> the city announced that the land is now paid parking to the city

what a strange way to put it... why didn't they just say that they are not using any more taxpayer money to finance your parking space? Land in a city is not "for free".

> It's very easy to call another group entitled if you're not one of them

yeah, well: my point, exactly!

▲

dwedge a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'll be totally honest in that I don't know what the arrangement was before, but that free parking was previously enforced by permits so it's a reasonable assumption that it was not at the tax payers expense

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You miss the larger point not mentioned: all those motorists will be mad and looking to vote for someone next election that will undo it all.

▲

input_sh a day ago | parent [-]

Your job in any political office is not to leave everything as-is and to cement yourself into that position, but to make marginal improvements, even if doing so costs you the next elections or inconveniences people (hopefully only temporarily).

Most of those marginal improvements can only be seen as something positive in retrospective, not while they're being made. While they're being made, they'll always be unpopular, as the voter base is usually not keen on defending the people that are currently in charge. That doesn't mean they won't show up in the next elections, just that they are quieter in the meantime.

	▲	bluGill 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		in the ideal world maybe - but we don't live in the ideal world: most are trying to get re-elected, or elected to a higher office now that they have experience. and even in the ideal world a great leader can do more in the next term if they get relected.