I don't see the flaw. The point is parking planners ignored the cost of parking when setting minimum levels of required parking or require free parking, not that there's no benefit.
But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Benefits to you (for easier parking) correspond to subsidizes by others (like those who can't drive).
One conclusion I drew is to view the paper as an argument that centralized planning for parking spaces is inefficient compared to an open market. When economics interferes with human rights and dignities then I am all for changing the laws so as to change the economics. But I find it hard to believe that your disinclination to pay $2 for parking so you can drive to go shopping is a human right any more than my disinclination (as one who walks to the store) to pay for your free parking through higher food costs.
As the paper points out, current infrastructure assumes, and therefore depends on, free parking. It can't be simply changed, which is why the author proposes "parking benefit districts" as a step towards a free market solution.
But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Benefits to you (for easier parking) correspond to subsidizes by others (like those who can't drive).
One conclusion I drew is to view the paper as an argument that centralized planning for parking spaces is inefficient compared to an open market. When economics interferes with human rights and dignities then I am all for changing the laws so as to change the economics. But I find it hard to believe that your disinclination to pay $2 for parking so you can drive to go shopping is a human right any more than my disinclination (as one who walks to the store) to pay for your free parking through higher food costs.
As the paper points out, current infrastructure assumes, and therefore depends on, free parking. It can't be simply changed, which is why the author proposes "parking benefit districts" as a step towards a free market solution.