Charging owners makes sense, but how would the city even track that? Would it be based on how long a car sits parked, or maybe mileage driven per year? Seems tricky to enforce fairly without turning into a bureaucratic nightmare. Plus, what about folks who genuinely can't afford private storage—are we unintentionally pricing them out of owning classics? Not sure there's an easy fix here...
"Plus, what about folks who genuinely can't afford private storage—are we unintentionally pricing them out of owning classics?"
I get where you're coming from, but honestly, street parking for classics isn't always the best idea anyway. A few years back, I had this old '72 VW camper van—loved that thing to death—but I didn't have a garage or driveway at the time. Parked it on the street outside my apartment, and let me tell you, it was a constant headache. Between worrying about vandalism, accidental scrapes from passing cars, and even just weather damage, it felt like I was always fixing something. Eventually, I ended up renting a cheap spot in a friend's backyard just to keep my sanity (and wallet) intact.
Maybe instead of complicated mileage tracking or timed parking fees—which I agree would be a bureaucratic mess—the city could look into subsidizing or incentivizing affordable storage solutions specifically for classic car owners? Like repurposing unused lots or warehouses into secure parking areas at reasonable rates. It wouldn't have to be fancy; just safe and accessible enough to keep these cars off crowded streets.
I know budgets are tight everywhere, but if the city genuinely wants fewer classics clogging up street parking, maybe offering practical alternatives is better than penalizing folks who might already be struggling financially. Just my two cents...
Fair points about city incentives, but realistically, subsidizing storage might open a whole new can of worms liability-wise. Who's responsible if something happens to the cars? Not sure the city wants that headache...just something to consider.
Good point about liability, hadn't even thought of that angle. Honestly, as someone who counts every penny, my main concern is whether these subsidies would actually help regular folks or just benefit a small group of collectors. I love classic cars as much as the next person—my dad had an old Mustang he babied for years—but I'm not sure taxpayers should foot the bill for storage. And yeah, liability could be a nightmare... imagine the city dealing with claims over scratches or theft. Sounds like a recipe for headaches and even higher taxes down the line. Anyway, appreciate you bringing this up—definitely something worth chewing on before we jump into new policies.
"Honestly, as someone who counts every penny, my main concern is whether these subsidies would actually help regular folks or just benefit a small group of collectors."
That's exactly what I'm wondering too. Last summer, I took a cross-country road trip and stopped in a town that had something similar—city-funded storage for vintage cars. It seemed nice at first glance, but chatting with locals revealed it mostly benefited wealthier collectors rather than everyday enthusiasts. I'm open to the idea, but I'd need convincing that regular taxpayers wouldn't end up footing the bill for someone else's hobby...
