MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Is your driveway public space?
No-no. Not the driveway. Curbside. Public property.
Is your driveway public space?
No-no. Not the driveway. Curbside. Public property.
no you are auction a spot. public parking is first come first serve.
Why is yoir behavior not asswipery
And who goes to jail.for getting assaulted?
And why aren't you the one getting punched for selling something you couldn't deliver?
And if youre in a timed spot, YOU will get the cops ire.
And i can film you putting more money in the meter if you try that.
Is your driveway public space?
Right. First come, first serve. Thus, if I have an app and get there before you even realize the spot is becoming available I'll bet you a box of Hershey's Tooth Glue that I'll be there before you are.
I'm really amazed at how many people are arguing for an unethical scheme.
This world is really going downhill.
I'm sorry if your moral code doesn't allow you to see the unethical nature. I'm not going to write e lengthy paragraph about ethics.Please explain why you think this scheme is unethical. Why would it be more ethical for people to dawdle with no financial incentive to vacate a spot while other people run around in circles until they can find a spot on their own as opposed to a scheme in which people are informed about the availability of a space in exchange for a financial incentive?
I'm sorry if your moral code doesn't allow you to see the unethical nature. I'm not going to write e lengthy paragraph about ethics.
At least SF is coming down with it, has the city code to back it up.
Have you ever tried to park in SF? Do you really think the people willing to be gouged an extra $20 to park should be favored over those who can't?
Wow.
I'm sorry you don't understand.
How is occupying a public space for profit, effectively collecting payment for what you do not own, a 1st amendment right?Yeah, I don't, and I'm thinking that since you can't or won't explain it you don't really understand it either.
How is occupying a public space for profit, effectively collecting payment for what you do not own, a 1st amendment right?
Did you see the city ordinances listed above?
Do you disagree with the legality?
How is tying up a parking spot, which are in very short supply in SF, until someone pays you for it ethical?
It's not that I can't explain the ethics of it, it's that it would take too much time. Time that would probably be wasted on someone that doesn't see it as so, and probably never would. How much time might I waste and how many paragraphs on ethics would it take?
Parking monkey only works by you waiting longer than you normally would, hence, tying up a parking space otherwise not tied up.
You're looking at the problem of efficient utilization of the available parking spots in one dimension. Doesn't it stand to reason that someone will find a spot quicker with the app than he otherwise would? Otherwise, why pay the money?
Yes, the person with the app will find a spot quicker. However, the efficiency of parking will service more people as random person fills it almost immediacy after a person withing for a paying client waits, and waits, and waits... longer than they would have otherwise.
Like I said, you're looking at the problem in one dimension. You're assuming someone will see the spot the moment I vacate it. That's not a given. Then you're assuming that people who are given a financial incentive to move their vehicles won't do it faster than people who can stay parked for the maximum permitted time because it's free. You're also assuming I get to my car before the guy who's paid to know I'm leaving it arrives. THAT'S not a given; who's to say I didn't arrange ahead of time to meet the guy at specific time and that he won't be there waiting for ME? You're also assuming that people won't consume more of a "free" resource. On what planet has that ever happened? The simple fact is a parking spot for a private vehicle is NOT a public good; it is neither non-excludable nor non-rivalrous, and these technologies tear the loincloth off of a public entity's attempt to create a public good in this instance.
So, why privilege the people willing to pay more? For the same reason we apply the laws of supply and demand to any non-public good: to more efficiently manage a scarce resource. No one can claim that parking in San Francisco isn't scarce or that the current chaos is working for anyone.
Being a progressive city, are you suggesting their cost of living isn't already high enough?One more thing. Don't you see an irony in a supposedly forward-looking, progressive city like San Francisco clinging to subsidies for an inefficient, polluting relic of the 20th Century called the personal passenger automobile? In a densely populated city like that you'd think they'd be charging more for parking (by selling permits and increasing meter rates to reflect market realities) to subsidize trolley and bus tickets. Then the need for phone apps like MonkeyParking wouldn't be nearly as urgent. And wouldn't that solution be better for the planet?
Being a progressive city, are you suggesting their cost of living isn't already high enough?
Have you ever been there?
Are you digesting what I'm writing? I'm saying get the cars off the roads by removing the parking subsidies and use the increased revenues to subsidize mass transit.
Parking subsidies?
What are you talking about?