Page 6 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 259

Thread: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

  1. #51
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    It's a parking spot, not an apartment
    No one said they were the same thing. Do you understand how examples which refute your non-existent points work? You consider you have a stronger claim to the ownership of a parking spot - which is public property - than you that of a apartment - which is rented to you explicitly. That is laughable on the surface. You feel that paying for a service allows you to engage in the sale/trading of that service without concern for the terms of use. That's simply contrary to the very notion of how public property works.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #52
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,912

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You consider you have a stronger claim to the ownership of a parking spot - which is public property - than you that of a apartment - which is rented to you explicitly.
    I made no such claim. If I rent an apartment and the landlord violates my rights, I might sue him. I doubt I'd sue the city if it prevented me from collecting a $10 finder's fee on a parking space. I do wonder, however, on what legal basis the city has the right via a city ordinance to void a private contract made (privately) between two people in interstate or international commerce, especially if all the seller is doing is selling knowledge of an available parking spot. (The Internet, presumably, runs all over the planet, and MonkeyParking is based in Italy.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You feel that paying for a service allows you to engage in the sale/trading of that service without concern for the terms of use. That's simply contrary to the very notion of how public property works.
    OK, so what are the terms of use? I put my money in the meter and I get the right to park for a specific period of time (or I agree to use the spot only during certain hours or whatever). I've upheld my end of the bargain when I leave within the agreed upon time and let the next guy put his coins in. Other than that, what's left: the city ordinance that's attempting to restrict private communications and contracts in interstate/international commerce concerning information about the availability of a public parking spot. Now, I don't know which side would win the argument in this case in court, but I do know the city is trying to repeal a basic law of economics: supply and demand.
    Нава́льный 2018

  3. #53
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    This is fairly close to what ABC, NBC, and CBS are doing, but for way, way more money.

  4. #54
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,030

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    At some point this will be Obamas fault. Or Bush.
    Harvey Milk's fault.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    This is hilarious. The progressives in San Francisco can either stifle free speech or permit the capitalists to hold public parking spots hostage for private gain:
    This is where liberalism always ends up. The state is king. One need look no further than California to see where liberalism goes.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    I made no such claim. If I rent an apartment and the landlord violates my rights, I might sue him. I doubt I'd sue the city if it prevented me from collecting a $10 finder's fee on a parking space.
    And yet, the city is suing people/companies who violate the terms of use for public property. In the same way a landlord would sue renters who violate the terms of usage. So your point is irrelevant.

    I do wonder, however, on what legal basis the city has the right via a city ordinance to void a private contract made (privately) between two people in interstate or international commerce, especially if all the seller is doing is selling knowledge of an available parking spot.
    It does so on the grounds that at no point do you have the legal right to rent out or sell the parking spot to someone else.

    OK, so what are the terms of use?
    Let's start with the advertisement of public property for benefit:

    Article 2. Unlawfully Placing Signs On Public And Private Property :: Penal Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    556. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain, or
    cause to be placed or maintained without lawful permission upon any
    property of the State, or of a city or of a county
    , any sign,
    picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device which is
    used for the purpose of advertising or which advertises or brings to
    notice any person, article of merchandise, business or profession, or
    anything that is to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away


    556.1. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain or
    cause to be placed or maintained upon any property in which he has no
    estate or right of possession any sign, picture, transparency,
    advertisement, or mechanical device which is used for the purpose of
    advertising, or which advertises or brings to notice any person,
    article of merchandise, business or profession, or anything that is
    to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away, without the consent
    of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession of such property

    before such sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
    mechanical device is placed upon the property.

    And finally:

    556.3. Any sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
    mechanical device placed on any property contrary to the provisions
    of Sections 556 and 556.1, is a public nuisance.

    Alright, hope all of this was helpful. You have no right to advertise public property for the purposes of even so much as renting it without permission from the body which the space belongs to. In this case, the city owns the parking spot and provides it to people - you - as some guy from the street who has no clue how ownership or public property works - have no right to infringe on said property by trying to advertise it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #57
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,912

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And yet, the city is suing people/companies who violate the terms of use for public property. In the same way a landlord would sue renters who violate the terms of usage. So your point is irrelevant.
    In the instant case the city is threatening a lawsuit. Threatening a lawsuit and actually winning one are two separate things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It does so on the grounds that at no point do you have the legal right to rent out or sell the parking spot to someone else.
    The city would have a point if I parked a lawn chain in a public parking spot and hoisted a sign that read, "Parking available-- $10.00." However, the law gets murkier if I tell an app where the spot is that I'm vacating and whoever hits my bid, be it $5, $10, or $20, is told where to go. So I'm not selling the spot as much as I am knowledge of its availability. I get paid after the other party successfully parks in it. Then if any money is due for actually renting the spot he puts it in the meter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Alright, hope all of this was helpful. You have no right to advertise public property for the purposes of even so much as renting it without permission from the body which the space belongs to. In this case, the city owns the parking spot and provides it to people - you - as some guy from the street who has no clue how ownership or public property works - have no right to infringe on said property by trying to advertise it.
    I appreciate your contributions to this thread and for livening the (mostly) civil discussion, but this statute seems as though it's geared more toward my lawn chair example and not a smartphone app. No doubt that as these technologies continue to evolve the way people interact and conduct business some of these laws will need to be rewritten or modified.
    Last edited by Ahlevah; 06-25-14 at 12:29 AM.
    Нава́льный 2018

  8. #58
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Harvey Milk's fault.
    Who???????

  9. #59
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,483

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Herrera contends MonkeyParking and two other similar parking startups also facing legal action have built business models entirely premised on illegal transactions - selling access to part of a public street.
    If selling access to part of a public street is an illegal transaction then I want to know when the parking meters will be removed and public parking permit requirements will be repealed.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    The city would have a point if I parked a lawn chain in a public parking spot and hoisted a sign that read, "Parking available-- $10.00."...So I'm not selling the spot as much as I am knowledge of its availability. I get paid after the other party successfully parks in it.
    Only there is absolutely no difference between either of those examples in both cases you are trying to sell off what was never yours to sell in the first place.

    but this statute seems as though it's geared more toward my lawn chair example and not a smartphone app
    It's geared towards advertising period regardless of what method is used to advertise. Look, you seriously have no clue what you're discussing at all. That is why you've so far been unable to counter with anything other than "I don't like the law." If you don't like the law? Say that. Don't come here and claim that the city protecting public property is a violation of your non-existent right to sell off public property. Again and for the last time: You have no right to sell/auction/give away property that never belonged to you.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 6 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •