Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4138 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 38 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report