• 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

Hatuey said:
Of course it doesn't. He's been trying to sneak around what the law says on this matter through the entire thread. He actually tried to claim that laws against advertising the sale/use of public property pertained to people who physically place ads and not internet based advertisement. He's probably a shrill for the company and was expecting people on this forum to actually buy the bull**** claim that what is being transferred for information. If information was what was being transferred, there wouldn't be a need for payment after the parking spot has been taken over from the person who placed the advertisement for it in the first place.What is being paid for is access to spot, not the information for it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. To sum it up, if what was really being sold was information, then the app would fail. A person would sell the information that they are now leaving their parking space, and then they would leave. If the buyer doesn't get there in time, too bad. Good luck surviving with an app like that.

The very act of holding the space and then leaving only once someone pays you makes this far more than simple information transfer.
 
Ahlevah said:
If you'd read the thread, then you'd know that the buyer doesn't pay until he gets possession of the spot. The seller is NOT guaranteeing that the buyer will actually receive it.
Click to expand...
If the seller isn't getting paid til the buyer is in the spot...

How can you seriously claim that no one is selling access to the spot?

If the only thing being sold was information on available spots, the seller would get paid at the time of the query, not when the spot was filled.


If people are occupying parking spots, and only leaving when the person who will pay them money for the spot shows up....they're selling access to the spot.
 
The Mark said:
If the seller isn't getting paid til the buyer is in the spot...

How can you seriously claim that no one is selling access to the spot?

If the only thing being sold was information on available spots, the seller would get paid at the time of the query, not when the spot was filled.

If people are occupying parking spots, and only leaving when the person who will pay them money for the spot shows up....they're selling access to the spot.
Click to expand...
How can this not be blindingly obvious?
 
I'm not robbing a bank I'm providing a security audit! You progressive Nazi's just don't understand capitalism.
 
ludin said:
a private lamp belongs to the person that owns it. therefore that person can buy and sell that lamp with no problem at all.
Click to expand...

Part of his argument is that the "Monkey" is selling property he doesn't own. My example illustrates the absurdity of this argument in that the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling a lamp as much as he is informing the buyer of its availability.

ludin said:
These spaces are not owned by the person in them they belong to the public at large.
Click to expand...

That's right. And, as I said, no one is selling anything other than knowledge that a parking spot is available.
 
Ahlevah said:
Part of his argument is that the "Monkey" is selling property he doesn't own. My example illustrates the absurdity of this argument in that the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling a lamp as much as he is informing the buyer of its availability.



That's right. And, as I said, no one is selling anything other than knowledge that a parking spot is available.
Click to expand...
False. They are holding the parking space until the buyer arrives, meaning they are selling the service of holding a parking space and making it unavailable others. It is completely illogical if not dishonest to say that only information is being sold. Since they do not own the parking space, they by extension cannot sell access to the parking space. Doing so violates the rights of others to freely use the space without having to pay for it. If everyone started using the app, for example, eventually you would have to pay to ever find a parking space, favoring the rich, harming the poor, and completely violating the city's ownership of parking spaces and its intent to make them publicly accessible. Your argument is complete nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
By holding the parking spaces until another car comes, and then collecting money for holding those spaces, these people are in practice selling parking spaces. Call it selling information all you want, but that is simply attempted to put lipstick on a pig. End of story. What these people are doing is no more legal than random people deciding to park on my driveway.
Click to expand...

Parking in a public spot and parking in your driveway are not the same. When I park in a public spot, my claim on it is based solely on occupancy. Nothing else. If I want to sit in a public space and pick my fingernails all afternoon, thereby denying others of its availability, no one will raise a peep of protest over it because they have no knowledge of why I'm using it or when I plan to vacate it. In point of fact, it really isn't their business. Likewise, if neighbors in a city where off-street parking is unavailable cooperate and exchange spots by moving their cars periodically to avoid tickets no one raises a fuss about that because one member of the public can't subordinate another's right to occupy a space. It is strictly on a "first-come, first-served basis." In the case of cooperating neighbors, they are likely to be the ones who are first-served simply because they know their neighbors will be moving as well.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
Parking in a public spot and parking in your driveway are not the same. When I park in a public spot, my claim on it is based solely on occupancy. Nothing else. If I want to sit in a public space and pick my fingernails all afternoon, thereby denying others of its availability, no one will raise a peep of protest over it because they have no knowledge of why I'm using it or when I plan to vacate it. In point of fact, it really isn't their business. Likewise, if neighbors in a city where off-street parking is often full cooperate and exchange spots by moving their cars periodically to avoid tickets no one raises a fuss about that because one member of the public can't subordinate another's right to occupy a space. It is strictly on a "first-come, first-served basis." In the case of cooperating neighbors, they are likely to be the ones who are first-served simply because they know their neighbors will be moving as well.
Click to expand...

+1

This whole business is an infrigement, as someone posted early:

The 1st Amendment isn't impeded in any way such as the 1st Amendment isn't impeded when one solicits Prosititution (sp?).
 
Ahlevah said:
Parking in a public spot and parking in your driveway are not the same. When I park in a public spot, my claim on it is based solely on occupancy. Nothing else. If I want to sit in a public space and pick my fingernails all afternoon, thereby denying others of its availability, no one will raise a peep of protest over it because they have no knowledge of why I'm using it or when I plan to vacate it. In point of fact, it really isn't their business. Likewise, if neighbors in a city where off-street parking is often full cooperate and exchange spots by moving their cars periodically to avoid tickets no one raises a fuss about that because one member of the public can't subordinate another's right to occupy a space. It is strictly on a "first-come, first-served basis." In the case of cooperating neighbors, they are likely to be the ones who are first-served simply because they know their neighbors will be moving as well.
Click to expand...
When the city says there is a 2 hour limit, and you are sitting there by your car 3 hours later, there is a problem. The comparison is about ownership. The city owns the streets, and by extension access to parking on them (parking spaces). Because the city is meant to represent the population as a whole, the policies of use of parking spaces are looser than policies set by owners of private driveways (which pretty much are for the owner's use only). That is the difference you pointed out, but it is not a relevant one to the analogy. The point is just as I own my driveway, the city owns public streets and thus the parking spaces it zones on them.

Look at it this way. Say I wanted to open my driveway up as public parking with the same rules as a typical city. Then imagine people making my driveway unavailable to others by holding the spaces for the highest bidder, thus selling access to my driveway. As the owner of the driveway, I have every right to stop people from such a practice. It is my driveway, I own the ability to grant others access to it, and anyone who attempts to sell access without my permission is violating my property rights. They have no right to sell access to a driveway that they do not own.
 
Ahlevah said:
Part of his argument is that the "Monkey" is selling property he doesn't own. My example illustrates the absurdity of this argument in that the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling a lamp as much as he is informing the buyer of its availability.



That's right. And, as I said, no one is selling anything other than knowledge that a parking spot is available.[/QUOTE

He is selling property he doesn't own. a finders fee is not the same as what is going on here.

From investopedia.

A commission paid to an intermediary or the facilitator of a transaction. The finder's fee is rewarded because the intermediary discovered the deal and brought it forth to interested parties. Depending on the circumstance, the finder's fee can be paid by either the transaction's buyer or seller.

Also known as "referral income" or "referral fee".

In a finders fee it doesn't matter if the person gets the lamp or not they will pay a fee to the person that found it regardless the outcome of the sale for finding the lamp.

Yes but you also said that the person doesn't get paid unless they get that parking spot. which means they are not paying for knowledge otherwise they would have to pay upon knowing about the parking spot regardless if they get it or not.

no they only get paid IF they get the parking spot. which means they are not paying for knowledge but the spot itself.

the two are not the same.
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
That's right. And, as I said, no one is selling anything other than knowledge that a parking spot is available.
Click to expand...
Except you are refusing to accept one important part of the equation.

Unless you stay there, you are not providing information only. If someone else takes the spot, and the person who you expect to pay for it doesn't, how do you know without waiting and verifying the person who took the spot is the one willing to pay for it?
 
Ahlevah said:
Parking in a public spot and parking in your driveway are not the same. When I park in a public spot, my claim on it is based solely on occupancy. Nothing else. If I want to sit in a public space and pick my fingernails all afternoon, thereby denying others of its availability, no one will raise a peep of protest over it because they have no knowledge of why I'm using it or when I plan to vacate it.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Seriously?

Are you going to plug in $3/hr in the meter to pick your fingernails?
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Seriously?

Are you going to plug in $3/hr in the meter to pick your fingernails?
Click to expand...

Did you read the part where I found a free spot near the Maritime Museum? These aren't the only free spots in the city, you know.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.806...!1e1!3m2!1szKOY79msGOBtYKFrQ-09ZA!2e0!6m1!1e1

But the point is there are no conditions placed on when I can leave, as long as I'm within the allowed window. So it's really no one else's business about WHEN I leave the spot. If I want to wait to give it to a hot blonde, I can do that, right? Not saying I would, but I'm well within my rights to do that, am I not?
 
Ahlevah said:
Did you read the part where I found a free spot near the Maritime Museum? These aren't the only free spots in the city, you know.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.806...!1e1!3m2!1szKOY79msGOBtYKFrQ-09ZA!2e0!6m1!1e1

But the point is there are no conditions placed on when I can leave, as long as I'm within the allowed window. So it's really no one else's business about WHEN I leave the spot. If I want to wait to give it to a hot blonde, I can do that, right? Not saying I would, but I'm well within my rights to do that, am I not?
Click to expand...
Indeed so.

But you are not within your rights to receive money for your time spent waiting.
 
Well, the 11th is a few short days away.

I can't wait to hear the liberal pundits complain about what happens...
 
The Mark said:
Indeed so.

But you are not within your rights to receive money for your time spent waiting.
Click to expand...

Through more than two hundred posts, no one has explained to me the legal basis that allows San Francisco to apply a local ordinance to a foreign-based corporation that has no physical presence in San Francisco. On what basis can San Francisco regulate foreign commercial activity on the Internet?
 
Ahlevah said:
Through more than two hundred posts, no one has explained to me the legal basis that allows San Francisco to apply a local ordinance to a foreign-based corporation that has no physical presence in San Francisco. On what basis can San Francisco regulate foreign commercial activity on the Internet?
Click to expand...
They might not be able to, except as an accessory to crime. Didn't someone post SF laws showing why the practice was illegal?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Except you are refusing to accept one important part of the equation.
Click to expand...

By the same token, you're ignoring my point concerning my right to vacate a spot when I choose to vacate it. You're also telling me I don't have the right to tell someone else when I choose to vacate it (even if it's for money), because, when you cut to the chase, that's the only effective way you can prevent me from holding a spot for someone who needs it.
 
Ahlevah said:
By the same token, you're ignoring my point concerning my right to vacate a spot when I choose to vacate it. You're also telling me I don't have the right to tell someone else when I choose to vacate it (even if it's for money), because, when you cut to the chase, that's the only effective way you can prevent me from holding a spot for someone who needs it.
Click to expand...
We can go round and round forever. At the end of the day, we will still disagree. I hope the police do patrol and ticket the unethical actions of those staying longer in a spot, for a few bux.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We can go round and round forever. At the end of the day, we will still disagree. I hope the police do patrol and ticket the unethical actions of those staying longer in a spot, for a few bux.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think, in the end, we can just agree to disagree. I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already, and when you start repeating yourself it's time to quit. But I appreciate everyone's participation and consider the thread to have been a success. Never in a million years did I expect a mundane topic like public parking to garner such spirited discussion. Thanks for your contribution. :2wave:
 
Ahlevah said:
Through more than two hundred posts, no one has explained to me the legal basis that allows San Francisco to apply a local ordinance to a foreign-based corporation that has no physical presence in San Francisco.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled that the standard of proof is that the foreign company needs to have clear links the state where the lawsuit is brought. As the company is providing a service entirely dependent on San Francisco public parking, the ties are more than obvious. Physical presence is irrelevant.

Supreme Court Limits Scope For Suing Foreign Companies In The US - Corporate/Commercial Law - United States

Foreign companies doing business in the US are often concerned about getting sued before a US court, even in situations where there is no apparent connection to the US. In its recent Daimler AG v Bauman et al. ruling, the Supreme Court seems to have placed some limits on this broad jurisdiction by ruling that a foreign company cannot automatically be sued in a State court if it has no clear links with that State.
Click to expand...

What are the standards for connections?

Extending this logic, a majority of the Court ruled that an outof-state association selling mail order insurance had developed sufficient contacts and ties with Virginia residents so that the State could institute enforcement proceedings under its Blue Sky Law by forwarding notice to the company by registered mail, notwithstanding that the Association solicited business in Virginia solely through recommendations of existing members and was represented therein by no agents whatsoever.848
Click to expand...

Acknowledging that the connection of the company with California was tenuous— it had no office or agents in the State and no evidence had been presented that it had solicited anyone other than the insured for business—the Court sustained jurisdiction on the basis that the suit was on a contract which had a substantial connection with California. "The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims."851
he State
Click to expand...

On what basis can San Francisco regulate foreign commercial activity on the Internet?
Click to expand...

Suing Out-of-State (Foreign) Corporations :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has the 'minimum contacts' with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him.
Click to expand...

Here are the clear contacts:

1. San Francisco residents need to download it for it to work.
2. The app needs to have a portal to San Francisco (it does).
3. What is being exchanged for money is parking space in San Francisco.

Learn the law. Quit trying to circumvent it.
 
Hatuey said:
Learn the law. Quit trying to circumvent it.
Click to expand...

Learn the law? Even the lawyers don’t know it. Witness the first sentence of your link:

A curious aspect of American law is that a corporation has no legal existence outside the boundaries of the State chartering it.835 Thus, the basis for state court jurisdiction over an out-of-state ("foreign") corporation has been even more uncertain than that with respect to individuals. :shock:

Suing Out-of-State (Foreign) Corporations :: Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
Click to expand...

Now, consider that San Francisco is a municipality and not a state. We also have to consider the type of business at hand, laws concerning electronic commerce generally and the Internet specifically, as well as treaties regarding international trade and commerce. I mean, can you imagine the mess if it were determined that every city on the planet could regulate internet activity within its borders?

So I don't think the law concerning companies that conduct their business principally or entirely over the Internet, with no physical presence or agents located within the state, is as set in concrete as you imply. This is an evolving area of the law. Otherwise, what is the issue with states collecting sales taxes from companies like Amazon.com? California residents were clearly targeted for sales, the merchandise was delivered there, and yet California was frustrated in its attempts to collect taxes until Amazon decided that it wanted to establish fulfillment centers in the state to speed up delivery, thus establishing a physical presence in the state. It then negotiated an agreement to remit sales taxes. But until that moment, California couldn't do squat. Even today, Amazon does not charge sales tax for merchandise I buy from its website. I'm asked to add a "use tax" amount on my annual income tax return while Amazon flips it the bird. As of today, Amazon.com still collects sales taxes in only twenty-one states (Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com).
 
Ahlevah said:
Did you read the part where I found a free spot near the Maritime Museum? These aren't the only free spots in the city's, you know.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.806...!1e1!3m2!1szKOY79msGOBtYKFrQ-09ZA!2e0!6m1!1e1

But the point is there are no conditions placed on when I can leave, as long as I'm within the allowed window. So it's really no one else's business about WHEN I leave the spot. If I want to wait to give it to a hot blonde, I can do that, right? Not saying I would, but I'm well within my rights to do that, am I not?
Click to expand...

You still can't prevent me from physically preventing you from delivering, and your "customers" are unlikely to wait around to see which of us wins the battle of wills or get mixed up in some confrontation. Prolly get you "blacklisted" or whatever bad rating system the app uses.
 
What if...? said:
You still can't prevent me from physically preventing you from delivering, and your "customers" are unlikely to wait around to see which of us wins the battle of wills or get mixed up in some confrontation. Prolly get you "blacklisted" or whatever bad rating system the app uses.
Click to expand...

Didn't we already have this discussion? You're getting boring.
 
Ahlevah said:
Didn't we already have this discussion? You're getting boring.
Click to expand...

Your response was hoping I got assaulted and arrested for simply not allowing you to sell something you have no more right to than I do.

The conflicts this will engender will provide any city with an "interest" in the issue as its the city's cops that will be breaking up fights and dealing with other forms of conflict that are sure to arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom