I've been standing in this
Staten Island parking lot for fifteen minutes, and two
dudes named Sebastian have already tried to sell me painkillers.
I said no, but the way this video is going, I might just take them up on it.
You see, it's not a coincidence that this parking lot
looks identical to almost every other parking lot in America.
It's because there's a sneaky little law in almost every city
in the United States that forces private businesses and residences
to build way more parking than they actually need. And when I say way more parking
than they actually need, I mean way more parking than they
actually -- that's a dog -- need! There are so many parking spaces in America
that we literally can't even count them all. The best estimate puts it
at around 1 billion spaces, which is four spots for every car in America.
And that number of empty spaces is only getting larger,
because any new construction or renovation in almost
any city in America is being held hostage by a bunch of
archaic laws from the 1950s called Minimum Parking Requirements.
Which is a big reason why every city in America is starting to look like this.
[otamatone plays "My Heart Will Go On"] And look, I'm aware you didn't have
"watch a punishingly long video about parking" on your agenda today, but what
parking law lacks in excitement, it makes up for in being so
blunt force head trauma stupid that once you learn about it, you
won't be able to unsee the damage the parked car has done to the land of the free.
And you know, if I'm doing a video about cars and parking,
I'm calling in my guy Jason from the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes.
[Jason] Oh hey, Rollie. Did you know that when they were making
the latest SimCity game, they plan to accurately model real
American cities, but when they realized how much space is devoted
to parking and how ugly that would make the game look, they decided
to make the parking lots way smaller than they are in real life?
Wow, I did not know that until I read it in the script for this video.
Thanks, Jason from Not Just Bikes. He's going to help me get through this hellscape
that is parking in America, but maybe there's actually
something we can do to fix it, maybe? Hi, I'm Rollie Williams, a
guy with pretty good balance, a climate science and policy degree, and right now
I'm about a mile away from three of Staten Island's
finest eyebrow threading salons, and this is a video about
how parking laws are strangling America. Welcome to Climate Town.
[funky intro music] Okay, parking was a very different
game before every man, woman, and child in the United States
got behind the wheel of a car. You remember this kid?
[laughs] We do love to drive. But back in the 1900s, there
were like 80 cars on the road, and they were all owned by rich dicks.
They just stopped driving whenever they felt like it,
and that was the parking spot. As for the poors, well, they'd
have to go around, as God intended. Then in 1913, Henry Ford
smashed the subscribe button on the assembly line and by the
1920s, cars were f*cking everywhere. And these aren't modern cars,
these are the first draft of a mass-produced car being
driven on streets with very few established traffic laws by a
bunch of drunken businessmen with a maximum of seven years driving experience.
Understandably, it was a full nightmare for cities,
and nothing made that more obvious than the thousands of cars
parked all William-nilliam on the sides of streets and sidewalks.
Fun fact, the term "parking" itself used to refer to streets
having a delightful grassy park on the side. These parks were the street's
parking, like a house's siding, or a jacket's lining, or a
river's white water rafting. See, parking used to refer
to grass, and then people parked their cars there, and then
Look at me, look at me, I'm the parking now. [Jason] Now, obviously,
having cars piled everywhere was bad for business, and
American cities were desperate to find some place to put a
never-ending stream of automobiles. So, they called in the big
daddy William Phelps Eno, the father of traffic
safety. He's the guy credited for inventing such traffic classics as stop signs,
traffic circles, and even pedestrian islands. So, you can thank him when
you're standing in the middle of an eight-lane stroad safely
protected from high-speed traffic by a small concrete curb. So
in the 1920s, Eno was tasked with solving the parking crisis
in cities, and he proposed a pretty practical solution: park and rides.
See, William Phelps Eno came to the conclusion that devoting
the most valuable real estate in the world to the parked car
was an absolutely insane thing to do. Why on Earth should wealthy
car owners be entitled to unlimited free use of taxpayer-subsidized land
to store their personal property? A car parked downtown clogs
delivery lanes, it congests traffic, it impedes pedestrians. So obviously, no to that.
It made way more sense to have designated parking lots
on the outskirts of town, and then a robust system of public
transportation to ferry people into city centers. [vintage video voiceover] Many
city planners believe that really good public transportation is the only way
to keep our cities from being choked to death by the automobile.
It seems like a pretty great plan, as long as the auto industry
doesn't completely take over the American psyche while colluding with the oil
industry to have front companies buy up bus and streetcar
lines only to shut them down to clear the road for cars, so that cars become
the only method of transportation. And as all of that did happen, parking went from
a regular tight bummer to a f*cking crisis. In 1947, New York City Police
Commissioner Arthur Wallander stated, This was the police commissioner
of a city that just had a race riot, saying that parking
was one of their core problems. Automobiles had America by the
balls, and a whole generation of politicians and public
officials decided to make parking and cars their whole deal.
[vintage video voiceover] County, city, and state tax money
is matching federal funds to pave the way. [another voice] Pittsburgh is
digging a four-million-dollar hole in the heart of the city to provide underground
storage for thousands of cars. [another voice] A forward-looking
city is conscious of the automobile; it is responding by providing adequate,
well-located parking facilities. But it turns out all this
incentivizing car ownership had the unintended consequence
of more people buying cars. As millions of new cars were
added to the streets every year, cities quickly realized that their
current system was not going to work. In small towns and suburbs,
the situation is the same: all snarled up. Every day it gets worse shopping.
It's not just a matter of getting through the congestion;
it's impossible to find a place to park. [distorted, slowed repetition] It's
impossible to find a place to park. And to quote Michael Caine, "In their desperation, they turned to a man they
didn't fully understand." Is that pretty close?
[off camera] Uhhh, yeah, the accent i-is... I told you to blow the bloody doors off!
[off camera] ...yeah, uhh.. That man was Mr. Minimum Parking Law.
See, instead of cities building all the parking spaces,
they could just make the private sector do it. And at first, it seemed like a
pretty slick little solution. See, American entrepreneurs,
developers, and small business owners want to build shops, or residences,
or whatever an amazing city superstore is, so why not have them
each tack on parking onto their establishments and solve the
parking crisis once and for all? Cities would still have to manage their meters
and on-street parking, but if we could make parking lots
the responsibility of store owners and developers, surely we can fix this
problem with no repercussions. [Jason] These minimum parking
requirements seemed like the perfect cure for the parking problem,
and they spread through America like [in Canadian accent] the smoke
from Canadian wildfires, eh. In 1946, about 17% of cities
had parking requirements in their zoning ordinances, but by 1951,
that number had shot up to around 71% of cities. And if you're dyslexic, that
might not seem like a big deal, but trust me, it's a huge jump.
And if you find yourself wondering exactly how many parking spots
an aspiring malt shop owner has to build before they're allowed
to open their business, you're asking the right questions.
What were minimum parking requirements based on? Let's go to the board.
[bell dings] Oh no, bullsh*t!?!? You gotta be joking me!
You gotta be kidding me! I'm ruined! I thought it was based on something good.
I need a win, baby, I need one win! Oh noooo-- like that, yeah.
The minimum parking requirements that each city readily adopted
left the actual number of spaces up to city planners
and town committees. The typical instruction they were given
was to have enough parking for maximum possible building usage
rather than normal usage, which would ensure that small businesses
and private developers would be forced to buy and pave land
that would go to waste anytime the maximum conceivable
number of people were not at the store. And how did the committees
determine the maximum occupancy? Well, they had two main methods:
number one, they'd guess, but number two, they'd ask a neighboring town,
who almost certainly also just guessed. Not surprisingly, this led
to a lot of inconsistent and nonsensical minimum parking laws.
Like Detroit's one space per hundred square feet in a beauty shop,
but one space per 150 square feet in a courthouse, but also one space per two
hundred square feet in a bank. There were also parking
laws based on physical items in the establishment, like one
space per pool table in a pool hall or one space per tumbling
apparatus at a tumbling center. Some cities required a minimum of
one space per 10 nuns in a nunnery and an absolutely diabolical one
parking space for each employee and employer at a bowling alley,
plus five spaces for each lane. [vintage video voiceover] Everyone
can enjoy the rich satisfactions that bowling offers. 10 big
fat pins just asking for it. I've been bowling with four
people before. It sucks, okay? No one remembers whose turn it
is, everyone uses nicknames, and you're like, "Whose ball, man?
Is that Corey? Is that Grace?" It's terrible. The only one they
got right was adult entertainment. You want that nice and spaced out;
there's no carpooling involved. It was a cornucopia of guesswork,
brimming at the wicker with speculation and conjecture, and no
one was even keeping track of it. The Planning Advisory Service
even admits, "the underlying assumptions used in drafting
parking requirements are unknown." [Jason] Believe it or not, this
wasn't some kind of shadowy cabal of pro-parking lobbyists;
it was city council members with approximately zero parking
expertise taking their best shot at ensuring that their city
would always have enough parking. Eventually, a group called the
Institute of Transportation Engineers decided to try to standardize
the minimum parking numbers with some cold, hard science.
Now, the ITE was no stranger to the car game. They formed in 1930 with a goal of reducing the
absolute bonanza of car crashes and traffic that the United States was experiencing,
and they were ready to bring their engineering and science
to the minimum parking game. [Rollie] Unfortunately, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers soon discovered that minimum
parking requirements were a bunch of bullsh*t, and you just
know I got some fun examples, so let's get right into it. To
the edit ba--to the edit bay! Now, I did earmark my entire
props budget on getting my eyebrows threaded later on, so
I couldn't afford an actual copy of ITE's Parking Generation Manual,
but they will graciously sell it to city planners for the rock-bottom
price of $495 for non-members, and the screaming deal of $345 for members.
And at that price, you'd be an idiot not to buy one.
I mean, this thing must have so much good parking science in it.
Man, I really want one. Curse these big, bushy eyebrows!
Luckily, a couple of completely anonymous friends sent me
some absolutely gorgeous PDFs of actual graphs from
"Parking Generation", so let's take a look here. The ITE surveyed a series
of fast-food restaurants, measured the square footage of the restaurants,
and found that each one thousand square feet of restaurant
needed exactly 3.55 or 15.92 parking spaces, or somewhere
in the middle, or possibly some other number completely.
Yeah, here's the graph. Here's the trend line and
the R-squared value is .038. And if we go back in time to
when you were in math class, you might remember that an
R-squared value of .038 means the square footage of the
store is about 3.8% responsible for why that particular number
of cars is parked there. The remaining 96% of the
responsibility is probably something else entirely. The ITE
acknowledges that square footage is a horsesh*t way to
determine parking requirements. It's simply not a useful variable.
They even admit it right on the graph: Oh my god, he admit it!
And "used carefully" is doing some heavy lifting here. It should say, "Caution, do not use this,"
but you can't really sell a book that says "all the information in this
book is bullsh*t and we know it", so "used carefully" was going to have to suffice.
And despite knowing that their information was useless as a predictive tool,
they had the audacity to include the exact precise average
of 9.95 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is a lot like saying,
"We have no idea when humans first gained consciousness,
but we think it might have been at 9:51 AM on a Thursday in the year 300,006 BC."
But maybe city planners did use caution? I mean, obviously, they didn't
just take the graph at face value, round up, and then force a
ton of fast-food restaurants all around the country to build 10 parking spaces
for every 1,000 square feet of restaurant, right? And it just goes on like that.
An analysis of over a hundred other ITE parking graphs revealed
that about half of them are based on just four or fewer data points,
and about a quarter were based on a single data point.
Let's take a look at the ITE graph of sporting goods stores,
like Dick's Sporting Goods. Remember when "Dick" was a
guy's name and that was it? Dick's Sporting Goods remembers.
Here's the graph of parked vehicles versus number of employees.
The line of best fit should be here, not here. And if we're going by just
the information we're given in this graph of number of
employees versus parked vehicles, as the number of employees goes
up, parked vehicles goes down, which means according to their
own data, with enough employees, you'd have a negative number of parked cars.
Which means a logical interpretation of this graph is that you could solve parking
everywhere forever by having sufficiently overstaffed sporting
goods stores in every city in America. And since that's not really
something the ITE can sell, they made up this line, which
I think is what you get when you add up all the parked
vehicles and you divide by all the employees, which is, uh, not how f*cking statistics works!
[Jason] So effectively, American city governments tried
to get everyone to build the maximum possible amount of parking
using the time-tested method of pulling data out of their *sses.
And those non-scientific guesses became the bedrock
of US parking legislation. But when the Institute of Transportation Engineers
tried to back up those guesses with science, they poked and prodded the
numbers until they could prove that we needed maximum parking everywhere,
which was then turned into literal laws requiring it.
I did not believe that this could possibly be true the first time I read about it.
