Every time I read about anti-parking or anti-car strategies, I think of a parent w/ two young kids (let’s say), who has to drop the kids off on the way to work, go grocery shopping, go out in bad weather, into an unsafe area, whatever. What happens w/ someone in this situation? Seriously?

This is what I mean by an “academic” argument — it’s this tendency to treat people like interchangeable faceless drivers who respond to “negative stimulus” like lab rats. Try instead to take any kind of real world situation, then ask what it would mean in a particular circumstance. What about climate for starters, or topography, or age, health, income (=rich can park, poor can’t), any other exigencies.

Or try looking at stores w/ limited parking, like the Sears in Oakland. There’s loads of transit nearby, lots of foot traffic on weekdays, still the place is practically empty. Why?

Just address these genuine concerns — please — any of them. Start by explaining whether drivers obediently take transit when parking is limited, or just drive themselves off to a different locale. (See, eg, businesses failing in downtown Berkeley.) Then explain whether someone faced with paying, say, $10 for the ferry + $5 for parking will obediently fork it over or maybe decide to commute by some other means. (See, eg, Transbay bus fare of $7, lots of parking near stops on side streets.)

And you know, come to think of it, the biggest hole in this reasoning, really, is the inability to distinguish what can be controlled and what can’t.