Publicola has another perspective on Sunday’s Seattle Times story about parking. My criticism got me in hot water with a Facebook “friend” who subsequently defriended me over my comments about Mike Lindbloom’s use of an elderly lady to hype Seattle’s parking situation. It’s an indication of how emotional the topic is, and Publicola points out that what’s needed is a better grasp of the numbers, not more emotion. Here’s Publicola’s take, headlined, “Extended Hours and Low Rates: Parking Data in Context.”

The Seattle Times ran a front-page story yesterday cataloguing the loss of on-street parking spaces in the city, though the article doesn’t give a time period for comparison, doesn’t say how many of the spots are paid or unpaid, nor does it provide a price comparison to off-street parking. Most problematic: The article conflates the ability to get parking in the public right of way with the right to get extended parking in the public right of way.

So along with my criticism of Lindbloom’s strange use of one elderly lady in his story to show how much suffering Seattle’s parking policies are creating, the story also doesn’t put the data in context. Lindbloom’s story doesn’t help the reader understand the full picture of how parking in the city is changing, just that some curbside parking is “vanishing.” My concern is the people who are already angry about growth, change, and the need for more new housing, will use the story to demand more parking requirements for new multifamily housing.

Another part of the context is the need for legislation to respond to a serious problem with new housing construction caused by an appeal that could require parking be built in frequent transit areas. Until now projects in those areas could be exempted from parking, but an appeal has tilted that exemption into uncertain territory. The decision may end up requiring more parking meaning some housing projects just won’t work. Getting that legislation isn’t helped by the Times’ image of an elderly lady talking about her own death because of the loss of one parking spot in front her home.

All this probably wasn’t apparent to my “friend” since she doesn’t live in Seattle, doesn’t build housing, and seemed oddly concerned about the journalist’s reputation rather than the issue in the story. But to anyone who does build housing parking is an expensive add to a project. Off street parking is a convenience that often renters or owners of new housing are willing to pay for. But having flexibility around how much parking to put into a project translates into housing that is less expensive.

The real news about parking in Seattle is that the policy of reducing parking requirements is working and fewer curbside parking spots is part of a broader trend toward transit and other modes of transportation over the car. And fewer requirements in housing development mean lower housing prices. That’s great news, not an occasion to stir up people’s inevitable frustration at not always being able to park right in front of their destination. We’ll keep making that point to the City and to journalists even if it costs us a few “friends.”