It's just that stupid to think that we overbuilt parking
basically everywhere because of feelings. And overbuild parking we did.
Virtually every municipality in the United States has had 75 years to develop
under the toxic influence of minimum parking requirements,
and you can see the problem from space. Not space in the classic sense, but high up.
[vintage video voiceover] The automobile, that no one would think of giving up,
is doing this to our central cities. In Los Angeles,
nearly two-thirds of the downtown area is taken up by the automobile.
Parking lots, garages, streets, and freeways. And town after town has
expanded and sprawled under the metastasizing drum beat
of parking over people, and it's easy to fixate on the
parking part of parking space, but the space is the real killer.
You build a restaurant in Houston, another restaurant's
worth of land is permanently flattened. You build Dodger Stadium in
Los Angeles, an additional ten Dodger Stadiums' worth of
perfectly good land is sacrificed for parking. Minimum parking guarantees sprawl,
and it's easy to see why virtually every city in the
United States keeps developing into the same stretches
of low-to-the-ground boxy structures with minimal multi-story buildings and lots
of blank spaces for parking. We get a lot of fast food
restaurants, chain stores, and single-family housing,
because they can accommodate parking laws by simply paving
part of the surrounding property. The other kind of structures we keep making are
expensive larger buildings, like luxury apartments,
office buildings, hotels, that kind of thing. The parking requirement is
costly. Developers have to build underground garages or huge parking
structures, or buy the building across the street and knock it down for parking.
[vintage video voiceover] Increasingly, we are seeing
large-scale demolition as the first step in building modern cities.
Here, for example is the tallest building in America
to be demolished to start over. Surely we shall not demolish
all our large buildings, but the lesson is clear: we live in a day of bold planning.
They then pass that cost along to their tenants in the form of rent.
Apartment developer Peyton Chung calls this the "Valley of High Parking
Requirements," with these two kinds of developments on the sides and
a missing middle of mixed-use, mid-rise buildings and
low-cost apartments that can't afford to buy sufficient land
and build the parking minimums. [Jason] And to be crystal clear
here, parking is absolutely not free. That's like saying the bathroom
is free in your hotel room. It may not be a line item on the
bill, but you're paying for it whether you use the bathroom or
just piss off of the balcony. When a store or developer is forced
to buy twice the necessary land, that extra cost is just rolled
into everything you buy. And the worst part is, if you don't
drive, you're still paying for that disgusting sea of
asphalt that you need to cross every time you go shopping.
Plus, your city needs to extend every road, every pipe, and
every wire that extra distance for a bunch of parking spots that
stay empty almost all of the time. And that cost is f*ckin' high.
Each individual parking space costs between eight thousand and
eighty thousand dollars, depending on if it's just a
paved surface or a multi-level or subterranean parking structure.
The Walt Disney Concert Hall cost 274 million dollars to build,
and a hundred million dollars of that was building the
underground parking structure. That's not free; that's a hundred million dollars,
and you bet your *ss concertgoers are paying for that in their ticket prices.
The godfather of parking reform, Donald Shoup, whose actual website is shoupdog.com, is the man.
We talked to him for this video; he's awesome. And he estimates that the cost
of building a mall increases by sixty-seven percent if you
build above-ground parking and by ninety-three percent if
you build below-ground parking. It's also almost gotten to the
point where you can't even build affordable housing. A Seattle-based study by
the Sightline Institute found that the mandated parking
increased the monthly rent by $246. Well, can I just have
my $246 a month back and not own a car? I don't think so, Jack,
because you live in America, the land of the free market,
unless we're talking about parking, which is a cost the government
forces its citizens to collectivize, for the good of the motherland.
[rousing Soviet anthem] And not to put too fine a point on it, but making parking free is a
textbook subsidy to car owners. Every time the government forces
a business to build parking, that is the government
incentivizing car ownership, and people who don't own cars
are getting absolutely f*cked every time they have to pay extra for toothbrushes
or rent to fulfill a subsidy that they do not benefit from.
Hoooooo, almost died. And since wealthier people
are more likely to own cars, this is a subsidy that the
poor tends to pay to the rich. It's also a great example
of big government overreach that continuously reinforces itself.
[Jason] The worst part is that these parking requirements
have and are actively preventing downtowns from being successful.
Older buildings were grandfathered in, but if you wanted
to renovate one of these downtown buildings for your avocado toast bar, you'd need
to buy the building next to it and bulldoze it in order to
meet the off-street parking requirements. This is why downtown
in my hometown looks like this. This is insane, right? Like, legitimately insane.
Literally bulldozing historic buildings to meet arbitrary
parking minimums, and this is still preventing people from opening
businesses in traditional walkable downtowns to this day.
In the case of a bank in Sandpoint, Idaho, they were required
to buy up nearby buildings, evict the tenants, and demolish
everything to make enough surface parking spaces to legally operate.
In Dallas, Texas, a couple wanted to open a hotel in
the ailing downtown area, but fulfilling the parking requirement
would have cost them two to three million dollars. In Fayetteville, Arkansas, a
whole gaggle of downtown buildings sat vacant for decades because
minimum parking laws made it too expensive for small business owners to move in.
Parking laws are a boot, but not like a fun, cute boot
that you might wear to the movies, they're a boot on the neck
of cities and towns that have fallen on hard times and are just
trying to revitalize themselves. They have the effect of
driving would-be city dwellers to just say f*ck it and sprawl
out to the burbs, where the cost of buying land for parking
isn't prohibitively expensive. And we haven't even talked about
the climate implications yet. My God, urban sprawl and minimum parking laws are
crazy destructive to the environment. First of all, parking lots require
a lot of asphalt and concrete. Those two substances are responsible for, like,
ten percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. When you build parking lots,
you have to displace something, and historically that something has been wildlife,
including paving over tens of millions of acres of American wetlands
and hundreds of millions of acres of other ecosystems.
Parking also contributes to the urban heat island effect,
which honestly should be its own video, but the TL;DR is that it ain't
great for climate change. And speaking of urban areas, all that pavement
prevents water from absorbing, which leads to floods
and exacerbates the effects of storms and hurricanes.
It also pollutes the ever-living sh*t out of our water,
when dirty, dusty, heavy metal and pesticide-infused water runoff
sluices off the pavement and into the lakes and rivers.
And of course, parking creates more parking by pushing buildings further and
further apart, making a short, tolerable walk into one that
sucks and takes forever, and also about a million
more environmental problems that I don't want to get into
because we're already however long this video is, and honestly, I
can't believe you're still watching. But thank you so much for
sticking with it, because oooh, we finally got into the "what we can do about it"
section of the video, and I'm extremely happy to say,
this part is actually very promising. Now, you know my guy Donald
Shoup has been calling out bad parking laws for decades,
and it seems like people are finally starting to listen to him.
Remember those vacant buildings in Fayetteville, Arkansas?
Well, in 2015, Fayetteville became quite possibly the first city in the country
to completely eliminate commercial parking minimums
and let businesses decide how much parking they need. Really,
they were probably the first, but I don't want to get sued by the residents of
New Bicklesburg, Virginia, or whatever small town thinks they were the first,
so I used the legal term "quite possibly" to protect myself.
Try it out for yourself sometime. And you guessed it, without minimum
parking laws in Fayetteville, a new restaurant opened up in a building
that had been vacant for twenty years. Another restaurant opened
up in a historic building that would have required
forty-one new parking spaces. And once other towns heard
about this, they followed suit. I'm talking about the King
of Wings, the Drake of Lakes, just don't slip in Niagara
Faaaaalls, Buffalo, New York! Coming in at 120,000 people, it's the
Widow of the Whalers, Hartford, Connecticuuuuut! I really have to stop, because here's a map
of all the cities and towns that have changed their minimum parking requirements in some way. That would take hours, days
if I really got into it, but don't think I won't do
it. You think I won't do it? Coming in at six foot eight,
450 million tons of raw steel, it's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvaaaaaaan--
Now, I will say that while there are a ton of great success stories,
getting rid of parking minimums is just one step in a long road of reforming our
ridiculously car-centric culture. It's going to take a lot of
time to deworm our collective car brains, and that means
some of the steps are probably going to feel a little anticlimactic.
Which is a great word -- "anticlimactic". Firm. Sounds like what it means.
Like brussels sprouts, that's exactly what those little f*ckers are.
[Jason] So clearly, some cities are finally fixing their sh*t.
If you're interested in learning more, I can strongly recommend
Strong Towns, a non-profit organization that is committed
to undoing the car-centric mistakes of the twentieth century
and repairing North American cities. They've done a lot of great work on making cities
more resilient and financially sustainable, and ditching parking minimums
is a big part of their MO. They actually made a great video about
Fayetteville here on the YouTubes. And on their website, they even have guides on
best practices for eliminating parking minimums. Our friends at Climate Change
Makers have put together a playbook that draws on the
many successful strategies that other towns and cities have used to delete
minimum parking requirements from their zoning. And if you want to be a part
of getting your city to delete some of this weird, archaic
government-overreach-meets-pseudoscience legislation that is currently
turning your prime city real estate into undevelopable
land, you can do that by clicking the link in the description.
Honestly, it'll take you five minutes. You know what, don't even
do it. Just click the link and see what there is to
see, and then if you're there and you feel like doing it, more power to you.
And if you really want to get crazy with it, you can drop by your local city council meeting
where you can be the voice of reason in a room full of people who would really
like to speak to your manager. But above all, whatever you
do, just consider getting more educated about the climate crisis, because if we're not careful, we might
find ourselves in the middle of a copyrighted song about paving
paradise and putting up a parking lot, which I would love to play for you underneath this
sort of closing monologue right here, but obviously I can't.
So I am singing it in my head right now. Man, that's a great song. Wish
I could play it right now. Okay, you made it to the end.
Thank you so much for watching, and thank you to Jason from Not Just Bikes.
Go ahead and like and subscribe, and even leave a comment
about what a nice guy Jason is. Now, I do have a special, super
secret announcement coming up at the end of this video, but first,
uh... ad! Oh yeah, here it is. Okay, let's just say you
spent the last nine hours on blazing hot asphalt in the
sun. You're sweating bullets, but suddenly you're struck
by a fierce desire to learn. In the past, you would have been absolutely hosed,
but not anymore, thanks to our sponsor, Brilliant. Brilliant offers thousands of
lessons in a hot little app you can access from anywhere.
And to answer your question, yes, even wherever you are right
now, you can dive brain-first into the bright blue waters of
advanced math, or programming, or statistics. And honestly,
they got a ton of stuff on there, and they add new lessons every month, which seems
like overkill to me, but it's their company. I go straight for the data science lessons;
they come in really handy when some flim-flam artist
is trying to slide some funky numbers past me. And to make it even better,
we got a special link for you that gives you a thirty-day
free trial to Brilliant, and the first two hundred
subscribers get twenty percent off. Am I reading that right?
Come on, Brilliant, come on. And that's the end of the ad.
Thanks for sticking around this far. Feel free to like and subscribe
to Climate Town if you like. If you really want to help us
out, you can join our Patreon page where you get behind-the-scenes
content, bonus features, cut tape, you know, all the stuff that
wasn't good enough to be free. We also have a newsletter you can
sign up for in the description. That's all the extra research
and the interesting tidbits and stuff that didn't make the final draft. And if you're thinking, "I
can't believe you cut stuff, this video is long as hell,"
we did cut stuff, okay? We did a lot of research, we
read three books on this subject, and talked to like four experts.
We got a lot of extra stuff, and you can find that extra
stuff in the newsletter. And finally, the after-the-credits
Marvel movie secret scene. I'm starting a podcast. "Oh,
whaaat? A guy with a podcast?" yeah, everybody else has one. I've got one too.
It's called "The Climate Denier's Playbook." You can get it on Spotify, Stitcher, Pocket,
whatever you get your podcasts on. I'm co-hosting it with my friend Nicole Conlon,
who is a writer on The Daily Show and also one of the writers here at Climate Town.
Every episode, we look at a different piece of climate disinformation or misinformation.
We look at the myth and where it came from, who benefits from it, and how
you can spot it in the wild. It's a lot of fun, okay? I think
you're really gonna like it. For real. But seriously,
for real, it's really fun. So you can check it out, find it
in the description of the video. That wa--that was bad. Finally,
rhank you very much to Donald Shoup and Henry Grabar, two consummate
experts in parking policy and two people who were incredibly
helpful on making this episode. We got to talk to Donald Shoup
a couple of times; he's awesome. I got their bios and their
websites in the description. Check them out, buy their books, follow them,
they're very interesting and smart people. Alright, that's actually the
end. Thanks for watching. Now, if you don't mind, I have an appointment
to get my eyebrows threaded for real. So, bye! I have not tried marijuana, I
have never used it at any time. [outro music]
