• 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

parking is one of the biggest reasons i dislike even visiting big cities. build enough damned ****ing garages or improve public transport. we have to drive to get to your city to spend money. the least you can do is accept the reality that in the US, that requires driving.

when i worked in a big city in my state, i actually had to pay to park at work, and it was a lot considering what i made at the time.

as for this particular OP, yeah, a private citizen can't sell public property, even if it is a neat idea. what would result would be a bunch of assholes hogging spaces just to sell them. it's clever, but illegal.

seriously, just build more parking garages. the initial investment sucks, but i'd be surprised if they didn't eventually pay for themselves several times over.
 
Ahlevah said:
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:
Click to expand...
This is the ethical equivalent of buying game-gold. Users would want it to be illegal so that it remained an advantage. If it's legal then you would have to buy it just to keep up, and that drives people away.

The key to rather or not to use the illegal service it is related to the fine for getting caught. Referring back to game-gold, theoretically you can get banned, but in practice Blizzard just sends you an e-mail asking you not to do it again. If Blizzard actually banned accounts frequently for it, far fewer would do it, but that means no more monthly subscriptions or store customers. Blizzard knows this and thus tolerates a degree of 'illegal' activity to serve the greater good of the company. Likewise if the City laid down a harsh penalty for offenders that could drive away some tax revenues, but a fine as a deterrence through willful compliance would meet with a fair degree of success in reducing the auctioning of parking space.

Ultimately neither side has a solution to the problem. For that I would suggest smaller cars and thus smaller parking spaces, even motorcycles.
 
Helix said:
parking is one of the biggest reasons i dislike even visiting big cities. build enough damned ****ing garages or improve public transport. we have to drive to get to your city to spend money. the least you can do is accept the reality that in the US, that requires driving.

when i worked in a big city in my state, i actually had to pay to park at work, and it was a lot considering what i made at the time.

as for this particular OP, yeah, a private citizen can't sell public property, even if it is a neat idea. what would result would be a bunch of assholes hogging spaces just to sell them. it's clever, but illegal.

seriously, just build more parking garages. the initial investment sucks, but i'd be surprised if they didn't eventually pay for themselves several times over.
Click to expand...
Thing is, they can't 'just' build more parking garages. Land is scarce in SF and costs a fortune.
 
Jerry said:
Thing is, they can't 'just' build more parking garages. Land is scarce in SF and costs a fortune.
Click to expand...

probably right. i guess i was thinking more in terms of the big city in my state which actually has solved the problem to a certain extent by building more garages. while parking is expensive, it's usually available now.
 
Ahlevah said:
OK. Let me put it this way: Advertising the availability of a parking spot is not equivalent to advertising prostitution.
Click to expand...

And yet nobody claimed they were. What is stated is that they are illegal for the same reason and that reason is:

Anyway, why should this be illegal?
Click to expand...

You can't sell/rent out property you don't own to begin with. Thus, advertising an illegal activity is itself illegal.
 
Helix said:
probably right. i guess i was thinking more in terms of the big city in my state which actually has solved the problem to a certain extent by building more garages. while parking is expensive, it's usually available now.
Click to expand...
Even in our little towns in SD, parking space within the business district is always in high demand. There's a central parking garage and the City decided to add another story to it.

I think SF should see through their distaste for "omg they're selling public space" and hold a competition among private entities to solve the problem in much the same way NASA held a competition to combat future space missions (the winner being SpaceX ). This app is just the private sector trying to solve a problem, but they're all acting like individuals and the result is predatory competition. What they need is leadership.

Maybe one short-term option is for MonkeyParking to run the whole thing more like Lyft, where you aren't required to pay a per-use fee but tips are appreciated. A micro-culture would rise around this activity and through social media would establish customs regarding tips. Lots of people would get that app and thus it would fertile ground for advertisers; not only through the app but anything you could put on or around the parking spot itself. Advertisers would love to know where you like to park, when, how long you're there, what kind of cars you drive, etc. There's money to be had in this without directly auctioning off public space.

This is exactly the sort of thing fuzzy-logic models are developed through video games for.
 
Hatuey said:
You can't sell/rent out property you don't own to begin with. Thus, advertising an illegal activity is itself illegal.
Click to expand...

And I'm not claiming anyone's buying a parking spot, either. When I put coins in a meter, I'm buying a legal right to park there for a specific period of time. I paid for it, and I can certainly give the time away if I leave before my time's expired, so why should it be illegal for me to sell it? Does the city have a contract with me and me only to park there? No. Does it take skin off of the city's nose if someone else is occupying the spot? No. Am I depriving the city of anything? No.
 
