• 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

MaggieD said:
American ingenuity. I'd be grateful and HAPPY to pay $20 for a parking place close to my destination. Heck, I'd probably pay more. And it surely beats parking garage rates.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I disagree with the practice, but a one time thing is not the same as someone making a job out of holding parking spots.

Don't you feel any guilt about depriving others passing by, the equal opportunity of chance?

I would. My integrity and moral standards would never allow me to do that.
 
Normally I would disagree with the city on matters like this. For example, I fully support Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb. In this instance, however, I agree with the city. People have no right to sell public parking spaces owned by the city.
 
Hatuey said:
Not really. Killing someone for profit and in self defense aren't the same thing. Stealing is illegal regardless of the context. Rape and sex are defined through the use of force. This argument that there is a distinct difference between trading "information" on a parking spot you're covering and selling a parking spot is just that. Semantics. You are posting an advertisement about a parking spot, and you're waiting for a buyer. You stay in the spot until the buyer shows us. If I'm wrong, I welcome you to correct me. However, the very fact that the transaction is dependent on the parking spot being available through the occupation of another makes it clear that that is the good being sold. There is no information being traded here anymore than information is sold at a computer store. You don't go in to buy the advertisement or information on the computer, you go and purchase the good. The good in this case is the parking spot and the salesperson is whomever is occupying it.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Like I said, I disagree with the practice, but a one time thing is not the same as someone making a job out of holding parking spots.

Don't you feel any guilt about depriving others passing by, the equal opportunity of chance?

I would. My integrity and moral standards would never allow me to do that.
Click to expand...

I won't argue with you guys. *shrug* I'd be happy to pay it myself. The company will probably file suit and the court will iron it out. Might give the city an idea on how to increase revenue though. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
I won't argue with you guys. *shrug* I'd be happy to pay it myself. The company will probably file suit and the court will iron it out. Might give the city an idea on how to increase revenue though. ;)
Click to expand...

Do you have a right to occupy a parking spot and sell it to the highest bidder? No. It's a resource available to all citizens and isn't up for sale by the general public.
 
MaggieD said:
I won't argue with you guys. *shrug* I'd be happy to pay it myself. The company will probably file suit and the court will iron it out. Might give the city an idea on how to increase revenue though. ;)
Click to expand...
By pricing parking out of reach of the lower class?
 
Lord of Planar said:
By pricing parking out of reach of the lower class?
Click to expand...

In the City of Chicago, downtown, parking is what it is. A parking garage is VERY expensive. Curbside parking pretty much non-existent; and even then? It's metered. It's probably already out of reach of the lower class.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So, we have a person doing nothing more than holding parking for hostage.

This is a scumbag of society that you are endorsing.
Click to expand...

Hey, at least the guy is working while providing a valuable service. It's cheaper than a private lot and more convenient than searching for a free public spot, which anyone is still free to do. I mean, you can spin your wheels and hope you get lucky, or you can pay this guy, who's already spent the time to locate a free spot.
 
Lakryte said:
Normally I would disagree with the city on matters like this. For example, I fully support Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb. In this instance, however, I agree with the city. People have no right to sell public parking spaces owned by the city.
Click to expand...

But then to effectively stop this the city has to say that one person doesn't have the right to inform another person for money about a spot becoming vacant.
 
Ahlevah said:
But then to effectively stop this the city has to say that one person doesn't have the right to inform another person for money about a spot becoming vacant.
Click to expand...
The part you're (intentionally?) leaving out is that they're not simply informing other people of an available spot, they're literally holding it for them and will not let anybody else in. You can spin it however you want, and you can leave out the inconvenient parts, but that's the difference between selling information and selling the spot.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's one thing, and I still disagree with it, to wait and hold a public parking space until someone pays you to leave, but it's magnitudes worse yet where someone can do like Ahlevah posts in #144.
Click to expand...

You know, for someone who's unemployed and needs to put food on the table I can think of worse things he could be doing. If he saves me time, I'd gladly pay the five, ten, or twenty bucks.
 
radcen said:
The part you're (intentionally?) leaving out is that they're not simply informing other people of an available spot, they're literally holding it for them and will not let anybody else in. You can spin it however you want, and you can leave out the inconvenient parts, but that's the difference between selling information and selling the spot.
Click to expand...

And how does the city enforce one part (preventing "selling" of a spot) without preventing the first (the communication)? Like I said earlier, they may get a judge to pull the plug on Monkey Parking, but they can not stop people from exchanging information and having one party hold a spot for another party. All they need is a phone and a PayPal account.
 
Ahlevah said:
And how does the city enforce one part (preventing "selling" of a spot) without preventing the first (the communication)? Like I said earlier, they may get a judge to pull the plug on Monkey Parking, but they can not stop people from exchanging information and having one party hold a spot for another party. All they need is a phone and a PayPal account.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that lack of ability to enforce equals complicit approval?
 
radcen said:
Are you saying that lack of ability to enforce equals complicit approval?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the only way they can stop people from holding spots is to silence them, because I see no practical way to prevent a car from doing what the spot is intended for, i.e. parking. After all, when you're not moving and holding the spot for another driver, all the cop sees is that you're parked and then you're leaving, which is what people normally do anyway. But then good luck with silencing people, too.
 
Ahlevah said:
But then to effectively stop this the city has to say that one person doesn't have the right to inform another person for money about a spot becoming vacant.
Click to expand...

No problem.

The announce the spot will become available, and leave. First come first serve.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No problem.

The announce the spot will become available, and leave. First come first serve.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a problem, because, whether MonkeyParking exists or not, there is a financial incentive for people to "sell" spots semi-anonymously using modern communications technology. Trust me. If the city is successful at shutting these guys down, something will take its place.
 
One more thing. A reasonable person could ask who has a vested financial interest in shutting these guys down? Of course, the interests that own for-profit parking garages. If there's a (cheaper) alternative to their service I can see how they might ask the (elected) city attorney to intervene. Just wonderin'.
 
Ahlevah said:
One more thing. A reasonable person could ask who has a vested financial interest in shutting these guys down? Of course, the interests that own for-profit parking garages. If there's a (cheaper) alternative to their service I can see how they might ask the (elected) city attorney to intervene. Just wonderin'.
Click to expand...
The parking garages in SF are insane. Some of the most expensive parking I have ever paid for. The kicker? Many of them are owned by the City itself. The city is the one charging such high prices.

But none of that is relevant to the legality of holding parking spaces and selling them to other people. In order to sell a parking space, you have to own that space. The people using this app do not own the streets or the parking spaces. Simple as that.
 
Lakryte said:
The parking garages in SF are insane. Some of the most expensive parking I have ever paid for. The kicker? Many of them are owned by the City itself. The city is the one charging such high prices.

But none of that is relevant to the legality of holding parking spaces and selling them to other people. In order to sell a parking space, you have to own that space. The people using this app do not own the streets or the parking spaces. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
This. The technological ability to do it is completely irrelevant.
 
radcen said:
This. The technological ability to do it is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

By the laws posted earlier, it appears SF can crack down on them. Just arm the police with the apps used, and go hunting for these profiteers who sell city parking. Once citations are issued making it a loss rather than profit, it will be deterred.
 
Lord of Planar said:
By the laws posted earlier, it appears SF can crack down on them. Just arm the police with the apps used, and go hunting for these profiteers who sell city parking. Once citations are issued making it a loss rather than profit, it will be deterred.
Click to expand...
Marked or unmarked cars? (Which would you do?, I mean.)

I like this idea, btw. They just need to make sure any fines are at least 5x what they're likely to get. It doesn't have to be much, nor should it, just enough to make it seriously unprofitable.
 
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 amounts to collusion. There is nothing justifiable about it. This business does not own the roads so therefor have no right to make them unavailable to those unwilling to pay for their scam.
 
radcen said:
Marked or unmarked cars? (Which would you do?, I mean.)

I like this idea, btw. They just need to make sure any fines are at least 5x what they're likely to get. It doesn't have to be much, nor should it, just enough to make it seriously unprofitable.
Click to expand...
Post 120:

We simply will not agree. I hope the SF PD gets Parking monkey on their phones, drive around in unmarked cars, and ticket or jail people for holding public parking hostage.

I'm going to write them a letter suggesting just that.

What was the listed fines available?

The city can make several thousand a day per police officer I bet, bidding for the spots and taking out the offenders...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom