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

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”?

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

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 ft². family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home

These people will still own cars

not necessarily