Private vs Public Use of Space & Why It Matters

Let me get this out of the way: too much parking is bad.

Now that we’re on the same page about parking, on to why free on-street parking isn’t privatization, what it is, and why it matters.

In my Marxist-leaning view, something is privatized when the right to accumulate capital and control egress is granted to one individual or legal entity, backed by property rights and the threat of state-backed violence (eg civil claims, security devices, evictions). A paid parking garage under this definition is privatized — an owner collects rents from drivers. The garage itself is capital, as are the profits the owner accumulates. He can restrict entry to only people who drive cars, and can rely on the state to protect his capital from interference. While drivers certainly benefit from this arrangement, the drivers themselves are not privatizing the garage. They are using a private space to store their personal belongings for a fee.

Following this logic, drivers cannot privatize the curb, either; they use public space to store their personal belongings for free or a metered rate. Drivers do not accumulate capital for parking and do not control rights of egress on the pavement any more than they do inside a garage. Their property rights begin and end with their car. The streets remains under public ownership and the government can remove cars at will (to say noting of the frequency at which this happens).

Whether or not you agree with these definitions of private versus personal vis-à-vis public, the outsized and oppressive role cars play in out built environment remains. Is it a distinction without a difference?

If we define “privatization” as “any use of space by a person or people that excludes others,” then there is no such thing as public space. Bus lane? Private to bus riders. Bike corral? Private to bikers. Bench? Private to the ass sitting in it. If there is no public realm, then all uses of public street space are reduced to conflicts between private parties.

But here’s the thing: Public interests are clean air, geometrically-sensible transportation options, safe streets, freedom from surveillance, free movement, and access to civic life. Private interests are revenue generation and property rights — both of which deliberately exclude segments of the population that don’t serve these needs, especially those who historically don’t have full access to the public sphere, in a way that “cars being large/expensive” simply does not. (Further reading)

While various public street uses above can’t all exist in the same space, and thus there will always be disagreement and conflict about which use is best, defining drivers as some sort of non-public entity because they made the decision (rightly or wrongly, not the point!) to drive is a losing strategy. If on-street parking isn’t public, nothing is. The public needs to assert its interests and right over public space as the public. In some cases, this means space for cars. In others, it’s bike lanes. Or bus lanes. Or parklets. Or trash collection. Or loading zones. Or taxi stands. And so on.