Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 259

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

  1. #61
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    10-02-17 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    521

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

    They aren't selling a physical spot, they are selling their time while sitting in said spot. Sounds legit to me. There is no law that says you need to vacate your parking space within a certain time limit. They have posted signs for those areas that show the parking hours if that were the case. If there is no meter or they want to feed the meter is none of anyone's business.

    As far as I see it, the only thing being sold is time. Hardly illegal IMO.

  2. #62
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    10-02-17 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    521

    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.



    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.



    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.
    Where does it say they are selling public property? From what I can tell and a good defense in court is....they are selling their time. Not property.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    True, but what would your solution be?

    Ever been to downtown San Francisco, driving, parking, etc?

    I have, several time. Such a system makes it even harder to find parking, unless you are will to pay someone holding a space hostage.

    That's what it is. the parking spaces will be held for hostage. It will come to a point where nobody will be able to find parking without the app and paying for it.

    It might not be illegal now, but it is most certainly unethical.
    Perhaps the city needs to find a way to motivate the construction of more parking.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JRSaindo View Post
    Where does it say they are selling public property? From what I can tell and a good defense in court is....they are selling their time. Not property.
    Trying to change the wording for business operated on the basis of a belief in the non-existent ownership of public property doesn't make it any less of a business. Psychiatrists could be said sell their time - does that make their services not subject to the law? Again, this is a business founded on the marketing of public property for personal gain. It's illegal. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't try to do somersaults trying to circumvent the language of the law.
    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

  5. #65
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,906

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    Perhaps the city needs to find a way to motivate the construction of more parking.
    Well, it could do that by raising the price of public parking to a more normal market level. It could take the increased revenue and funnel that to better public transportation or park-and-ride facilities. Permitting these apps would also free up spots by motivating people to vacate them. But I don't think more free parking is the way to go. The land is too expensive for that. When was the last time anyone saw a private garage in Manhattan? I saw one, which, incidentally, was pointed out by our GrayLine tour guide, and I imagine the townhouse over it was worth millions. The simple fact is San Francisco has been gentrifying for decades and is likely to continue to so. The median sales price of a home there is now pushing $950,000. (They'll never admit it, but liberals are basically snobs, too. Otherwise, they'd be flocking to Vallejo. )
    Нава́льный 2018

  6. #66
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JRSaindo View Post
    As far as I see it, the only thing being sold is time. Hardly illegal IMO.
    I see your point.

    At the same time, a property owner, in this case the city, has a general ability to place some restrictions on future transactions of their products and services ( "not for resale", "packaged product not to be sold individually", "no sub renting", "not for commercial use" etc.)

    I think the city's ban will be considered an allowable restriction. If so, then I bet they ticket the seller, not the buyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution. It shouldn't be criminal in any case.
    Perhaps it should not be criminal, but I think the city (property owner) can forbid it through their ability to place some restrictions on the future sales conditions of their products. Please see examples above.
    Last edited by Cryptic; 06-25-14 at 11:53 AM.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,906

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    Oh, but there are some major differences. In my lawn chair example, the transaction takes place completely within the confines of the city. Not so with a transaction that takes place over the Internet with a third-party facilitator located in a foreign country. I mean, if the U.S. government has had issues suing website operators located overseas for conducting activities allegedly in violation of U.S. laws, I imagine San Francisco would have a problem as well. Also, if I'm taking physical possession of the spot with my lawn chair solely for the purpose of making money I'm, in your words, violating the terms of use. If I simply get paid a finder's fee for informing others of when I'm doing what I'd be doing anyway-- vacating the spot-- how am I expropriating it? I don't see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It's geared towards advertising period regardless of what method is used to advertise.
    Well, yes, but the statute's very specific:

    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.
    So what MonkeyParking app user is placing or maintaining a sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device ON the parking space?
    Last edited by Ahlevah; 06-25-14 at 12:34 PM.
    Нава́льный 2018

  8. #68
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,906

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    I think the city's ban will be considered an allowable restriction. If so, then I bet they ticket the seller, not the buyer.
    I'm wondering how the city would enforce this. They going to confiscate the driver's iPhone or what?
    Нава́льный 2018

  9. #69
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    I'm wondering how the city would enforce this. They going to confiscate the driver's iPhone or what?
    Probably just fine him. They may have to post a "no reselling" contract sticker on each meter. Then, all they need to do is point to the sticker, and then fine him for violating the contract.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,453

    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.
    This is 100% Pelosi country.

Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •