If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   An app that lets you auction off the public parking spot you're currently occupying to the highest bidder who wants it? Yes, it appears that San Francisco does have a problem with that   (slate.com) divider line 138
    More: Stupid, parking spot  
•       •       •

4066 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:08 PM (4 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-25 02:17:50 PM
"now they get to worry about some tech tycoon outbidding them for their parking spot. "
ROLF - THEIR parking spot? LOLOLOL
HOW about ... paying for parking?
CLEARLY, the city needs to get in on this.
Make each spot bit enabled!
Highest bidder gets the parking spot.
The city should be able to collect what the spot is actually worth!!!
HAHAHA HAHAH sigh

CSB
ONE of the awesome things about the absurd new parking boxes in chicago, is that you can always find street parking now!! The cheap bastards have to park elsewhere now instead of stealing parking spots on the street, which are better served by people patronizing nearby businesses!!
/CSB
 
2014-06-25 03:10:21 PM
Job Creators.
 
2014-06-25 03:10:32 PM
You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.
 
2014-06-25 03:11:19 PM
Geez, I just want to earn money off occupying public land pointlessly long, while depending on the local government and taxes to do all the maintenance.

You just hate small businesses!  I built that!
 
2014-06-25 03:11:40 PM
The next tech bubble crash can't come soon enough
 
2014-06-25 03:12:21 PM
So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?
 
2014-06-25 03:13:21 PM
What is the stupid tag for? I see nothing wrong with San Fran having an issue with this..
 
2014-06-25 03:13:32 PM
Maybe they should, you know, create adequate parking facilities and this wouldn't be a thing.
 
2014-06-25 03:13:42 PM
So hire a bunch of college kids at $5/hour to squat in parking spaces all day and constantly sell them off? Cmon, there's a gold mine here, no one says the city can't be the one to profit.
 
2014-06-25 03:14:57 PM

Dafatone: So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?


The seller sitting there holding it for them?
 
2014-06-25 03:15:13 PM
oh sure its all fun and games, until the city council decides to do this for every public parking spot in the city.
 
Ant
2014-06-25 03:16:10 PM

Dafatone: So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?


Nothing.
www.streetsblog.org
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-25 03:17:20 PM

ikanreed: Geez, I just want to earn money off occupying public land pointlessly long, while depending on the local government and taxes to do all the maintenance.

You just hate small businesses!  I built that!


Hey... Clive Bundy has a Fark account!
 
2014-06-25 03:20:15 PM
It's really a good idea, they just want their cut.
 
2014-06-25 03:20:41 PM

AlgaeRancher: oh sure its all fun and games, until the city council decides to do this for every public parking spot in the city.


Yep, sounds like that's a decent plan.
 
2014-06-25 03:22:05 PM
If they do this for Chicago, where are they gonna store all their lawn chairs?
 
Ant
2014-06-25 03:22:29 PM
I could see people making a job out of this:

occupy a parking space
sell it to the highest bidder
move on to another space
repeat
 
2014-06-25 03:23:59 PM
I would pay money to have people use this app and then beat the crap out of anyone auctioning a public parking space.
 
2014-06-25 03:25:15 PM
This is how I see it working:

Driver : I am about to leave the number 2 spot in front of the doors at Best Buy. Who wants it?
Guy 1: Uh, I'll give you 50 cents.
Guy 2: 5 bucks!
Guy 3: 25 bucks!
Guy 4: I won't spend 5 minutes beating your car with a claw hammer.
Driver: uh....sold to Guy 4!

And what happens if you pay for someone's spot, and then some asshole ganks 'your' spot because you're blocked by the guy pulling out? Do you politely explain how you just paid for that public spot and therefore it is now 'yours' and that he should move, and hope the day ends without your smart phone being surgically removed from your anus? Do you call the cops and report that you were 'robbed'? Do you engage in some Casey Jones style street justice that ends with you being indicted for manslaughter for standing up for your 'rights'?

I don't see any good coming of that app.
 
2014-06-25 03:27:53 PM

Ant: I could see people making a job out of this:

occupy a parking space
sell it to the highest bidder
move on to another space
repeat


Yah that is the irony of the App. Due to squatters trying to make a buck, the parking problem will ironically get worse.

iheartscotch: Maybe they should, you know, create adequate parking facilities and this wouldn't be a thing.


Because  in a 7x7 city, parking facilities and spaces are not efficient land usage or even cost effective.
 
2014-06-25 03:28:41 PM
Making money is only for the rich.  The little guy has no right to try and make money!  That's what this all comes down too.  Some guy found a way to make a bit of money and the wealthy "job creators" don't like it
 
2014-06-25 03:29:38 PM

MythDragon: I don't see any good coming of that app.


The only potential saving grace is that this is in SF, a city not known for its high rate of firearm ownership.

In many cities, "stealing" a parking spot is cause for beatings or worse - now add to that some moron thought they actually had a "right" to it because they paid.

// ugh, just wait 'til the Christmas shopping season
// only about 6 weeks away!
 
2014-06-25 03:30:15 PM
I'm going to flatten the tires of everyone using this app to drum up business for my tow service app where you can field bids from local tow companies.
 
2014-06-25 03:30:49 PM

Warlordtrooper: Making money is only for the rich.  The little guy has no right to try and make money!  That's what this all comes down too.  Some guy found a way to make a bit of money and the wealthy "job creators" don't like it


no it is actually just the opposite. This is not some case of the bum pointing out obvious parking spots and supplying "security" for a buck situation.
 
2014-06-25 03:31:00 PM

cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.


Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.
 
2014-06-25 03:32:25 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I would pay money to have people use this app and then beat the crap out of anyone auctioning a public parking space.


I would contribut $50 to that kickstarter provided that I got a picture of the guy getting beaten.
 
2014-06-25 03:32:39 PM

cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.


You're not paying a prostitute for sex, you're paying her to leave afterward.
 
2014-06-25 03:32:57 PM

jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.


The law is about profiting off public land.
 
2014-06-25 03:33:24 PM

Ant: Dafatone: So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?

Nothing.
[www.streetsblog.org image 510x383]


One thing I gotta hand that show...
They made a real good play of the setting being in NYC, when in fact, the whole thing was filmed in LA.
 
2014-06-25 03:34:08 PM
I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.
 
2014-06-25 03:35:18 PM
I bet handicap folks can double their prices
 
2014-06-25 03:35:59 PM

durbnpoisn: Ant: Dafatone: So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?

Nothing.
[www.streetsblog.org image 510x383]

One thing I gotta hand that show...
They made a real good play of the setting being in NYC, when in fact, the whole thing was filmed in LA.


We can make an app that hacks into the MonkeyParking app so you can preemptively take the space.
 
2014-06-25 03:36:13 PM

All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.


No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.
 
2014-06-25 03:36:47 PM

NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.


So you travel around and pull into a vacant spot, using it up, but only so you can auction it off to someone else. That is not legit.
 
2014-06-25 03:37:50 PM

jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.


They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.
 
2014-06-25 03:38:07 PM

LeroyBourne: It's really a good idea, they just want their cut.


It's a terrible idea socially, just a very protiable on economically.

I helped run a Burning man offshoot that had a ticket cap due to space limitations and typically sold out all 1500 tickets in matter of minute after they went on sale.  Of course this caused much upset and consternation among the ticketless.   We raised ticket prices $15 to $50 to create a reserve fund to buy land to expand the event at some point but int he meantime the tickets kept selling out faster and faster.


our smart economist friend pointed out that the most beneficial solution to the Org to deal with t\he shortage would be to auction the tickets off pair by pair.   Those most motivated to go would pay a premium to guarantee their attendance, and then ticket prices would fall until they "found their level" based on the current demand.

and technically he was absolutely correct.  It would have maximized "profit" for the 501(c)(3) which would have brought us closer to buying land quicker which in the end benefits everyone.  However Morally/ethically/optically it was an AWFUL solution as it would destroy the core values of radical inclusion and non-commerce the event was founded on, favoring rich burners over poor ones.

Sometimes the optimal economic solution is not the RIGHT one
 
2014-06-25 03:40:24 PM

jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.


You are still profiting from the use of a public space, not to mention the unintended consequences of dissuading the efficient use of that public land since this will exacerbate spot squatting.

The company itself, as a promotion, actually paid people to squat on spaces in the Mission one weekend.
 
2014-06-25 03:41:40 PM

HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.


No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot.  They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-06-25 03:42:16 PM
AlgaeRancher: oh sure its all fun and games, until the city council decides to do this for every public parking spot in the city.

There is a movement to implement market rate street parking nationwide. The federal DOT is paying for demonstration projects.  Donald Shoup at UCLA is the guy credited with the concept (but not necessarily the implementation).
 
2014-06-25 03:43:23 PM

HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.


Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.
 
2014-06-25 03:43:39 PM

MythDragon: This is how I see it working:
Guy 4: I won't spend 5 minutes beating your car with a claw hammer.


Ten minutes!
 
2014-06-25 03:44:44 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.


Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.
 
2014-06-25 03:46:07 PM

Dafatone: So, if someone "buys" a parking spot using this app, what's to stop some other driver from muscling in there anyway?


I'm too lazy to check, but I assume the app can handle that. Neither buyer nor (ultimately) seller wants the money to change hands if the transfer fails. Any marketplace has to be able to handle that.
 
2014-06-25 03:46:23 PM

NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.


When's that spot going to be vacant?
Soon as you pay me ten bucks.
 
2014-06-25 03:46:38 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.


They are brokering the use of the land. They are not only giving information but also holding that space until the buyer enters it.
 
2014-06-25 03:48:55 PM

Warlordtrooper: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot.  They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.


Nobody would pay for this information unless they were getting the spot. They're attempting to sell access to public land.
 
2014-06-25 03:50:20 PM

Warlordtrooper: No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot. They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.


No, they're soliciting payment to move their car at a certain time. It's not "pay $10.00 to find out I'm leaving at 4:30" it's "pay $10.00 to get me to leave now".
 
2014-06-25 03:51:11 PM

All2morrowsparTs: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

You are still profiting from the use of a public space, not to mention the unintended consequences of dissuading the efficient use of that public land since this will exacerbate spot squatting.

The company itself, as a promotion, actually paid people to squat on spaces in the Mission one weekend.


So what? The people squatting in the spots were completely legally entitled to do so as long as they pay the meter and leave within the time limit.

In the case that someone is about to leave a spot, they use this app, and someone pays to park right after them, and then someone else slips into the spot before them, it's not like they would have a case against the more agile parker. They paid to know exactly when the first parker would leave the spot, expecting that the first parker would not leave until they got there. If that person got tired of waiting and left a little too soon and the paying guy didn't get his spot, then all they can do is take it up with the app company, who is in no way legally obligated to them.
 
2014-06-25 03:53:02 PM

thaylin: NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.

So you travel around and pull into a vacant spot, using it up, but only so you can auction it off to someone else. That is not legit.


Sure; but if there's a legitimate use for the app, it's not fair to shut the whole thing down.
 
2014-06-25 03:53:35 PM

HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.


Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them. They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there. As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.
 
2014-06-25 03:54:46 PM

Magorn: LeroyBourne: It's really a good idea, they just want their cut.

It's a terrible idea socially, just a very protiable on economically.

I helped run a Burning man offshoot that had a ticket cap due to space limitations and typically sold out all 1500 tickets in matter of minute after they went on sale.  Of course this caused much upset and consternation among the ticketless.   We raised ticket prices $15 to $50 to create a reserve fund to buy land to expand the event at some point but int he meantime the tickets kept selling out faster and faster.


our smart economist friend pointed out that the most beneficial solution to the Org to deal with t\he shortage would be to auction the tickets off pair by pair.   Those most motivated to go would pay a premium to guarantee their attendance, and then ticket prices would fall until they "found their level" based on the current demand.

and technically he was absolutely correct.  It would have maximized "profit" for the 501(c)(3) which would have brought us closer to buying land quicker which in the end benefits everyone.  However Morally/ethically/optically it was an AWFUL solution as it would destroy the core values of radical inclusion and non-commerce the event was founded on, favoring rich burners over poor ones.

Sometimes the optimal economic solution is not the RIGHT one


That comparison seems spot-on, because this app is obviously not breaking any laws, but it's monetizing dickishness.

People talk about "selling a parking space", but that's just a metaphor. (We have well-defined procedures for registering and transferring the ownership of land; none of that is happening here.) This is about the guy who has a public spot that he doesn't need. Before this app, he leaves. With the app, he overstays the time he needs it for (but not the legal max for the spot) until somebody pays him.

No laws broken. I have a right to the spot. I have a right to communicate my plans with others. There's no law (yet) about them paying me to exercise my free choice. But. . . it's obnoxious. And, as many have pointed out, it creates the new, parasitic, line of work where you occupy a space until you're paid to move.
 
2014-06-25 03:55:45 PM

All2morrowsparTs: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

They are brokering the use of the land. They are not only giving information but also holding that space until the buyer enters it.


They paid the meter. They are within the time limit. They can stay parked until the time limit is up (or until they would like to leave the spot to someone else of their choosing.)
 
2014-06-25 03:57:31 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.

Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them.


Not if they won't move you can't.

They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there.

What's stopping them from paying for a bit more? If the bidding that day is good, the math can work out.

 As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.

 They're attempting to sell access to public land.
 
2014-06-25 04:00:41 PM
All2morrowsparTs:
The law is about profiting off public land.

What law forbids profiting off public land? Was Ansel Adams prosecuted after he sold photos of national parks? Can't you pay a tour guide to talk about Independence Hall?

It seems like a good idea to ban this specific behavior, but there's nothing wrong with people who break no laws profiting from things done on public land.
 
2014-06-25 04:00:57 PM

Warlordtrooper: No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot.  They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.


I'll sell you vital information about whether or not I'll be beating you up tomorrow for $100. I'm just selling access to knowledge!
 
2014-06-25 04:02:01 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: It seems like a good idea to ban this specific behavior, but there's nothing wrong with people who break no laws profiting from things done on public land.


You're not very good at playing lawyer.
 
2014-06-25 04:03:48 PM
Anyone who thinks some clever word use suddenly makes this legal ought to try explaining it to a judge. "Well your honour, I was just selling information on when I'd be leaving, nothing more."
 
2014-06-25 04:05:02 PM

HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.

Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them.

Not if they won't move you can't.


So how is that different than before? You could ask him nicely to move and it's up to him whether to move or not. You could offer him a delicious candy bar as incentive to move. You could ask him nicely and slip him a 10 spot.

They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there.

What's stopping them from paying for a bit more? If the bidding that day is good, the math can work out.

 As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.

 They're attempting to sell access to public land.


You said that before. Repeating the same argument doesn't support it. As long as the meter is running and the time limit has not been reached, the person parked in that spot has an exclusive right to park in that spot and can leave when he wants and for whatever reason he wants. Whether it's that he has to go, or he just wants to be nice, or someone paid him $10 to do so, it doesn't matter.
 
2014-06-25 04:06:59 PM

Russ1642: some clever word use


In other words, law.
 
2014-06-25 04:07:23 PM

evil saltine: Warlordtrooper: No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot. They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.

No, they're soliciting payment to move their car at a certain time. It's not "pay $10.00 to find out I'm leaving at 4:30" it's "pay $10.00 to get me to leave now".


I love how people think that someohow just so long as they phrase something properly the illegal suddenly becomes legal.  This sort fo "magic words" theroy of the law is what the whole sovereign citizen movement is based on too.   Intent matters in the law.  The Law prohbits a private person from profiting from their use of public land without proper permits,   whether you claim they are "selling access" (which they manifestly are) or selling information about when a space is vacant, they are STILL profiting by virtue of their use of public land.

the solution is actually very simple though.

Implement a "cool down" on public parking spaces so it is not legal to park in them until after they have been fully vacant for at least 5 minutes.
 
2014-06-25 04:09:16 PM

ZAZ: AlgaeRancher: oh sure its all fun and games, until the city council decides to do this for every public parking spot in the city.

There is a movement to implement market rate street parking nationwide. The federal DOT is paying for demonstration projects.  Donald Shoup at UCLA is the guy credited with the concept (but not necessarily the implementation).


I Googled him and found this, but it can't be read without sending the reader to sleep. What does it all mean?
 
2014-06-25 04:09:53 PM

jigger: Russ1642: some clever word use

In other words, law.


No, Law the way people that don;t actually know or understand the law imagine it to be....

big difference, ends up with a lot of people in jail because they think they can ignore a court orderi f the judge happens to have a gold fringe on the flag flying in his courtroom since that somehow makes it an Admiralty court without jurisdiction on dry land
 
2014-06-25 04:10:09 PM
Assuming these are parallel parking spots, I get the app, monitor the auctions, and position my car immediately behind the auctioneer and wait for him to pull out. Thank you for the free spot.
 
2014-06-25 04:12:36 PM
Find the car in question.

Slash its tires or scratch it deep.

/fark you

fozziewazzi: Assuming these are parallel parking spots, I get the app, monitor the auctions, and position my car immediately behind the auctioneer and wait for him to pull out. Thank you for the free spot.


o_O

Didn't you have a "free spot" when you were behind him? And open one up when you moved forward?
 
2014-06-25 04:15:17 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Find the car in question.

Slash its tires or scratch it deep.

/fark you

fozziewazzi: Assuming these are parallel parking spots, I get the app, monitor the auctions, and position my car immediately behind the auctioneer and wait for him to pull out. Thank you for the free spot.

o_O

Didn't you have a "free spot" when you were behind him? And open one up when you moved forward?


No, I'm double parked behind him.
 
2014-06-25 04:28:22 PM

Magorn: I love how people think that someohow just so long as they phrase something properly the illegal suddenly becomes legal.


That's what you're doing to try to make it illegal.

Magorn: jigger: Russ1642: some clever word use

In other words, law.

No, Law the way people that don;t actually know or understand the law imagine it to be....

big difference, ends up with a lot of people in jail because they think they can ignore a court orderi f the judge happens to have a gold fringe on the flag flying in his courtroom since that somehow makes it an Admiralty court without jurisdiction on dry land


Are you seriously saying that playing around with the meanings of words is NOT almost the entire basis for the legal industry and the judicial branch of government?
 
2014-06-25 04:29:47 PM
jigger:

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

That is such amazing horseshiat.
Tell me, do your q-tips come out brown?
 
2014-06-25 04:30:43 PM

strathmeyer: Captain Horatio Mindblower: It seems like a good idea to ban this specific behavior, but there's nothing wrong with people who break no laws profiting from things done on public land.

You're not very good at playing lawyer.


I stipulate that I'm not very good at anything (also, I'm ugly, and my mother dresses me funny), but I observe that you give no opposing argument or counterexample. Have at it, if you can.
 
2014-06-25 04:31:41 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: MythDragon: This is how I see it working:
Guy 4: I won't spend 5 minutes beating your car with a claw hammer.

Ten minutes!


But then you still get the 5 minute car massage. It's better than 10 minutes, but you still lose out. This has become a senario in which there is no winning move.

/Only winning move is not to play
 
2014-06-25 04:33:10 PM

gunther_bumpass: jigger:

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

That is such amazing horseshiat.
Tell me, do your q-tips come out brown?


 I guess can't argue with such a detailed and well-cited rebuttal as that.
 
2014-06-25 04:35:57 PM
If this is technically legal at the moment, this seems like an excellent impetus to write a law making it illegal.
 
2014-06-25 04:37:20 PM

iheartscotch: Maybe they should, you know, create adequate parking facilities and this wouldn't be a thing.


Just wondering if you've ever been to San Francisco. It's a city built at the end of a small peninsula. There really aren't many options when it comes to expanding to create more parking.

Warlordtrooper: Making money is only for the rich.  The little guy has no right to try and make money!  That's what this all comes down too.  Some guy found a way to make a bit of money and the wealthy "job creators" don't like it


Since the developer of the app is getting a cut, and I'm guessing has some money to start with, and may even be bankrolled by investors, I think your argument is invalid. Also, anyone driving in San Francisco with an iPhone is not a "little guy."

Oh, I just found them on AngelList. The CEO and UX Developer both work for a 100+ year old consulting agency. The CEO is from Italy, living in Silicon Valley. The Founder is also from Italy, living in Silicon Valley where he works for another technology consulting firm. Yeah, I'm sure all of those guys are hurting for money.
 
2014-06-25 04:39:44 PM
I'm for keeping it, but only if people who are trying to profit have to put a sticker on their car.  Should end well.

I'm all for Getaround, Lyft, AirBnB, but this is too farking far and it's not your property to sell.  I don't give a crap about it being "selling information" or whatever.  Parking is a shiatstorm here and this only will make it worse.
 
2014-06-25 04:40:23 PM
20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.
 
2014-06-25 04:41:13 PM

shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.


And that was also illegal.
 
2014-06-25 04:41:37 PM
What are the ridiculously expensive pay lots going to do about this? Everywhere I've ever been the whisper is always that they're owned by the mob. Even in South Carolina, an area without any mob presence, everyone still "knows" that those private parking lots are run by the mob. They don't recover a lot of bodies from under the bridges in San Francisco, do they?
 
2014-06-25 04:42:19 PM

Magorn: LeroyBourne: It's really a good idea, they just want their cut.

It's a terrible idea socially, just a very protiable on economically.

I helped run a Burning man offshoot that had a ticket cap due to space limitations and typically sold out all 1500 tickets in matter of minute after they went on sale.  Of course this caused much upset and consternation among the ticketless.   We raised ticket prices $15 to $50 to create a reserve fund to buy land to expand the event at some point but int he meantime the tickets kept selling out faster and faster.


our smart economist friend pointed out that the most beneficial solution to the Org to deal with t\he shortage would be to auction the tickets off pair by pair.   Those most motivated to go would pay a premium to guarantee their attendance, and then ticket prices would fall until they "found their level" based on the current demand.

and technically he was absolutely correct.  It would have maximized "profit" for the 501(c)(3) which would have brought us closer to buying land quicker which in the end benefits everyone.  However Morally/ethically/optically it was an AWFUL solution as it would destroy the core values of radical inclusion and non-commerce the event was founded on, favoring rich burners over poor ones.

Sometimes the optimal economic solution is not the RIGHT one


I see what you're saying.  I just meant it's a good idea for some people wanting to make a quick tax free buck.  If I'm willing to pay top dollar for a public spot, then what's the problem?  I would never do that, but  someone might.  And the city is just chapped about not getting cut out of the racket.
 
2014-06-25 04:45:21 PM

Splish: What are the ridiculously expensive pay lots going to do about this? Everywhere I've ever been the whisper is always that they're owned by the mob. Even in South Carolina, an area without any mob presence, everyone still "knows" that those private parking lots are run by the mob. They don't recover a lot of bodies from under the bridges in San Francisco, do they?


In many parts of SF, they don't even have lots to fall back on when you can't find street parking, which BTW is $4 an hour in most areas.  Better have a shiat-ton of quarters in your car.  I love this city dearly, but parking, and driving on or near Market can be soul-crushing.
 
2014-06-25 04:46:46 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.


Let's just follow this trend to its conclusion then...

- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to stand up from this park bench
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to give up my seat on this crowded train/bus
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to leave this spot on the beach
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to be finished drinking from this water fountain
- The highest bidder gets to know when my friends and I are going to be done with this picnic table and grill

Is that a world you want to live in? Is that what the social contract is all about? Are we OK with competing financially against others to use services that we've already paid for in the form of taxes?
 
2014-06-25 04:49:19 PM

shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.


I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?
 
2014-06-25 04:49:37 PM
In DC the homeless do this they will stand in an empty spot and demand money for you to park there.
 
2014-06-25 04:49:49 PM

NorCalLos: Sure; but if there's a legitimate use for the app, it's not fair to shut the whole thing down.


The city doesn't have to shut down the app. They just need to enforce their ordinance. App users can take a chance of whether they're going to get cited for using the app, just as they take a chance whether they'll get caught speeding or a tail light burning out.
 
2014-06-25 04:52:47 PM

lostcat: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Let's just follow this trend to its conclusion then...

- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to stand up from this park bench
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to give up my seat on this crowded train/bus
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to leave this spot on the beach
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to be finished drinking from this water fountain
- The highest bidder gets to know when my friends and I are going to be done with this picnic table and grill

Is that a world you want to live in? Is that what the social contract is all about? Are we OK with competing financially against others to use services that we've already paid for in the form of taxes?


The thread should end here, but it won't. Said more eloquently than I could have.
 
2014-06-25 04:53:22 PM

jigger: gunther_bumpass: jigger:

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

That is such amazing horseshiat.
Tell me, do your q-tips come out brown?

 I guess can't argue with such a detailed and well-cited rebuttal as that.


You can't argue with the actual rebuttals, either. FFS I was lobbing it to you and you dropped it.
 
2014-06-25 05:01:55 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Didn't you have a "free spot" when you were behind him? And open one up when you moved forward?


"Standing" or waiting in a traffic lane isn't parking.   But it might be blocking traffic is done for too long.

/Arrange to be waiting directly next to the auctioneer.   Become  motivated to move on when the winner shows by receiving a cut.
 
2014-06-25 05:03:35 PM
It seems like it would be easy to kill this app by getting PayPal/Visa/Mastercard to blacklist it.
 
2014-06-25 05:18:39 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.

Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them.

Not if they won't move you can't.

So how is that different than before?


LOL. Yeah this scheme is totally common. Happens all the time.

 You could ask him nicely to move and it's up to him whether to move or not. You could offer him a delicious candy bar as incentive to move. You could ask him nicely and slip him a 10 spot.

Parking your car isn't a farking profit center, the space isn't yours to sell.

They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there.

What's stopping them from paying for a bit more? If the bidding that day is good, the math can work out.

 As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.


And these people are attempting to build an incentive for sitting there until someone gives you a 20 spot for access to the space. They cannot charge for access to something owned by the public.

 They're attempting to sell access to public land.

You said that before. Repeating the same argument doesn't support it.


And you keep repeating that they're just selling information. How's that going?

As long as the meter is running and the time limit has not been reached, the person parked in that spot has an exclusive right to park in that spot and can leave when he wants and for whatever reason he wants. Whether it's that he has to go, or he just wants to be nice, or someone paid him $10 to do so, it doesn't matter.

You're living in a fantasy land.  They're attempting to sell access to public land.
 
2014-06-25 05:26:37 PM
The space on the street in front of your house or driveway is public land.  This is pretty easy to follow.

They can rent out their actual private off-street parking if they like, and there is an app for that in SF.
 
2014-06-25 05:26:53 PM

namatad: Highest bidder gets the parking spot.


I actually wouldn't mind demand-based pricing for parking.  I try to put off any trips to the nearby campus until slow times in the week (Friday morning - yes please) or lulls in the academic calendar, and it does irritate me to pay the same rate even when there's almost no one there but the meter maids.  I usually just walk the five blocks from a free lot I have access to, but sometimes I do have appointments to keep - and I'm not well known for arriving when I intend to.
 
2014-06-25 05:30:03 PM

lostcat: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Let's just follow this trend to its conclusion then...

- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to stand up from this park bench
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to give up my seat on this crowded train/bus
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to leave this spot on the beach
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to be finished drinking from this water fountain
- The highest bidder gets to know when my friends and I are going to be done with this picnic table and grill

Is that a world you want to live in? Is that what the social contract is all about? Are we OK with competing financially against others to use services that we've already paid for in the form of taxes?


Damn that's a splendid idea. Everyone look out for the next app -BeachBummer..I'll agree to give up my prime spot on the public beach to the highest bidder. You're not paying for the spot, you're just 'paying me to leave'.
 
2014-06-25 05:37:25 PM

Magorn: evil saltine: Warlordtrooper: No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot. They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.

No, they're soliciting payment to move their car at a certain time. It's not "pay $10.00 to find out I'm leaving at 4:30" it's "pay $10.00 to get me to leave now".

I love how people think that someohow just so long as they phrase something properly the illegal suddenly becomes legal.  This sort fo "magic words" theroy of the law is what the whole sovereign citizen movement is based on too.   Intent matters in the law.  The Law prohbits a private person from profiting from their use of public land without proper permits,   whether you claim they are "selling access" (which they manifestly are) or selling information about when a space is vacant, they are STILL profiting by virtue of their use of public land.

the solution is actually very simple though.

Implement a "cool down" on public parking spaces so it is not legal to park in them until after they have been fully vacant for at least 5 minutes.



Until it doesn't.  See:  Felony murder or Aaron Swartz or any other absurd interpretations of the computer fraud and abuse law.

So which is it.  Does intent matter or not, the government likes to pick and choose when it does.
 
2014-06-25 05:38:57 PM
If only the app did transactions only in bitcoin this wouldn't be a controvery.

Because its not money, ergo no profiting off public land.
 
2014-06-25 05:41:46 PM

lostcat: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Let's just follow this trend to its conclusion then...

- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to stand up from this park bench
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to give up my seat on this crowded train/bus
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to leave this spot on the beach
- The highest bidder gets to know when I'm going to be finished drinking from this water fountain
- The highest bidder gets to know when my friends and I are going to be done with this picnic table and grill

Is that a world you want to live in? Is that what the social contract is all about? Are we OK with competing financially against others to use services that we've already paid for in the form of taxes?


So basically, the person with the most money gets anything he wants.
How is that different from what we have now?
 
2014-06-25 05:43:50 PM
jnapier:

So basically, the person with the most money gets anything he wants.
How is that different from what we have now?


The person with the most money doesn't use public services, so it's just us peons who rely on first-come-first-serve to keep social unrest at bay.
 
2014-06-25 05:47:14 PM

NorCalLos: thaylin: NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.

So you travel around and pull into a vacant spot, using it up, but only so you can auction it off to someone else. That is not legit.

Sure; but if there's a legitimate use for the app, it's not fair to shut the whole thing down.


So if the majority of its use are illegitimate, and there is no way to regulate those uses, and there is only one minor legitimate use and it is barely being use for that, then yes it is.
 
2014-06-25 05:48:52 PM

cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.


Technically you are paying to be the FIRST to see them leave the spot.
 
2014-06-25 05:49:39 PM
I'm okay with this. City is just mad that they didn't think of it or how to tax it first.
 
2014-06-25 05:50:47 PM
This what driverless google cars are for - finding and hoarding prime parking spots - until the Silicon Valley billionaire gets home from work.
 
2014-06-25 05:52:30 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.

Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them.

Not if they won't move you can't.

So how is that different than before? You could ask him nicely to move and it's up to him whether to move or not. You could offer him a delicious candy bar as incentive to move. You could ask him nicely and slip him a 10 spot.

They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there.

What's stopping them from paying for a bit more? If the bidding that day is good, the math can work out.

 As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.

 They're attempting to sell access to public land.

You said that before. Repeating the same argument doesn't support it. As long as the meter is running and the time limit has not been reached, the person parked in that spot has an exclusive right to park in that spot and can leave when he wants and for whatever reason he wants. Whether it's that he has to go, or he just wants to be nice, or someone paid him $10 to do so, it doesn't matter.



It does matter. They are creating a public nuisance at the very best, and they are still profiting off the public property. If not for the ap they would have left at say 9, now they are staying till much later solely based off the app and making money for the spot. If it was just telling them when they were leaving I would not care much, but you cannot regulate that, and they are staying late, using more of the public's resources to make a buck for themselves.
 
2014-06-25 05:58:58 PM

lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?


And you are also not technically required to give these guys any money. The comparison is spot on, jsut because a 1 minor detail, its bidding over first come first serve, is difference does not make it a bad comparison.
 
2014-06-25 06:16:32 PM

Magorn: evil saltine: Warlordtrooper: No they aren't they are simply selling information about when they are leaving a parking spot. They are not selling access to the land, rather knowledge of they are done parking their car.

No, they're soliciting payment to move their car at a certain time. It's not "pay $10.00 to find out I'm leaving at 4:30" it's "pay $10.00 to get me to leave now".

I love how people think that someohow just so long as they phrase something properly the illegal suddenly becomes legal.  This sort fo "magic words" theroy of the law is what the whole sovereign citizen movement is based on too.   Intent matters in the law.  The Law prohbits a private person from profiting from their use of public land without proper permits,   whether you claim they are "selling access" (which they manifestly are) or selling information about when a space is vacant, they are STILL profiting by virtue of their use of public land.

the solution is actually very simple though.

Implement a "cool down" on public parking spaces so it is not legal to park in them until after they have been fully vacant for at least 5 minutes.


Actually, the legal "hack" that makes the most sense to me is to have a fine for occupying a parking spot for any purpose other than to conduct legitimate business with shop owners nearby.  The key point here is to make it that the police have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone sitting in a car in a parking space did not have the intent to conduct business - which would be nigh impossible to do unless, oh I don't know, the driver used an online app to explicitly declare the intent to remain in the spot until a particular other driver arrived.
 
2014-06-25 06:16:41 PM

lostcat: jnapier:

So basically, the person with the most money gets anything he wants.
How is that different from what we have now?

The person with the most money doesn't use public services, so it's just us peons who rely on first-come-first-serve to keep social unrest at bay.


relatively speaking.
You have 4 people who want the spot.  One works for minimum wage, one is a student, one makes a fair living and the other makes much more.   
For each person $10 has a different cost.  If it's working 2 hours or one less 'mocha double douche grand suicide bull shot espresso'.
To the guy with the most money of the four the $10 cost is less of a burden.
Therefore, of the people vying for the spot,the one with the most money wins.

On the other side of the coin.   I bet I can make a lot more money with my scooter sniping spots and selling them than working at Starbucks.
Plus it's tax free.  (Which is where the city is missing out.  Just put a $5 tax on each transaction)

On the third side it's better than paying the homeless guy $5 to watch your car and 'make sure nothing happens to it'.
 
2014-06-25 06:18:40 PM

iheartscotch: Maybe they should, you know, create adequate parking facilities and this wouldn't be a thing.


This......this really does point to a lack of parking.

I remember some NPR story (or something similar) where San Fran was removing the new parking requirements when new commercial spaces were built. Prior, they required X new parking spaces for each X square feet of retail/commercial space. The hippies got up and arms that parking separated the community (or some rubbish) and if they didn't build parking, people would find other more environmentally friendly ways to get to shopping districts...

I mean hell, What'sAPP grew out of telecoms stupid pricing plans for text messages....treating it like some special, precious kind of data that required premium pricing....
 
2014-06-25 06:19:33 PM

HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

They're attempting to sell access to public land. This is not a clever defense.

Ridiculous. They are selling information, not the land.

Can you get on to the land without paying them? They're selling access to something they don't own.

Yes, you can get onto the land without paying them.

Not if they won't move you can't.

They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots. Anyone parking there has paid to be parked there.

What's stopping them from paying for a bit more? If the bidding that day is good, the math can work out.

 As long as they are within the time limit, they have the right to park there and leave whenever it benefits them to do so.

 They're attempting to sell access to public land.


In many cities feeding the meter is a parking violation. You can be ticketed and towed.

Police can easily use this app to generate tickets.
 
2014-06-25 06:22:01 PM
Mithiwithi:

Actually, the legal "hack" that makes the most sense to me is to have a fine for occupying a parking spot for any purpose other than to conduct legitimate business with shop owners nearby.  The key point here is to make it that the police have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone sitting in a car in a parking space did not have the intent to conduct business - which would be nigh impossible to do unless, oh I don't know, the driver used an online app to explicitly declare the intent to remain in the spot until a particular other driver arrived.

What!?  You are going to force everyone who parks to buy something?
So if I'm going to the library I have to buy something from a store?  If I'm picking my kid up, I have to buy something?  If I'm visiting a friend I have to buy something?

So you are advocating Forced Commerce for everyone in a city?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-06-25 06:25:06 PM
Slaxl: What does it all mean?

In an urban area parking spaces are expensive. Garage structures cost money. All parking spaces take up land that might have been put to better use. Yet much of this parking is free, and much of it is wasted.

In the early 20th Century all parking was free. As cars became popular demand (at zero cost) exceeded supply and cities became clogged with cars just cruising for parking. Cities generally responded by forcing developers to provide free off street parking.

These parking lots push buildings farther apart, making walking more inconvenient, leading even more people to drive. Because each lot is private, businesses don't like to see you walk next door to keep shopping. They want you to drive away and release the space when you're done with it. This increases car traffic and leaves a lot of vacant spaces. (It also created the problem of predatory towing, but that's not Shoup's point.)

Parking lots, shared or private, are a less efficient use of space than curbside parking. A parking lot requires 300 square feet per space including access aisles. A curb space requires 150 square feet because the travel lane is used for access.

We've wasted a huge amount of money on parking we don't need. Some of it you can objectively say is wasted. Some of it is wasted or not depending on how much you like cars vs. bicycles or shoes.

Shoup's idea is to create an economically efficient solution to the parking problem by charging market rates for all currently free parking. The goal is not supposed to be maximal profit but preventing overutilization. Shoup suggests a target of 85% occupancy for street parking, which makes finding a space easy. If fewer spaces are available, the price goes up. So noon and 7 PM near a hot restaurant is expensive, the edge of the business district is cheap, and midnight may be free.

Charging market rates for parking has a few effects: (1) it reduces demand, (2) it increases spatial sharing (one space serves multiple businesses), (3) it increases temporal sharing (people move trips to cheaper hours), (4) it pushes long term parking away from centers of business districts where high turover is desirable.

Reducing demand could mean increasing carpooling, shifting of trips to different times, using alternate transportation that does not require a space at the destination, or driving away from those gouging bastards in crowded Paytown to shop in mostly vacant Freeville.

Shoup says business districts which are continuous shop front, with parking in garages at the edge of the district, work much better with fewer traffic problems.

This may not make sense but my fingers aren't acting eloquent tonight.
 
2014-06-25 06:26:42 PM

jnapier: Mithiwithi:

Actually, the legal "hack" that makes the most sense to me is to have a fine for occupying a parking spot for any purpose other than to conduct legitimate business with shop owners nearby.  The key point here is to make it that the police have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone sitting in a car in a parking space did not have the intent to conduct business - which would be nigh impossible to do unless, oh I don't know, the driver used an online app to explicitly declare the intent to remain in the spot until a particular other driver arrived.

What!?  You are going to force everyone who parks to buy something?
So if I'm going to the library I have to buy something from a store?  If I'm picking my kid up, I have to buy something?  If I'm visiting a friend I have to buy something?

So you are advocating Forced Commerce for everyone in a city?


Broaden my statement to "property owners nearby" rather than just shops specifically and that covers all your scenarios.
 
2014-06-25 06:31:37 PM

thaylin: NorCalLos: thaylin: NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.

So you travel around and pull into a vacant spot, using it up, but only so you can auction it off to someone else. That is not legit.

Sure; but if there's a legitimate use for the app, it's not fair to shut the whole thing down.

So if the majority of its use are illegitimate, and there is no way to regulate those uses, and there is only one minor legitimate use and it is barely being use for that, then yes it is.


In that case you may as well ban bittorrent and other P2P data transfer protocols.
 
2014-06-25 06:33:21 PM
"citing a local statute that explicitly bars people from buying, selling, or leasing public on-street parking"  Well good luck the city, they aren't doing any of those things.  They are selling information on when it will be available to the highest bidder.  Not buying, selling, or leasing the property.  Technically correct, the best kind.
 
2014-06-25 06:37:57 PM

sufferpuppet: "citing a local statute that explicitly bars people from buying, selling, or leasing public on-street parking"  Well good luck the city, they aren't doing any of those things.  They are selling information on when it will be available to the highest bidder.  Not buying, selling, or leasing the property.  Technically correct, the best kind.


Ah, yes. The oft-cited "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" statute. That shiat is ironclad.
 
2014-06-25 06:40:29 PM
Let me clear some things up for those of you who didn't read a well-written AP article last night on MonkeyParking.

1. SanFran already has paid parking. There are meters.

2. It is already against SF rules to scalp parking spots. (That's what these assholes are doing, after all).

3. The owner of MonkeyParking is a douchecanoe who claims his product is an innovation.. Or some shiat, I can't remember, I was laughing too hard at his delusions of grandeur.

4. The way the app works is people see a spot opening, drop money in the meter, register the location of the spot, and then wait for the highest bidder to show up and take the spot. Meanwhile, the spot sits occupied by a squatter when it could have already been filled for fifteen minutes by a legit user. This only leads to a further lack of available parking.
 
2014-06-25 06:51:05 PM

lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?


My friend considered not giving the crackhead a dollar as we were going into a club for a show and he said "Hope nothing happens to your car" and he gave the guy a dollar.
 
2014-06-25 06:53:33 PM

Warlordtrooper: thaylin: NorCalLos: thaylin: NorCalLos: I didn't RTFA; but it seems to me that what you're selling is exclusive information about when a particular spot will be vacant. Seems legit to me.

So you travel around and pull into a vacant spot, using it up, but only so you can auction it off to someone else. That is not legit.

Sure; but if there's a legitimate use for the app, it's not fair to shut the whole thing down.

So if the majority of its use are illegitimate, and there is no way to regulate those uses, and there is only one minor legitimate use and it is barely being use for that, then yes it is.

In that case you may as well ban bittorrent and other P2P data transfer protocols.


Bittorrent and P2P can be regulated, and is to a large extent. It is fairly easy to get caught if you are not cautious. In addition its legitimate uses outweighs its illegitimate uses.
 
2014-06-25 07:22:07 PM

Cerebral Ballsy: Let me clear some things up for those of you who didn't read a well-written AP article last night on MonkeyParking.

1. SanFran already has paid parking. There are meters.

2. It is already against SF rules to scalp parking spots. (That's what these assholes are doing, after all).

3. The owner of MonkeyParking is a douchecanoe who claims his product is an innovation.. Or some shiat, I can't remember, I was laughing too hard at his delusions of grandeur.

4. The way the app works is people see a spot opening, drop money in the meter, register the location of the spot, and then wait for the highest bidder to show up and take the spot. Meanwhile, the spot sits occupied by a squatter when it could have already been filled for fifteen minutes by a legit user. This only leads to a further lack of available parking.


Boing Boing will probably push this as the next Snowden.
 
Ant
2014-06-25 07:22:32 PM

jigger: They can't park there forever. There are time limits on these spots.


Not if you squat with a friend.

Park in spot for maximum time
If nobody pays you to move before the max time expires, have a friend pull into the spot and hold it for the maximum time
Repeat until someone pays you for the spot
Repeat with multiple spots
 
2014-06-25 07:27:14 PM
If they hadn't failed to make decent public transit like five times this wouldn't be an issue.

//you get a BINGO if your trip includes BART, Muni rail, Cal Train and the bus.
 
2014-06-25 07:44:53 PM

thaylin: lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?

And you are also not technically required to give these guys any money. The comparison is spot on, jsut because a 1 minor detail, its bidding over first come first serve, is difference does not make it a bad comparison.


It's not a minor detail. The homeless person doesn't selectively decide who gets the spot. The next person who comes along gets the spot. It just happens to have a homeless person standing in it who is going to ask you for money.

This app eliminates the whole "next person who comes along" part, which is how the world currently works. I'm driving along, someone pulls out of a spot, I can pull into it. With this app, the person in the spot is not going to pull out until someone offers them whatever amount of money they can get. Then they wait for that person to pull up, and only then do they pull out. The person who is just driving along looking for an open spot is not going to have a chance here.

If you can't see how that is a major difference, I don't know how you can even operate a computer.
 
2014-06-25 07:45:41 PM

shirtsbyeric: lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?

My friend considered not giving the crackhead a dollar as we were going into a club for a show and he said "Hope nothing happens to your car" and he gave the guy a dollar.


So why not make an app that simplifies the process of extortion?
 
2014-06-25 07:50:01 PM

sufferpuppet: "citing a local statute that explicitly bars people from buying, selling, or leasing public on-street parking"  Well good luck the city, they aren't doing any of those things.  They are selling information on when it will be available to the highest bidder.  Not buying, selling, or leasing the property.  Technically correct, the best kind.


No, they're selling the promise to vacate the spot on-demand. That's not selling information.
 
2014-06-25 07:50:03 PM

jnapier: lostcat: jnapier:

So basically, the person with the most money gets anything he wants.
How is that different from what we have now?

The person with the most money doesn't use public services, so it's just us peons who rely on first-come-first-serve to keep social unrest at bay.

relatively speaking.
You have 4 people who want the spot.  One works for minimum wage, one is a student, one makes a fair living and the other makes much more.   
For each person $10 has a different cost.  If it's working 2 hours or one less 'mocha double douche grand suicide bull shot espresso'.
To the guy with the most money of the four the $10 cost is less of a burden.
Therefore, of the people vying for the spot,the one with the most money wins.

On the other side of the coin.   I bet I can make a lot more money with my scooter sniping spots and selling them than working at Starbucks.
Plus it's tax free.  (Which is where the city is missing out.  Just put a $5 tax on each transaction)

On the third side it's better than paying the homeless guy $5 to watch your car and 'make sure nothing happens to it'.


OK, to answer your original question...How is "the person with the most money gets anything he wants" different than what we have now? I assume you are referring to parking spaces in general.

I'd say that when it comes to street parking, in San Francisco, it's a matter of driving around until you find an open spot. I've done this a number of times myself. It doesn't matter how much money you have. I doesn't matter how expensive your car is. What matters is that you are in the right place at the right time to see someone pulling out and get the spot before someone else.

Mitigating factors: If you have a lot of time, you can circle, or park on a less busy side street and walk farther. If your car is smaller, you may be able to fit into a spot that other cars can't get into.

But as it is right now, having money doesn't help you find street parking in San Francisco (barring the use of this app).
 
2014-06-25 07:53:34 PM

evil saltine: sufferpuppet: "citing a local statute that explicitly bars people from buying, selling, or leasing public on-street parking"  Well good luck the city, they aren't doing any of those things.  They are selling information on when it will be available to the highest bidder.  Not buying, selling, or leasing the property.  Technically correct, the best kind.

No, they're selling the promise to vacate the spot on-demand. That's not selling information.


Yeah, I think the information on where they are parked and when the plan to leave is given freely to anyone with the app. It's the highest bidder who wins something more than that information. The highest bidder wins the right to use the public space. You can't sell the right to use public space.

It would be interesting to see what happens if one of the auction losers shows up and just pretends to be the winner, or muscles into the spot. Would the winner be able to go to the police and file a complaint? What would that complaint be?
 
2014-06-25 07:59:23 PM

lostcat: thaylin: lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?

And you are also not technically required to give these guys any money. The comparison is spot on, jsut because a 1 minor detail, its bidding over first come first serve, is difference does not make it a bad comparison.

It's not a minor detail. The homeless person doesn't selectively decide who gets the spot. The next person who comes along gets the spot. It just happens to have a homeless person standing in it who is going to ask you for money.

This app eliminates the whole "next person who comes along" part, which is how the world currently works. I'm driving along, someone pulls out of a spot, I can pull into it. With this app, the person in the spot is not going to pull out until someone offers them whatever amount of money they can get. Then they wait for that person to pull up, and only then do they pull out. The person who is just driving along looking for an open spot is not going to have a chance here.

If you can't see how that is a major difference, I don't know how you can even operate a computer.


It is a minor detail. It does not matter if it is selective or not, which even in this case it is not, a computer algorithm does.

How the world currently works for parking space is EXACTLY the next person who comes along, you even stated it in your very next sentence.

And if you cannot see how this person not pulling out until someone pays him is not rent seeking on public land I am not sure how you can even open your eyes in the morning.
 
2014-06-25 08:12:45 PM
this can be easily pulled off with
1. several small junk cars
2. 2 people and a tow truck

park cars in primo spots

announce spot is available via app

highest bidder wins

while one person blocks spot

remove dead car from spot making it available for customer

profit
 
2014-06-25 08:23:03 PM

thaylin: lostcat: thaylin: lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?

And you are also not technically required to give these guys any money. The comparison is spot on, jsut because a 1 minor detail, its bidding over first come first serve, is difference does not make it a bad comparison.

It's not a minor detail. The homeless person doesn't selectively decide who gets the spot. The next person who comes along gets the spot. It just happens to have a homeless person standing in it who is going to ask you for money.

This app eliminates the whole "next person who comes along" part, which is how the world currently works. I'm driving along, someone pulls out of a spot, I can pull into it. With this app, the person in the spot is not going to pull out until someone offers them whatever amount of money they can get. Then they wait for that person to pull up, and only then do they pull out. The person who is just driving along looking for an open spot is not going to have a chance here.

If you can't see how that is a major difference, I don't know how you can even operate a computer.

It is a minor detail. It does not matter if it is selective or not, which even in this case it is not, a computer algorithm does.

How the world currently works for parking space is EXACTLY the next person who comes along, you even stated it in your very next sentence.

And if you cannot see how this person not pulling out until someone pays him is not rent seeking on public land I am not sure how you can even open your eyes in the morning.


Very confusing. Your last sentence suggests that you are opposed to this app because it involves renting public space...Which is my point in all of the posts I've made (or something very close to my point).

But before that last sentence you made a number of posts saying that this app was no different than a homeless person holding a spot and asking for money (20 years ago).

I guess I see what you are saying. The homeless person is trying to "rent" the public space by asking for money. You made the statement about how homeless people used to hold spots for money, but you didn't qualify that statement with an opinion as to whether that was OK by you, or something to be avoided.

I was attempting to show how this is different because the person with the app seeking compensation for leaving the space can physically block the space with their car, and then move it when the person who won their auction shows up. Anybody with a car could just force the homeless person to move. No law enforcement officer would allow the homeless guy to stand there and block you from pulling into the spot. So right there...Big difference.

The homeless guy is also going to let the next person who comes along take the spot, but he's going to pester that person for money. The person parking doesn't have to give him anything, but there's the chance that he'll damage the car (which would be stupid, since it would be easy to take a photo of him and say, "If my car has any damage when I get back, I'm going to the police with this photo of you").

With this app, the next person who comes along doesn't even know that the spot is going to be available momentarily. In fact, without the app, the spot would be available, because the person in the spot would have no reason to sit there and hold it. I'm sure that the payment system is immediate for the auction winner, so once the auction has ended, the funds are transferred, so again, it's not like the homeless guy...You can't choose to not pay. You've already paid.

So in those two respects that you specifically insisted show how similar this app is to homeless guys standing in parking spots 20 years ago, there's no correlation. The next person to come along doesn't know the spot is available. And the person who wins the auction for the spot can't choose not to pay.

I can't follow your statement about "a computer algorithm does..." Does what? Selective? There's no computer algorithm selecting anything. A person with a spot uses the app to let drivers in the area know that their spot is up for auction. Drivers offer what they're willing to pay. The top offer wins the spot and the fees are transacted electronically. There's no algorithm matching people to parking spaces.

Sorry, but even if we are arguing on the same side, I'm having a hard time following your arguments.
 
2014-06-25 08:30:23 PM

ZAZ: AlgaeRancher: oh sure its all fun and games, until the city council decides to do this for every public parking spot in the city.

There is a movement to implement market rate street parking nationwide. The federal DOT is paying for demonstration projects.  Donald Shoup at UCLA is the guy credited with the concept (but not necessarily the implementation).


How is that Constitutional? It is an even bigger stretch on the commerce clause than usual.
 
2014-06-25 08:35:46 PM

lostcat: thaylin: lostcat: thaylin: lostcat: shirtsbyeric: 20 years ago, homeless panhandlers would stand in empty spaces and sell them to people.

I'm pretty sure that it was first-come-first-served, and that you weren't required to give them any money. Care to try to make any other comparisons that don't really work?

And you are also not technically required to give these guys any money. The comparison is spot on, jsut because a 1 minor detail, its bidding over first come first serve, is difference does not make it a bad comparison.

It's not a minor detail. The homeless person doesn't selectively decide who gets the spot. The next person who comes along gets the spot. It just happens to have a homeless person standing in it who is going to ask you for money.

This app eliminates the whole "next person who comes along" part, which is how the world currently works. I'm driving along, someone pulls out of a spot, I can pull into it. With this app, the person in the spot is not going to pull out until someone offers them whatever amount of money they can get. Then they wait for that person to pull up, and only then do they pull out. The person who is just driving along looking for an open spot is not going to have a chance here.

If you can't see how that is a major difference, I don't know how you can even operate a computer.

It is a minor detail. It does not matter if it is selective or not, which even in this case it is not, a computer algorithm does.

How the world currently works for parking space is EXACTLY the next person who comes along, you even stated it in your very next sentence.

And if you cannot see how this person not pulling out until someone pays him is not rent seeking on public land I am not sure how you can even open your eyes in the morning.

Very confusing. Your last sentence suggests that you are opposed to this app because it involves renting public space...Which is my point in all of the posts I've made (or something very close to my point).

But b ...


Well first I was not the person making the initial comparison, I was defending them. They were saying it was illegal because of the rent seeking. A compute algorithm is making the determination of who gets the information, in this case it is choosing the person who paid the most, it is not the person making that decision, they probably dont even know who the bidders are until the winner shows up.
 
2014-06-25 08:48:11 PM
Last xmas I lucked out on a great parking spot. When I was getting ready to leave it wasn't fast enough for one lady that wanted it. She started honking, screaming, So I got out and walked to a snow-cone stand. With other cars piling up behind her she had to move on. I quickly go in and left letting someone else have the spot.
 
2014-06-25 09:00:28 PM
Instead of messing around with lawyers, why not just raise your parking charges? It's a finite supply, so surely the city should be extracting the maximum value for a limited resource?  You'll have more efficient parking, more money for the city and shops will get a higher throughput of customers (because they'll want to reduce their time shopping, meaning you can get more people coming to shops).

If people are waiting any longer than a few minutes for a parking space, you're undercharging.
 
2014-06-25 10:07:44 PM

farkeruk: Instead of messing around with lawyers, why not just raise your parking charges? It's a finite supply, so surely the city should be extracting the maximum value for a limited resource?  You'll have more efficient parking, more money for the city and shops will get a higher throughput of customers (because they'll want to reduce their time shopping, meaning you can get more people coming to shops).

If people are waiting any longer than a few minutes for a parking space, you're undercharging.


This. If demand exceeds supply, the rational solution is to raise the price.
 
2014-06-25 10:09:12 PM

jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: All2morrowsparTs: jigger: cgraves67: You're not paying them for the spot. You're paying for them to get out of it.

Exactly. And that's why the law doesn't apply and the C&D letter is without merit.

The law is about profiting off public land.

No one is buying selling or leasing property except for the city. The app users are coordinating their parking together. The time at which you leave a parking space is not public property.

You are still profiting from the use of a public space, not to mention the unintended consequences of dissuading the efficient use of that public land since this will exacerbate spot squatting.

The company itself, as a promotion, actually paid people to squat on spaces in the Mission one weekend.

So what? The people squatting in the spots were completely legally entitled to do so as long as they pay the meter and leave within the time limit.

In the case that someone is about to leave a spot, they use this app, and someone pays to park right after them, and then someone else slips into the spot before them, it's not like they would have a case against the more agile parker. They paid to know exactly when the first parker would leave the spot, expecting that the first parker would not leave until they got there. If that person got tired of waiting and left a little too soon and the paying guy didn't get his spot, then all they can do is take it up with the app company, who is in no way legally obligated to them.


I'm not sure about legally entitled to part. I wouldn't be surprised if parking spaces are defined as allowed for legitimate use as a need byproduct of doing something else where monetizing or pointlessly squatting or vending or whatever is explicitly written as not valid use.
 
2014-06-25 10:11:57 PM
This is what happens when technology stagnates and creativity regresses.
 
2014-06-25 10:57:42 PM
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-25 11:34:03 PM
I'm surprised they still allow cars in San Fran.
 
2014-06-25 11:59:19 PM

iheartscotch: Maybe they should, you know, create adequate parking facilities and this wouldn't be a thing.


Maybe you haven't heard.
San Francisco is kinda land-challenged.
 
2014-06-26 12:03:11 AM
Yo. <-- now pay me
 
2014-06-26 08:56:45 AM

ZAZ: Slaxl: What does it all mean?

In an urban area parking spaces are expensive. Garage structures cost money. All parking spaces take up land that might have been put to better use. Yet much of this parking is free, and much of it is wasted.

In the early 20th Century all parking was free. As cars became popular demand (at zero cost) exceeded supply and cities became clogged with cars just cruising for parking. Cities generally responded by forcing developers to provide free off street parking.

These parking lots push buildings farther apart, making walking more inconvenient, leading even more people to drive. Because each lot is private, businesses don't like to see you walk next door to keep shopping. They want you to drive away and release the space when you're done with it. This increases car traffic and leaves a lot of vacant spaces. (It also created the problem of predatory towing, but that's not Shoup's point.)

Parking lots, shared or private, are a less efficient use of space than curbside parking. A parking lot requires 300 square feet per space including access aisles. A curb space requires 150 square feet because the travel lane is used for access.

We've wasted a huge amount of money on parking we don't need. Some of it you can objectively say is wasted. Some of it is wasted or not depending on how much you like cars vs. bicycles or shoes.

Shoup's idea is to create an economically efficient solution to the parking problem by charging market rates for all currently free parking. The goal is not supposed to be maximal profit but preventing overutilization. Shoup suggests a target of 85% occupancy for street parking, which makes finding a space easy. If fewer spaces are available, the price goes up. So noon and 7 PM near a hot restaurant is expensive, the edge of the business district is cheap, and midnight may be free.

Charging market rates for parking has a few effects: (1) it reduces demand, (2) it increases spatial sharing (one space ...


That's all well and good until you get fired because you can't afford to park by the place you work and your boss won't reserve spots for you because those are for paying customers.

In short, like most idealist, Shoup completely neglects to take into account that people are dicks.
 
2014-06-26 12:36:03 PM

stuffy: Last xmas I lucked out on a great parking spot. When I was getting ready to leave it wasn't fast enough for one lady that wanted it. She started honking, screaming, So I got out and walked to a snow-cone stand. With other cars piling up behind her she had to move on. I quickly go in and left letting someone else have the spot.


Well, according to a bunch of people in this thread are a terrorist for occupying a parking space when someone else wanted it.
 
2014-06-26 12:41:59 PM

NorCalLos: stuffy: Last xmas I lucked out on a great parking spot. When I was getting ready to leave it wasn't fast enough for one lady that wanted it. She started honking, screaming, So I got out and walked to a snow-cone stand. With other cars piling up behind her she had to move on. I quickly go in and left letting someone else have the spot.

Well, according to a bunch of people in this thread are a terrorist for occupying a parking space when someone else wanted it.


Yeah, because there's no difference between trolling an impatient a hole and forcing someone to pay you to leave a spot.
 
Displayed 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report