• 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 said:
It's a parking spot, not an apartment
Click to expand...

No one said they were the same thing. Do you understand how examples which refute your non-existent points work? You consider you have a stronger claim to the ownership of a parking spot - which is public property - than you that of a apartment - which is rented to you explicitly. That is laughable on the surface. You feel that paying for a service allows you to engage in the sale/trading of that service without concern for the terms of use. That's simply contrary to the very notion of how public property works.
 
Hatuey said:
You consider you have a stronger claim to the ownership of a parking spot - which is public property - than you that of a apartment - which is rented to you explicitly.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. If I rent an apartment and the landlord violates my rights, I might sue him. I doubt I'd sue the city if it prevented me from collecting a $10 finder's fee on a parking space. I do wonder, however, on what legal basis the city has the right via a city ordinance to void a private contract made (privately) between two people in interstate or international commerce, especially if all the seller is doing is selling knowledge of an available parking spot. (The Internet, presumably, runs all over the planet, and MonkeyParking is based in Italy.)

Hatuey said:
You feel that paying for a service allows you to engage in the sale/trading of that service without concern for the terms of use. That's simply contrary to the very notion of how public property works.
Click to expand...

OK, so what are the terms of use? I put my money in the meter and I get the right to park for a specific period of time (or I agree to use the spot only during certain hours or whatever). I've upheld my end of the bargain when I leave within the agreed upon time and let the next guy put his coins in. Other than that, what's left: the city ordinance that's attempting to restrict private communications and contracts in interstate/international commerce concerning information about the availability of a public parking spot. Now, I don't know which side would win the argument in this case in court, but I do know the city is trying to repeal a basic law of economics: supply and demand.
 
This is fairly close to what ABC, NBC, and CBS are doing, but for way, way more money.
 
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 where liberalism always ends up. The state is king. One need look no further than California to see where liberalism goes.
 
Ahlevah said:
I made no such claim. If I rent an apartment and the landlord violates my rights, I might sue him. I doubt I'd sue the city if it prevented me from collecting a $10 finder's fee on a parking space.
Click to expand...

And yet, the city is suing people/companies who violate the terms of use for public property. In the same way a landlord would sue renters who violate the terms of usage. So your point is irrelevant.

I do wonder, however, on what legal basis the city has the right via a city ordinance to void a private contract made (privately) between two people in interstate or international commerce, especially if all the seller is doing is selling knowledge of an available parking spot.
Click to expand...

It does so on the grounds that at no point do you have the legal right to rent out or sell the parking spot to someone else.

OK, so what are the terms of use?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the advertisement of public property for benefit:

Article 2. Unlawfully Placing Signs On Public And Private Property :: Penal Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

556. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain, or
cause to be placed or maintained without lawful permission upon any
property of the State, or of a city or of a county, any sign,
picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device which is
used for the purpose of advertising or which advertises or brings to
notice any person, article of merchandise, business or profession, or
anything that is to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away

556.1. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain or
cause to be placed or maintained upon any property in which he has no
estate or right of possession any sign, picture, transparency,
advertisement, or mechanical device which is used for the purpose of
advertising, or which advertises or brings to notice any person,
article of merchandise, business or profession, or anything that is
to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away, without the consent
of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession of such property
before such sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device is placed upon the property.

And finally:

556.3. Any sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device placed on any property contrary to the provisions
of Sections 556 and 556.1, is a public nuisance.

Alright, hope all of this was helpful. You have no right to advertise public property for the purposes of even so much as renting it without permission from the body which the space belongs to. In this case, the city owns the parking spot and provides it to people - you - as some guy from the street who has no clue how ownership or public property works - have no right to infringe on said property by trying to advertise it.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, the city is suing people/companies who violate the terms of use for public property. In the same way a landlord would sue renters who violate the terms of usage. So your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In the instant case the city is threatening a lawsuit. Threatening a lawsuit and actually winning one are two separate things.

Hatuey said:
It does so on the grounds that at no point do you have the legal right to rent out or sell the parking spot to someone else.
Click to expand...

The city would have a point if I parked a lawn chain in a public parking spot and hoisted a sign that read, "Parking available-- $10.00." However, the law gets murkier if I tell an app where the spot is that I'm vacating and whoever hits my bid, be it $5, $10, or $20, is told where to go. So I'm not selling the spot as much as I am knowledge of its availability. I get paid after the other party successfully parks in it. Then if any money is due for actually renting the spot he puts it in the meter.

Hatuey said:
Alright, hope all of this was helpful. You have no right to advertise public property for the purposes of even so much as renting it without permission from the body which the space belongs to. In this case, the city owns the parking spot and provides it to people - you - as some guy from the street who has no clue how ownership or public property works - have no right to infringe on said property by trying to advertise it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your contributions to this thread and for livening the (mostly) civil discussion, but this statute seems as though it's geared more toward my lawn chair example and not a smartphone app. No doubt that as these technologies continue to evolve the way people interact and conduct business some of these laws will need to be rewritten or modified.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

If selling access to part of a public street is an illegal transaction then I want to know when the parking meters will be removed and public parking permit requirements will be repealed.
 
Ahlevah said:
The city would have a point if I parked a lawn chain in a public parking spot and hoisted a sign that read, "Parking available-- $10.00."...So I'm not selling the spot as much as I am knowledge of its availability. I get paid after the other party successfully parks in it.
Click to expand...

Only there is absolutely no difference between either of those examples :shrug: in both cases you are trying to sell off what was never yours to sell in the first place. :shrug:

but this statute seems as though it's geared more toward my lawn chair example and not a smartphone app
Click to expand...

It's geared towards advertising period regardless of what method is used to advertise. Look, you seriously have no clue what you're discussing at all. That is why you've so far been unable to counter with anything other than "I don't like the law." If you don't like the law? Say that. Don't come here and claim that the city protecting public property is a violation of your non-existent right to sell off public property. Again and for the last time: You have no right to sell/auction/give away property that never belonged to you.
 
They aren't selling a physical spot, they are selling their time while sitting in said spot. Sounds legit to me. There is no law that says you need to vacate your parking space within a certain time limit. They have posted signs for those areas that show the parking hours if that were the case. If there is no meter or they want to feed the meter is none of anyone's business.

As far as I see it, the only thing being sold is time. Hardly illegal IMO.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, the city is suing people/companies who violate the terms of use for public property. In the same way a landlord would sue renters who violate the terms of usage. So your point is irrelevant.



It does so on the grounds that at no point do you have the legal right to rent out or sell the parking spot to someone else.



Let's start with the advertisement of public property for benefit:

Article 2. Unlawfully Placing Signs On Public And Private Property :: Penal Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

556. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain, or
cause to be placed or maintained without lawful permission upon any
property of the State, or of a city or of a county, any sign,
picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device which is
used for the purpose of advertising or which advertises or brings to
notice any person, article of merchandise, business or profession, or
anything that is to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away

556.1. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain or
cause to be placed or maintained upon any property in which he has no
estate or right of possession any sign, picture, transparency,
advertisement, or mechanical device which is used for the purpose of
advertising, or which advertises or brings to notice any person,
article of merchandise, business or profession, or anything that is
to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away, without the consent
of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession of such property
before such sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device is placed upon the property.

And finally:

556.3. Any sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device placed on any property contrary to the provisions
of Sections 556 and 556.1, is a public nuisance.

Alright, hope all of this was helpful. You have no right to advertise public property for the purposes of even so much as renting it without permission from the body which the space belongs to. In this case, the city owns the parking spot and provides it to people - you - as some guy from the street who has no clue how ownership or public property works - have no right to infringe on said property by trying to advertise it.
Click to expand...

Where does it say they are selling public property? From what I can tell and a good defense in court is....they are selling their time. Not property.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the city needs to find a way to motivate the construction of more parking.
 
JRSaindo said:
Where does it say they are selling public property? From what I can tell and a good defense in court is....they are selling their time. Not property.
Click to expand...

Trying to change the wording for business operated on the basis of a belief in the non-existent ownership of public property doesn't make it any less of a business. Psychiatrists could be said sell their time - does that make their services not subject to the law? Again, this is a business founded on the marketing of public property for personal gain. It's illegal. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't try to do somersaults trying to circumvent the language of the law.
 
fmw said:
Perhaps the city needs to find a way to motivate the construction of more parking.
Click to expand...

Well, it could do that by raising the price of public parking to a more normal market level. It could take the increased revenue and funnel that to better public transportation or park-and-ride facilities. Permitting these apps would also free up spots by motivating people to vacate them. But I don't think more free parking is the way to go. The land is too expensive for that. When was the last time anyone saw a private garage in Manhattan? I saw one, which, incidentally, was pointed out by our GrayLine tour guide, and I imagine the townhouse over it was worth millions. The simple fact is San Francisco has been gentrifying for decades and is likely to continue to so. The median sales price of a home there is now pushing $950,000. (They'll never admit it, but liberals are basically snobs, too. Otherwise, they'd be flocking to Vallejo. ;))
 
JRSaindo said:
As far as I see it, the only thing being sold is time. Hardly illegal IMO.
Click to expand...

I see your point.

At the same time, a property owner, in this case the city, has a general ability to place some restrictions on future transactions of their products and services ( "not for resale", "packaged product not to be sold individually", "no sub renting", "not for commercial use" etc.)

I think the city's ban will be considered an allowable restriction. If so, then I bet they ticket the seller, not the buyer.

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...
Perhaps it should not be criminal, but I think the city (property owner) can forbid it through their ability to place some restrictions on the future sales conditions of their products. Please see examples above.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Only there is absolutely no difference between either of those examples :shrug: in both cases you are trying to sell off what was never yours to sell in the first place. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Oh, but there are some major differences. In my lawn chair example, the transaction takes place completely within the confines of the city. Not so with a transaction that takes place over the Internet with a third-party facilitator located in a foreign country. I mean, if the U.S. government has had issues suing website operators located overseas for conducting activities allegedly in violation of U.S. laws, I imagine San Francisco would have a problem as well. Also, if I'm taking physical possession of the spot with my lawn chair solely for the purpose of making money I'm, in your words, violating the terms of use. If I simply get paid a finder's fee for informing others of when I'm doing what I'd be doing anyway-- vacating the spot-- how am I expropriating it? I don't see it.

Hatuey said:
It's geared towards advertising period regardless of what method is used to advertise.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but the statute's very specific:

556.1. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain or
cause to be placed or maintained upon any property in which he has no
estate or right of possession any sign, picture, transparency,
advertisement, or mechanical device which is used for the purpose of
advertising, or which advertises or brings to notice any person,
article of merchandise, business or profession, or anything that is
to be or has been sold, bartered, or given away, without the consent
of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession of such property
before such sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device is placed upon the property.

And finally:

556.3. Any sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or
mechanical device placed on any property contrary to the provisions
of Sections 556 and 556.1, is a public nuisance.
Click to expand...

So what MonkeyParking app user is placing or maintaining a sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device ON the parking space? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I think the city's ban will be considered an allowable restriction. If so, then I bet they ticket the seller, not the buyer.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how the city would enforce this. They going to confiscate the driver's iPhone or what?
 
Ahlevah said:
I'm wondering how the city would enforce this. They going to confiscate the driver's iPhone or what?
Click to expand...
Probably just fine him. They may have to post a "no reselling" contract sticker on each meter. Then, all they need to do is point to the sticker, and then fine him for violating the contract.
 
americanwoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really it costs $12.00 to park a car? Is that all day or for 1 hour?
 
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...

Doesn't the city have parking meters and time limits right now?
 
Hatuey said:
And yet nobody claimed they were. What is stated is that they are illegal for the same reason and that reason is:



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...

How many cases will be brought to small claims court for a person that paid for a space and then it wasn't available causing financial damage to that person?

It would be a nightmare.
 
Mason66 said:
Really it costs $12.00 to park a car? Is that all day or for 1 hour?
Click to expand...

Depends on where you park and the event. Like for instance we had the College World Series here this past week and there were lots and garages charging anywhere from $8.00 - $40.00/all day depending how far away from the stadium it was. On a normal night I think it is more or less about $8.00 to park but all the meters are free on weekends and after 4:30 on weekdays, you just have to find one when someone is leaving or park a little farther away. I personally wouldn't pay someone who was leaving in a close spot but if someone else would I don't really care.
 
Mason66 said:
How many cases will be brought to small claims court for a person that paid for a space and then it wasn't available causing financial damage to that person?

It would be a nightmare.
Click to expand...

They way I understand it is you get paid only after the person paying successfully gets the spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom