• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

MaggieD said:
No-no. Not the driveway. Curbside. Public property.
Click to expand...

Residential parking made possible by the residents themselves. That's not public space like a business, more like a club.
 
ludin said:
no you are auction a spot. public parking is first come first serve.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What if...? said:
Why is yoir behavior not asswipery
Click to expand...

Why? Are people in San Francisco pulling numbers or queuing up for parking spots on public streets before they know they're available? Because unless they're doing that I have just as much right to a public parking spot as anyone else. Like someone else said, first-come, first-served.

What if...? said:
And who goes to jail.for getting assaulted?
Click to expand...

Relax. I was kidding about punching the guy and the jail part.

What if...? said:
And why aren't you the one getting punched for selling something you couldn't deliver?
Click to expand...

The other party should realize that someone else might show up. If he can't get the spot he doesn't have to pay.

What if...? said:
And if youre in a timed spot, YOU will get the cops ire.
Click to expand...

So I'll move, and if you happen to have guessed correctly that the guy sitting in a car was a Monkey Parking customer you win the prize. Congratulations.

What if...? said:
And i can film you putting more money in the meter if you try that.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out. As long as the meter is paid I can park there. I've never seen a meter maid ticket someone for putting money in a meter.
 
ecofarm said:
Is your driveway public space?
Click to expand...

No, but then no one claims to have any right to park in her private drive without her permission. Unless it's a permitted spot, the city extends the right to park in a public parking space to any driver and vehicle legally authorized or licensed to operating in the state.
 
"MonkeyParking"????


WTF has civilization devolved to when you can no longer park your monkey for free???

 
I'm really amazed at how many people are arguing for an unethical scheme.

This world is really going downhill.
 
Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...

yep and if you are paying for that spot you are committing an illegal act.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm really amazed at how many people are arguing for an unethical scheme.

This world is really going downhill.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ahlevah said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it has to do with depriving the less fortunate or the uninformed of a civic birthright, or something to that effect?

Lord of Planar said:
At least SF is coming down with it, has the city code to back it up.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently they think their ordinance takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution. I suppose we'll see, because I don't imagine these companies are going down without a fight, immoral or not.

Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

I grew up less than 30 miles from the LA Civic Center, so I'm familiar with parking and traffic issues. This app would have been a godsend. And, yeah, actually I have parked in San Francisco on several occasions, the latest having been just last October. I found a spot near the Maritime Museum. I backed up to let a young women driving a crossover with a kid in tow have more space and she proceeded to keep backing up using a camera until she was within inches of my bumper. I honked my horn and she stopped, and I backed up again to give me room to get out. She started moving again. This time I gave her a nice, long blast. She stopped and then approached me. When I told her about her proximity to my vehicle and not leaving me room to exit the parking spot she gave me a dismissive toss of her brow and said, "Well, I knew how far I was. I'm sorry if I made you nervous." She then the darted off before I could respond again. Spoken like a true liberal, and reinforcement that my decision to leave the state permanently twenty years ago was a good one. Anyway, it probably a good thing that she left. If not for the kid I would have told her if she wanted to get poked in the ass there were other, better ways to do it.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

I'm sorry you don't understand.
 
Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've already touched on all of this previously, so I suppose I could say I'm wasting my time, too, except that I'm not trying to convince you as much as someone else who's sitting on the fence who may not have read all of the previous discussion. Since this is a debate board and you've already pretty much conceded the point by copping out, my job should be easier. I was hoping for more of a challenge.

To reprise:

Q: How is occupying a public space for profit, effectively collecting payment for what you do not own, a 1st amendment right?

A: You're engaging in faulty logic here by distorting my contention that exchanging information that doesn't involve something clearly illicit (such as espionage) involves the First Amendment into something I don't recognize.

Q: So you see the ordinances named above?

A: Yes, I did, and I questioned their validity in this case based on jurisdictional and applicable grounds. Hatuey seems to think that San Francisco can regulate the Internet and that when I tell someone I'm leaving a parking spot I'm posting a sign on public property.

Q: Do you disagree with the legality?

A: Well, unless San Francisco can pull another legal rabbit out of its hat, I don't see where anything illegal is being done here. The day it becomes illegal to sell information that doesn't involve insider trading or state secrets is the day this republic ended.

Q: How is tying up a parking spot, which are in very short supply in SF, until someone pays you for it ethical?

A: Would it be more ethical for me to sit longer in the spot contemplating my navel because it was free and I wasn't receiving a financial incentive to move? I could tie up a spot if I weren't getting paid, too, right? Like I said earlier, what if I just wanted to sit in Starbucks for hours listening to tunes, knowing other people needed the spot? Why is that less "immoral"? Would it be ethical for me to tell the app about the spot and then just leave, playing a numbers game and hoping someone gets it? Since I don't like wasting my time and I also like money, it would make more sense for me to keep wait times to a minimum by figuring out when I'd be leaving and letting the app know that. Since I had a financial incentive to leave I might leave sooner. Thus, instead of some poor schmuck wasting his time driving around, he'll have a spot the moment it becomes available. Why is that less moral than just letting him hope he'll chance upon my empty spot?
 
Last edited:
Wow.

OK, interesting justification.

I wonder, how long would you wait doing nothing, if not getting paid?

Parking monkey only works by you waiting longer than you normally would, hence, tying up a parking space otherwise not tied up.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Parking monkey only works by you waiting longer than you normally would, hence, tying up a parking space otherwise not tied up.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ahlevah said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Why privilege the people willing to pay more? At some pointing, the person not willing or able to pay more will never find parking, as the app usage rises. This leads to a class parking system.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...

We simply will not agree. I hope the SF PD gets Parking monkey on their phones, drive around in unmarked cars, and ticket or jail people for holding public parking hostage.

I'm going to write them a letter suggesting just that.

What was the listed fines available?

The city can make several thousand a day per police officer I bet, bidding for the spots and taking out the offenders...
 
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? :confused:
 
Ahlevah said:
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? :confused:
Click to expand...
Being a progressive city, are you suggesting their cost of living isn't already high enough?

Have you ever been there?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Being a progressive city, are you suggesting their cost of living isn't already high enough?

Have you ever been there?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Parking subsidies?

What are you talking about?

The only parking subsidies I know of in SF are those at park and ride locations. This is in effect a mass transit subsidy, not parking subsidy, because that's what it reduces the cost of.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Parking subsidies?

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Free parking and meter rates below the market rates for parking spots in private garages. One reason private rates are so high is public rates are so low. Lower the number of cars coming into the city and rates will drop overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom