• 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!

San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down

Hatuey said:
Not only is that false. It makes me question whether you know anything about American law. SF can sue MonkeyParking in SF, CA, USA because what was being exchanged was SF property. The federal government is entirely irrelevant and this has been demonstrated by SCOTUS:

World in US Courts Special Edition: January 2014 - New US Supreme Court Decision Limits Suits Against Non-US Corporations | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP - JDSupra



Are you seriously going to argue that San Francisco doesn't have a right to sue a company in a case where the facts are entirely based within San Francisco's jurisdiction and dependent on SF public infrastructure? Seriously? Jurisdictions have a right to sue/dictate laws within their borders. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

the company which is in Italy , and its operations would be commerce...

only the federal government can deal with foreign commerce.....states are prohibited.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Italy, and its operations would be commerce...

only the federal government can deal with foreign commerce.....states are prohibited.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

I would have to read that part of the constitution again, but I believe it bans the states only from interstate commerce. Not foreign commerce.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you sure?

I would have to read that part of the constitution again, but I believe it bans the states only from interstate commerce. Not foreign commerce.
Click to expand...

i will rephrase....

if the company and its operations are not in the u.s...but only its app is being used in the u.s. states cannot get involved in its foreign commerce.

San Francisco cannot order by their local laws, anything on a Rome company.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<----- power of congress
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. I suppose the case will turn on whether they are selling parking spots or information about parking spots.:peace
Click to expand...

They hire people to hold the parking spots hostage while drivers bid on the spaces. They're not selling information, they're selling the use of property that doesn't belong to them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Italy, and its operations would be commerce...
Click to expand...

LMAO, Italy doesn't have any operations here. A private corporation does.

only the federal government can deal with foreign commerce.....states are prohibited.
Click to expand...

Lmao, you don't even know what you're arguing. Here it is:

Commerce Clause said:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Click to expand...

Italy, the sovereign state of Italy, isn't involved in this case in any way. This is strictly a matter of a city regulating the usage of its public property by companies. Where they are located is irrelevant. A US company wouldn't have a right to do this anymore than an Italian company does.
 
MaggieD said:
Mind begging to differ with a link supporting your claim?

I don't feel strongly one way or another. It's one of those posts I weighed in on thinking, "They're selling a service." If this has already been adjudicated, I'd appreciate a link.
Click to expand...

What it does is send every knucklehead with a car and a smartphone downtown to squat in parking spaces, creating artificial shortages that generate the kind of profits real shortages do. Driving by spot after spot occupied by people watching their cellphones for the bidding to get high enough.

How is that not what would happen?
 
Hatuey said:
LMAO, Italy doesn't have any operations here. A private corporation does.
Click to expand...


you might want to re-read.

Hatuey said:
Lmao, you don't even know what you're arguing. Here it is:

Italy, the sovereign state of Italy, isn't involved in this case in any way. This is strictly a matter of a city regulating the usage of its public property by companies. Where they are located is irrelevant. A US company wouldn't have a right to do this anymore than an Italian company does.
Click to expand...

any issue of commerce with a foreign nation is the feds job, a state is prohibited from such action.

again for you......SF cannot, do anything to a Rome based company.....it can sue..........but it as cannot tell them to turn off or stop an app.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you might want to re-read.
Click to expand...

No need to, I actually understood what the text said the first time. Did you?

any issue of commerce with a foreign nation is the feds job, a state is prohibited from such action.
Click to expand...

I'm going to type this real slowly for you: There is absolutely no issue of commerce with a foreign nation here. The government of Italy has nothing to do with this case. That's what the commerce clause is about commerce with a foreign nation, Not privately owned companies operating within the US.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i will rephrase....

if the company and its operations are not in the u.s...but only its app is being used in the u.s. states cannot get involved in its foreign commerce.

San Francisco cannot order by their local laws, anything on a Rome company.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<----- power of congress
Click to expand...
Yes.

Congress has that power, but it doesn't exclude states either. Does it?
 
Hatuey said:
No need to, I actually understood what the text said the first time. Did you?

I'm going to type this real slowly for you: There is absolutely no issue of commerce with a foreign nation here. The government of Italy has nothing to do with this case.
Click to expand...

it is not Italy....it is a Rome based company.......laws of SF .......DO NOT APPLY IN FOREIGN NATIONS.......MEANING THAT NATION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE LOCAL LAWS OF SF.

SF cannot dictate to a FOREIGN COMPANY...ONLY IF IT HAS AN OPERATION, PHYSICAL STRUCTURE IN THE U.S
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes.

Congress has that power, but it doesn't exclude states either. Does it?
Click to expand...

He's throwing out a red herring. There is no commerce going on with a foreign nation here. There is no trade going on between the state of SF and Rome/Italy. This is strictly a case of a city regulating how its infrastructure is used even by foreign companies. Cities have every right to do so and the foreign commerce clause is entirely irrelevant to it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is not Italy....it is a Rome based company.......laws of SF .......DO NOT APPLY IN FOREIGN NATIONS.......MEANING THAT NATION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE LOCAL LAWS OF SF.

SF cannot dictate to a FOREIGN COMPANY...ONLY IF IT HAS AN OPERATION, PHYSICAL STRUCTURE IN THE U.S
Click to expand...
So does that mean a foreign national can commit murder in SF, and SF cannot prosecute?
 
Hatuey said:
Demonstrably false:

Supreme Court: Unless They Do Business Here, You Can’t Sue Foreign Companies In The US | Corporate Law Report



If SF decided to sue this company it very well could considering the parking spots in question were located in the city and were public property of the city.



Not really. If that were all it was, the business plan for the entire app would collapse. The transaction is entirely dependent on a person holding the spot long enough for the other person to take over it. In short, it's a business created on the exchange of public parking for money. I'll get out of the spot, once you pay for it. In short, it's public property held for a ransom.
Click to expand...

No! Once the first payer has paid the rent on the spot, it is his to use as he wills until the meter runs out. I think the City is having a severe rectal impaction. No different than buying blocks of cellular phone time for 4 cents and re-selling for 10 cents.
 
Hatuey said:
He's throwing out a red herring. There is no commerce going on with a foreign nation here. There is no trade going on between the state of SF and Rome/Italy. This is strictly a case of a city regulating how its infrastructure is used even by foreign companies. Cities have every right to do so and the foreign commerce clause is entirely irrelevant to it.
Click to expand...

and i stated two positions.

first SF cannot be involved in matter of any foreign commerce of a Rome based company.

second SF .........HAS NO LEGAL POWERS OVER A FOREIGN COMPANY...all it can do is sue........it has no long arm of the law power....if the company is not in the states.......as i have heard telling them to turn off there app.
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is not Italy....it is a Rome based company.......laws of SF .......DO NOT APPLY IN FOREIGN NATIONS.......MEANING THAT NATION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE LOCAL LAWS OF SF.
Click to expand...

You've been proven wrong on this already. Where the company is located is irrelevant, if a company can be demonstrated to have even superficial ties to the city/state, it can be sued using that state/city's laws.

SF cannot dictate to a FOREIGN COMPANY...ONLY IF IT HAS AN OPERATION, PHYSICAL STRUCTURE IN THE U.S
Click to expand...

This has already been proven false. The city can dictate because the goods in question are based in the US. You are essentially arguing that cities have no jurisdiction over the use of their own public property. That is not only false, it's laughable.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So does that mean a foreign national can commit murder in SF, and SF cannot prosecute?
Click to expand...


a foreign national would be on u.s. soil, and be held accountable......if he went over seas after the murder, the state department would get involved
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. I suppose the case will turn on whether they are selling parking spots or information about parking spots.:peace
Click to expand...

They hold the spot until the buyer gets there, and don't allow other people to park there. That's selling the spot.
 
ernst barkmann said:
and i stated two positions.

first SF cannot be involved in matter of any foreign commerce of a Rome based company.
Click to expand...

It isn't. The city is regulating its public property. Which is what you've failed to see because you're too invested in changing the context of the discussion. At no point did SF engage in commerce with a Rome based company. It regulated how its public property could be used by companies. That is within the boundaries of its powers.

second SF .........HAS NO LEGAL POWERS OVER A FOREIGN COMPANY...all it can do is sue........it has no long arm of the law power....if the company is not in the states.......as i have heard telling them to turn off there app.
Click to expand...

Which is false as demonstrated by this very thread. MonkeyParking is no longer functioning within SF and SF enforced its public property laws. Tough nut.
 
Hatuey said:
You've been proven wrong on this already. Where the company is located is irrelevant, if a company can be demonstrated to have even superficial ties to the city/state, it can be sued using that state/city's laws.



This has already been proven false. The city can dictate because the goods in question are based in the US. You are essentially arguing that cities have no jurisdiction over the use of their own public property. That is not only false, it's laughable.
Click to expand...

well this shows you don't read.

"second SF .........HAS NO LEGAL POWERS OVER A FOREIGN COMPANY...all it can do is sue"

"over"......it cannot executive a law.

i am stating clearly that the city, cannot dictate law, to a foreign company......all it can do is sue......it cannot execute any action..on a foreign company.
 
DaveFagan said:
No! Once the first payer has paid the rent on the spot, it is his to use as he wills until the meter runs out. I think the City is having a severe rectal impaction.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. At no point are you the owner of the property. You are using it under the terms and conditions established by city laws.

No different than buying blocks of cellular phone time for 4 cents and re-selling for 10 cents.
Click to expand...

Yes it is because cellular phone time isn't public property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well this shows you don't read.

"second SF .........HAS NO LEGAL POWERS OVER A FOREIGN COMPANY...all it can do is sue"
Click to expand...

No, this shows you're not even sure what you're arguing. SF has the power to regulate public property. If a foreign company not based in SF is using SF public property for its own benefit (meaning the facts took place in SF), SCOTUS has already determined that SF does have jurisdiction. The commerce clause has literally nothing to do with this.

"over"......it cannot executive a law.

i am stating clearly that the city, cannot dictate law, to a foreign company......all it can do is sue......it cannot execute any action..on a foreign company.
Click to expand...

And this has already been shown to be false. Specially in circumstances such as this. MonkeyParking wants to have a portal to SF? It better follow SF law. :shrug:
 
ernst barkmann said:
a foreign national would be on u.s. soil, and be held accountable......if he went over seas after the murder, the state department would get involved
Click to expand...
By extension, you contend a business is superior to a human.

Wow...
 
Hatuey said:
No, this shows you're not even sure what you're arguing. SF has the power to regulate public property. If a foreign company not based in SF is using SF public property for its own benefit (meaning the facts took place in SF), SCOTUS has already determined that SF does have jurisdiction. The commerce clause has literally nothing to do with this.



And this has already been shown to be false. Specially in circumstances such as this. second SF .........HAS NO LEGAL POWERS OVER A FOREIGN COMPANY...all it can do is sue. wants to have a portal to SF? It better follow SF law. :shrug:
Click to expand...



SF can sue the company...........it cannot execute any of it laws it makes on a foreign company in a foreign nation.........meaning, it cannot tell monkeyparking to turn off its app.

the executive branch of the federal government does has power to get involved in what monkey parking does in the u.s. and use it powers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
By extension, you contend a business is superior to a human.

Wow...
Click to expand...

no....if you are a foreign national on america soil.and you murder.....local police can arrest and put you on trial.

if a foreign national murders and leave the country....then the state deportment gets involved.


again for you...powers of regulation on foreign commerce are only a federal power....states have no power in that area......the federal government controls all powers which are for the union as a whole under article 1 section 8
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom