No one has said other people shouldn't be allowed to drive. People have said, driving needn't be the de facto mode of transportation for every trip, and many people don't need to drive for every, or even most, trips. Many people move to cites so they do not have to drive.
So people should be allowed to drive, but you are taking away their parking spot? And then the high density people do not put parking restrictions on the new permits. You all need to get together.
No one has a right to store their private car on public land for free. The street spot in front of my house is not mine, it's public. If it's that important for someone to have a parking space right by their house, then they should live in a house that has private parking.
Did you read the article? I am guessing not.
It's a letter to the editor. Of course I read it. That's why I shared it. If you want reporting on the issue, there are myriad stories about the ordinance. Here is a well reported story in Streetsblog chi.streetsblog.org/2025/07/18/c...
I was responding to this post. And the derision towards the people this post was about. It is the dishonesty of just telling people, some in their grandmother’s home, to FU and pretending the problem is them.
As someone who walks and travels by bike, often with very young children, I also know first hand what it is like to be physically threatened by drivers. I have very little sympathy for people who put parking above quality of life and safety. Honestly, where someone parks their car is not my problem.
And I have the same concern. As the infill density has increased in my neighborhood, I walk down the middle of the street like the man in the picture. There are no lovely sidewalks. When my husband grew up there he rode his bike everywhere at age 6. He would not let a kid cross the street now.
Yes, cars are a horrible blight on cities. Your husband likely grew up in a time when we had fewer cars. I don't want more people driving in the city. People make neighborhood great. Density makes neighborhoods great, not cars. Cars ruin cities.
I do not disagree. Everyone wants to live in Paris. So stop the infill without auto restrictions.
I understand that is the post. I read it in the paper and shared it. I think writer's opinion is overblown. The map I shared from another thread indicates that the neighborhood has very low car commuter rates and high transit use. Do you live in Edgewater? Do you rely on street parking?
My reference point is a neighborhood of small older lots. It happens to have good transit that I use. I am retired now and could happily fit in your mold of model citizen. But, at one time I worked and my husband worked and we both needed a car. At that point you would have told me to F off.
I have not used any vulgarity with you. Does your neighborhood have single family homes with garages? I understand that you feel like a car was the only way to do your job. We live in the city specifically so we don't have to drive everywhere. Parking our car is less of an issue then.
My main issue is infill increasing density without addressing the parking at the same time you want to take away parking. Be honest with the residents instead of writing them off as Nimbys.
For the thousandth time, no parking is being taken away. I'm as honest as a judge. I think the parking worries are a red herring. The author of this letter embodies the definition of a NIMBY
The whole article is on removing parking mandates which means street parking. You are being dishonest unless, you also advocate for a rider on the building permits for no street parking. Why not? Gradually you could reclaim streets for safe transit. Someone posted an example of a city doing it.