in this area.
Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.