• 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

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
14,599
Reaction score
5,012
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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:

Using your iPhone to auction off a street parking space might sound tech-savvy. In San Francisco, though, it's little more than an illegal racket.

That's the assessment of City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who sent a cease-and-desist letter Monday to MonkeyParking, threatening the Rome-based tech startup with a lawsuit unless it shuts down operations in San Francisco by July 11.

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.

S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit - SFGate
 
Interesting.

I see the solution to be make it illegal to do so. Computer link to the apps and send a police officer and arrest or ticket the offenders, to discourage such actions.

I rather doubt SF can sue the company itself and win.
 
Preventing the organized private sale of public services is "stifling free speech"?

Can my friends and I occupy public parking spaces and charge money for them?
 
Preventing the organized private sale of public services is "stifling free speech"?

Can my friends and I occupy public parking spaces and charge money for them?

You silly progressive.
 
Preventing the organized private sale of public services is "stifling free speech"?

You could say that the app folks are providing a conduit for people selling information concerning the availability of a service. So, yeah, to the extent that the city is trying to stop the free exchange of information it is attempting to stifle free speech.
 
I see the solution to be make it illegal to do so. Computer link to the apps and send a police officer and arrest or ticket the offenders, to discourage such actions.

That sounds more like a Big Brother solution in trying to keep a scarce service scarce by keeping its price artificially depressed than a "Libertarian Right" solution. I'm curious to see if any other "libertarians" want to chime in on this.
 
You could say that the app folks are providing a conduit for people selling information concerning the availability of a service. So, yeah, to the extent that the city is trying to stop the free exchange of information it is attempting to stifle free speech.

There are so many mental gymnastics in this post I thought I was at Cirque du Soleil for a little bit. Does a city stifle free speech when it makes it illegal to advertise prostitution services because prostitution itself is illegal? Of course not. You don't have a right to advertise illegal activities and free speech has nothing to do with it.
 
At some point this will be Obamas fault. Or Bush.
 
There are so many mental gymnastics in this post I thought I was at Cirque du Soleil for a little bit. Does a city stifle free speech when it makes it illegal to advertise prostitution services because prostitution itself is illegal? Of course not. You don't have a right to advertise illegal activities and free speech has nothing to do with it.

Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution. It shouldn't be criminal in any case.
 
Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution.

No one said they were. What was stated is that advertising prostitution is illegal for the same reason that advertising a parking spot is illegal. The purchaser isn't paying for the information, they are paying for the open parking spot. Likewise, a person isn't paying for the information about where to find prostitutes, they're paying for the prostitutes themselves. That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and for you to try and play it off like it is shows you really aren't reading what the case is about.

In short:

Selling off a parking spot is illegal because at no point does the spot belong to you. Advertising the sale of a parking spot is thus illegal as well.

Bonne nuit! :peace
 
It says "....auction off a street parking space...." there.

Maybe its time to do some strategic "double parking".

Oh, now you want me to move my car so that you can sell/vacate your parking space, that will cost you ten dollars, otherwise I may be a while.

Unless the street is too narrow to double park or there happens to be a parking enforcement officer(or cop)nearby, what are you gonna do about it?

:thinking
 
Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution. It shouldn't be criminal in any case.
it is when you occupy the spot until the person with the winning bid shows up.
 
Parking lots full of idle people waiting to get paid for public space.

Sounds like an Occupy event.
 
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:

I think it's a great idea. I hold a parking space with my car and auction the timed removal of my car from that legal parking space to the highest bidder. Heck, that's the American Way! Can't imagine why it would be illegal to auction off moving your car out of a parking space. *shrug*

SF's probably just mad they didn't think of it first. Think of all those public sector workers they could hire with fabulous pensions to hold spaces!! A liberal's wet dream!!
 
Its illegal for good reason. SF parking is already a nightmare, its even worse with jerks deliberately squatting spots in order to try and sell them. If you want to run a paid parking service, you can buy your own land instead of leeching off the public.
 
No one said they were. What was stated is that advertising prostitution is illegal for the same reason that advertising a parking spot is illegal.

OK. Let me put it this way: Advertising the availability of a parking spot is not equivalent to advertising prostitution.

The purchaser isn't paying for the information, they are paying for the open parking spot.

I forgot. This is San Francisco.

Anyway, why should this be illegal? No one will question my motive if I take a scarce resource, such as a free parking spot in a major city, and just occupy it all day so I can, say, sip lattes at a Starbucks while I listen to Lady Gaga on Spotify. Or what if I want to sell my spot on a public sidewalk outside an Apple store to someone else who wants the latest gadget more than I do? I mean, I don't own the sidewalk, but I'm not selling that. I'm selling time and availability. Should that be illegal as well?

What this comes down to is public parking is an attempt to turn something that really isn't a public service into one by fiat. It's not a problem when there are plenty of free or low-cost metered or permitted spaces available for everyone. But when there's a scarcity, it becomes a problem, and I can't really fault enterprising capitalists for trying to take advantage of that. It reminds of a tale of two stores when I visited the USSR. On the one hand, you had low-cost state stores for the plebes, with one empty shelf after another. If you were a foreigner (with foreign currency), you had access to another store where you could buy whatever you needed. Many of the goods meant for sale in the plebeian stores inevitably ended up on the black market at a considerably higher price, but at least they were available. A better solution would have been to just let the free market handle it.

And thus the parking problem. You have a scarcity of public spots because they're so cheap. The problem is everyone wants cheap (or free), but if someone has to pay more to sip their lattes they might take the trolley or bus next time. Thus I see this auction app as attempt to realign supply with demand. I imagine there will be a greater availability of parking in major cities if this thing catches on, but because some people think citizens have a right to free or low-cost **** that other citizens pay for, even where there is a viable private alternative, I imagine there will be resistance.
 
What the city needs to understand is that the existence of the app says something is wrong somewhere. Perhaps they need to fix the motivation for the app in some way. A free marketplace will adapt to the way things are. Things apparently aren't good.
 
What the city needs to understand is that the existence of the app says something is wrong somewhere. Perhaps they need to fix the motivation for the app in some way. A free marketplace will adapt to the way things are. Things apparently aren't good.

The problem is you have a collision between people who are married to their cars and a densely populated city with some of the most expensive real estate in the country. You can't have free or cheap parking in such a place. It's like trying to defy gravity.
 
People are so freaking lazy. I can't believe someone would pay $20.00 for information and then parking when they can most likely get another one for free or less money a little farther away. I don't know about San Francisco but most of the major cities I've been to have parking garages that charge less than that but you might have to walk a little further. Maybe I'm just cheap and not lazy but I couldn't imagine using an app like that. I'm the one who will park 5 blocks away to save $8.00.
 
You could say that the app folks are providing a conduit for people selling information concerning the availability of a service. So, yeah, to the extent that the city is trying to stop the free exchange of information it is attempting to stifle free speech.
But its not just information. These spots are being tied up, held by others until the next party arrives. The city has the right to control the access to the parking.
 
Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution. It shouldn't be criminal in any case.
If information was all it was, I would agree it should be fine. However, for the system to work, someone has to uselessly tie up the parking spot. In the end... do the math... It makes parking even worse for everyone else.
 
What the city needs to understand is that the existence of the app says something is wrong somewhere. Perhaps they need to fix the motivation for the app in some way. A free marketplace will adapt to the way things are. Things apparently aren't good.
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.
 
While it does not snow in San Francisco, there is related case law here in Philly and probably other big cities in the northeast. If you clear the snow in a parking space, that doesn't mean that it is your space. There are no "savsies" by using a chair, cone or other obstruction to reserve the parking space from which you removed snow.

Holding a parking space for a designated heir isn't good either. I look forward to reading better suggestions.
 
Back
Top Bottom