Viewpoint: Carlino’s parking rhetoric tired and shortsighted

Bill Van Horn

Having read Daniel Carlino’s latest letter to the editor, I would advise him not to quit his day job: poetry is not his forte.

Having said that, I do wonder just where his priorities lie. As an advocate for tenements (I mean densified workforce housing), he should understand apartment complexes in Missoula need parking.

Reducing the number of required spots only means the complexes can charge more for “rented spaces,” which is often the only way you can actually be sure of parking your vehicle in your complex (and since rent in these places is often 40% or more of your income, paying for parking is just another tax on people who really can’t afford it).

Missoula does need more housing, but I question if it needs the kind of housing the City Council in general and certain members in particular appear to champion.

Packing Missoula’s workers and the remnants of its middle class into cookie cutter apartment complexes charging ever-increasing rent and located in areas where using public transit increases their commute by at least an hour a day (one way) is not a way forward.

Unless of course the goal is to create an endlessly-changing workforce base and enrich a select group of often out-of-state plutocrats. Then it makes total sense.