Ahlevah said:
And I'm not claiming anyone's buying a parking spot, either.
Click to expand...

Only through the way the app is set up, it's clear that people who pay for the spots are buying them.

hen I put coins in a meter, I'm buying a legal right to park there for a specific period of time.....so why should it be illegal for me to sell it?
Click to expand...

What part of "At no point are you the owner of the parking spot" do you not understand? When you understand that little fact, you'll understand why it is that you can't profit from it. Can I set up a tent on a sidewalk and charge people to sleep in that tent then call it a hotel room? No. It's public property.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that maybe they wouldn't be tied up so much if it cost more to park? If the city gave away free 49ers tickets don't you think they'd be in demand? So why should free or cheap parking spots be any different when demand far outstrips supply?
 
Jerry said:
Even in our little towns in SD, parking space within the business district is always in high demand. There's a central parking garage and the City decided to add another story to it.

I think SF should see through their distaste for "omg they're selling public space" and hold a competition among private entities to solve the problem in much the same way NASA held a competition to combat future space missions (the winner being SpaceX ). This app is just the private sector trying to solve a problem, but they're all acting like individuals and the result is predatory competition. What they need is leadership.

Maybe one short-term option is for MonkeyParking to run the whole thing more like Lyft, where you aren't required to pay a per-use fee but tips are appreciated. A micro-culture would rise around this activity and through social media would establish customs regarding tips. Lots of people would get that app and thus it would fertile ground for advertisers; not only through the app but anything you could put on or around the parking spot itself. Advertisers would love to know where you like to park, when, how long you're there, what kind of cars you drive, etc. There's money to be had in this without directly auctioning off public space.

This is exactly the sort of thing fuzzy-logic models are developed through video games for.
Click to expand...

i could probably support whatever that app is called that lets you catch a ride with someone who is going where you're going; the one that competes with taxis. pretty big safety risk, though. i wouldn't want my GF just riding with some random person who could be a psycho. however, i have more trouble app that generates parking lot trolls, taking up space after space until someone needs it. ideally, it's a pretty good idea : if i'm shopping, i could post when i'm leaving and let someone else know that the space is going to be open at X time. toss money into it, though, and then you get jackasses trying to game the system. no thanks.
 
Hatuey said:
What part of "At no point are you the owner of the parking spot" do you not understand? When you understand that little fact, you'll understand why it is that you can't profit from it. Can I set up a tent on a sidewalk and charge people to sleep in that tent then call it a hotel room? No. It's public property.
Click to expand...

Like I said, when I put coins in a meter, I'm not buying the spot. I'm buying the right to occupy it for a specific period of time. And if I want to "sell" that right for nothing (i.e., give it away), I can do that. (I mean, I never met a liberal who objected to free s***.) But the moment someone wants to sell their right to something because some poor Bohemian may no longer be able to afford the subsidized service and might have to take the bus they get all apoplectic. The market was distorted in the first place by the decision to make a scarce (non-public) service available at an artificially low price, but then they're surprised when a secondary or black market develops for the good or service and try to stamp it out by making it illegal. They really need to stop reading Das Kapital and try a primer on capitalism.
 
Hatuey said:
Only through the way the app is set up, it's clear that people who pay for the spots are buying them.



What part of "At no point are you the owner of the parking spot" do you not understand? When you understand that little fact, you'll understand why it is that you can't profit from it. Can I set up a tent on a sidewalk and charge people to sleep in that tent then call it a hotel room? No. It's public property.
Click to expand...
They aren't selling property, though. They're selling you a service. They are not selling you the parking space, they are selling you the timed vacancy of that lot. Big difference. This is like going to a big movie opening or a Black Friday event and selling your spot in line (I actually did that a couple times back in the day when I was homeless).
 
Ahlevah said:
Like I said, when I put coins in a meter, I'm not buying the spot. I'm buying the right to occupy it for a specific period of time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that right does not include another right of sale whenever you want to. Do you have a right to ignore your lease agreement and rent off your apartment for considerably more than the original lease agreement says? No. Of course not. Seriously, do you own/rent anything? This is getting tedious.
 
Ahlevah said:
And I'm not claiming anyone's buying a parking spot, either. When I put coins in a meter, I'm buying a legal right to park there for a specific period of time. I paid for it, and I can certainly give the time away if I leave before my time's expired, so why should it be illegal for me to sell it? Does the city have a contract with me and me only to park there? No. Does it take skin off of the city's nose if someone else is occupying the spot? No. Am I depriving the city of anything? No.
Click to expand...

The city owns the spot. You can't sell it. Period.

Same way you can't rent out an apartment you are renting yourself. The landlord never gave you permission to rent out his property.
 
Deuce said:
The city owns the spot. You can't sell it. Period.

Same way you can't rent out an apartment you are renting yourself. The landlord never gave you permission to rent out his property.
Click to expand...

He simply doesn't get that right to use does not come with right to sell. I think he just got a copy of Atlas Shrugged and he's trying to flex all the big words he learned here.
 
Ahlevah said:
Getting paid for telling someone about an available parking spot is hardly equivalent to prostitution. It shouldn't be criminal in any case.
Click to expand...

What about the guy right behind you waiting for the spot?

You cant sell something somebody can take before your customer gets there. You have to hold it for them.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its kind of like speculation, huh?
 
Ahlevah said:
OK. Let me put it this way: Advertising the availability of a parking spot is not equivalent to advertising prostitution.



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.
Click to expand...

It will only be recognized as a! problem when every space has a squatter in it and it costs $20,000 to park a limo.
 
Ahlevah said:
Like I said, when I put coins in a meter, I'm not buying the spot. I'm buying the right to occupy it for a specific period of time. And if I want to "sell" that right for nothing (i.e., give it away), I can do that. (I mean, I never met a liberal who objected to free s***.) But the moment someone wants to sell their right to something because some poor Bohemian may no longer be able to afford the subsidized service and might have to take the bus they get all apoplectic. The market was distorted in the first place by the decision to make a scarce (non-public) service available at an artificially low price, but then they're surprised when a secondary or black market develops for the good or service and try to stamp it out by making it illegal. They really need to stop reading Das Kapital and try a primer on capitalism.
Click to expand...

You know, send the guys with guns to take all the food they were just giving away at the relief truck and then sell the food to those who can pay.

Capitalism at its finest, right?
 
Deuce said:
The city owns the spot. You can't sell it. Period.
Click to expand...
No one's selling the property.

Deuce said:
Same way you can't rent out an apartment you are renting yourself. The landlord never gave you permission to rent out his property.
Click to expand...
Actually you can, it's called "sub-leasing" and your landlord needs to have a specific clause in your agreement if they don't want you to do it. Some landlords allow it as was the case when I worked power-line in Oklahoma. A company superintendent would rent the apartment/house and then sub-let it to employees as they came and went from the area as the job required. Some tenants in my area want to just rent out a room to collage students.

Anyway that's all private property under contract, not land open for public use.
 
What if...? said:
You know, send the guys with guns to take all the food they were just giving away at the relief truck and then sell the food to those who can pay.

Capitalism at its finest, right?
Click to expand...

What you're describing is armed robbery. That's criminal, not capitalistic.
 
What if...? said:
What about the guy right behind you waiting for the spot?
Click to expand...

He's a moron if he assumes I'm leaving just because I'm in or enter my car. Sometimes I sit in my car for quite some time reading and listening to tunes while my wife shops. If he pissed me off enough, I'd cancel the arrangement and just sit there until he left and then book another one. But if I had to leave I suppose I'd just eat the loss. It certainly wouldn't be worth a confrontation.

What if...? said:
You cant sell something somebody can take before your customer gets there. You have to hold it for them.
Click to expand...

Right. So I'd arrange to leave when the other guy showed up and not before.
 
What if...? said:
What about the guy right behind you waiting for the spot?
Click to expand...
He doesn't get the spot.

What if...? said:
You cant sell something somebody can take before your customer gets there. You have to hold it for them.
Click to expand...
Right, that's why you hold it for them. Holding the spot for them is the service being sold.
 
What if...? said:
You know, send the guys with guns to take all the food they were just giving away at the relief truck and then sell the food to those who can pay.

Capitalism at its finest, right?
Click to expand...
Public parking = disaster relief truck to you?

...but then again it is SF we're talking about....
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and that right does not include another right of sale whenever you want to. Do you have a right to ignore your lease agreement and rent off your apartment for considerably more than the original lease agreement says? No. Of course not. Seriously, do you own/rent anything? This is getting tedious.
Click to expand...

It's a parking spot, not an apartment; San Francisco doesn't care who puts money in a parking meter as long as it's fed. But now that you mention it, San Francisco is after the apartment renters/owners, too, because websites such as Airbnb have the hotel industry and its union workers in a tizzy:

This week, the fight has taken a turn for the worse in San Francisco: The city is considering a bill that would allow the city to give financial rewards to people who snoop on their neighbors and report whether and how their are hosting people through Airbnb.

Airbnb versus San Francisco: The Fight Continues | National Review Online
Click to expand...

San Francisco is a hop, skip, and a jump from the Santa Clara Valley. Plenty of tech-savvy members of the 1% have homes in the area. So I find it ironic (and farcical) that the city is resisting these technologies with all of its might.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom