• Jesus_666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    While I do agree that cars take up far too much space, charging a guest for parking is a bit of a dick move under most circumstances.

    Edit: How much of one depends on circumstance. A dense city with a public transit system is a much different beast than a more inaccessible area. The hotel next to the conference center two tram stops from a park-and-ride has a pretty damn good case for charging for parking.

    • Decq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      19 days ago

      It still takes up space, that you either have to rent/buy extra as hotel or can’t use for more sensible stuff. If anything, if parking is free, everybody is paying the fee even if you don’t use parking.

      • snowdriftissue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yes. It’s truly infurating how non car owners are forced to subsidize the ever loving shit out pretty much every aspect of car ownership, and then ignorant car brains have the nerve to complain about a small parking fee or gas prices, all while their mode of transportation is pretty much uniquely responsible for unimaginable death, injury, and ecological destruction.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      Yeah, charging for hotel parking in NYC, DC, or a dense part of Seattle is an entirely different beast from charging for it in Montana or the outskirts of a national park. The question comes down to if it’s reasonable for you to have gotten there without a car and if it’s reasonable for you to get around where you’re going without one. For places where not having a car with you is unreasonable a parking fee feels like a hidden fee for everyone, where for somewhere you probably flew into and can take public transit around it’s charging for an extra amenity.

    • kevinsky@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      While I do agree that cars take up far too much space, charging a guest for parking is a bit of a dick move under most circumstances.

      They always charge for parking, the difference is in whether they just charge the people that actually show up in a two ton tin can, or just charge everybody regardless of how they got there, in which case it’s just worked into the price of the room.

      Whether visible on the bill or not, there’s no scenario where the price of the land your hotel sits on doesn’t factor into the price of your stay.

      Which to me also leaves zero moral space for retaliatory b.s. like keeping the water running or destorying furniture.

    • Kanda@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      Charging for limited stuff makes sense, otherwise the hotel would need as many parking spots as it has beds

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      While I do agree that cars take up far too much space, charging a guest for parking is a bit of a dick move under most circumstances.

      It’s really not. Most of the time this is because the local jurisdiction taxes parking in some way, and as is always the case in the US, the local business isn’t going to absorb those fees.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      19 days ago

      Sadly people seem to struggle with thinking in terms that aren’t black and white. A position like yours seems to blow their mind.