• 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

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...

Huh? On what do we not agree? I thought I was agreeing with you. :shrug:

My only disagreement would be jail time. Fines would be sufficient. This isn't jail worthy.
 
Huh? On what do we not agree? I thought I was agreeing with you. :shrug:

My only disagreement would be jail time. Fines would be sufficient. This isn't jail worthy.

I'm sorry, I was simply trying to point out I already address the marked/unmarked car question you had.

As for jail time, what do you do with repeat offenders?

What if someone racks up 3 to 5 tickets a day, considering it a joke, and that they can just laugh at our laws?

I think this would be the way SF will go. The pay with the pay pal or what ever feature used say $20 a spot. The go to the location and write the person a $300 ticket. they could make a whole day doing this, and deter the practice as the news gets wind of it. Now that this money paid for illegal activity is through a host site, they are complicit in the crime, and they can take the site to court as well, shutting it down nationwide.

I suspect if PM doesn't comply with the SF request, they will do just that.
 
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.

Yes, in order to sell a parking spot you have to own it. But the people "selling" these spots are not selling the real estate. In order for that to happen, they must have transferable title and they must have a valid sales contract (i.e., it must be in writing, consideration of some sort must be exchanged, and there must be a "meeting of the minds" between buyer and seller). So it's a bit of a misnomer to call what is happening here a "sale" of public property. It's not.

What the "Monkeys" are selling is information concerning when they choose NOT to occupy public parking spots, which I think they have every right to do, notwithstanding the howls of protest to the contrary.
 
Yes, in order to sell a parking spot you have to own it. But the people "selling" these spots are not selling the real estate. In order for that to happen, they must have transferable title and they must have a valid sales contract (i.e., it must be in writing, consideration of some sort must be exchanged, and there must be a "meeting of the minds" between buyer and seller). So it's a bit of a misnomer to call what is happening here a "sale" of public property. It's not.

What the "Monkeys" are selling is information concerning when they choose NOT to occupy public parking spots, which I think they have every right to do, notwithstanding the howls of protest to the contrary.
Bull scheit. You're spinning. You're lying by omission. If they were only selling information, they'd sell the info then leave. Are they doing that? No, they're not. They're staying and waiting until the high bidder gets there then they release the space only to them. Hence, they are selling exclusive rights to park in a space that does not belong to them.
 
The seller (of the info) has a right to occupy the spot. He also has a right to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it. As far as the buyer having exclusive rights to it, I don't think anyone is making that claim; a "buyer" can only enforce his claim to the same extent as any other driver, with the general operating principle in such matters being "The early bird gets the worm."
Do you honestly believe that? Why else would the buyer buy?

Think about it.
 
Bull scheit. You're spinning. You're lying by omission. If they were only selling information, they'd sell the info then leave. Are they doing that? No, they're not. They're staying and waiting until the high bidder gets there then they release the space only to them. Hence, they are selling exclusive rights to park in a space that does not belong to them.

The seller (of the info) has a right to occupy the spot. He also has a right to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it. As far as the buyer having exclusive rights to it, I don't think anyone is making that claim; a "buyer" can only enforce his claim to the same extent as any other driver, with the general operating principle in such matters being "The early bird gets the worm." The early bird in this case gets the worm because he knew something the other drivers didn't.
 
Do you honestly believe that? Why else would the buyer buy?

Think about it.

Yeah, I honestly believe that. Anyone who thinks he's buying an exclusive right to occupy a particular public parking spot is an idiot. If he really had that, then he wouldn't have to worry about the other guy leaving, would he now? Think about it.
 
The seller (of the info) has a right to occupy the spot. He also has a right to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it.

He doesn't have a right to choose who gets the spot. Actually, you as a citizen don't have a right to choose who gets to use any public property. This has been explained to you in about 10 different ways.
 
He doesn't have a right to choose who gets the spot.

I'd say he doesn't have a right to enforce who gets the spot. He does have a right to tell particular people when he's vacating a space.
 
Actually, you as a citizen don't have a right to choose who gets to use any public property. This has been explained to you in about 10 different ways.

Yeah, telling someone about a vacant spot is the same as posting a sign on public property. I get it.
 
I'd say he doesn't have a right to enforce who gets the spot.

You're so out of your league here it's almost laughable. According to you: information is what is being sold. The customer purchases it on the premise that the spot is available. In other words: For the transaction to be considered non fraudulent, the spot needs available when the customer gets there. If the customer gets there and the spot is taken by someone else, the salesperson has committed fraud as the information being sold does not match up to the information that the customer purchased. How old are you? It doesn't sound as if you deal with business a lot.

And no, you don't have a right to occupy a spot until a customer gets there to complete it. Parking works this way: First come, first served.
 
You're so out of your league here it's almost laughable. According to you: information is what is being sold. The customer purchases it on the premise that the spot is available. In other words: For the transaction to be considered non fraudulent, the spot needs available when the customer gets there. If the customer gets there and the spot is taken by someone else, the salesperson has committed fraud as the information being sold does not match up to the information that the customer purchased. How old are you? It doesn't sound as if you deal with business a lot.

If you'd read the thread, then you'd know that the buyer doesn't pay until he gets possession of the spot. The seller is NOT guaranteeing that the buyer will actually receive it.
 
If you'd read the thread, then you'd know that the buyer doesn't pay until he gets possession of the spot.

You're not good at this reading stuff. If you were you'd realize how flawed your entire argument is and that I just exposed your "it's only information that is being sold" as being nothing more than bull. Here, let me simplify it for you:

1. If, as you claim, information is what is being sold, then the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there.
2. If a salesperson needs to physically occupy the location until someone gets there so that the information remains true and the transaction goes through, what is being sold/auctioned/sold/exchanged for money is access to the physical location, not the information for it.
3. You don't have a right to sell access to public property.

In order for #1 to be true, #2 needs to be true itself and that makes the entire thing illegal.
Do you know how businesses work at all?
 
Last edited:
If, as you claim, information is what is being sold, then the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there.

Yes, you're right, the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there. But since the buyer doesn't pay anything unless he successfully gets the spot, and he participates under the proviso that he might not get a particular spot, your claim that a fraud has been committed if the buyer doesn't get the spot is bogus. The information only has value if it is true, but if it isn't he doesn't have to pay. So I wonder: how can there be a fraud unless the buyer pays for something he doesn't receive? With the way the app is set up, that's impossible. He doesn't pay unless the information is valid.

If a salesperson needs to physically occupy the location until someone gets there so that the information remains true and the transaction goes through, what is being sold/auctioned/sold/exchanged for money is the physical location, not the information for it.

As I already noted, the buyer's claim is no more enforceable than anyone else's claim. His only advantage is that he has advance knowledge that a space is being vacated.

In order for #1 to be true, #2 needs to be true itself.

Yes, in order for the transaction to be consummated the buyer needs to have access, and yes, the odds that that happens go up immensely if the seller waits until the buyer arrives, but, once again, the seller is well within his rights to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you're right, the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there. But since the buyer doesn't pay anything unless he successfully gets the spot, and he participates under the proviso that he might not get a particular spot, your claim that a fraud has been committed if the buyer doesn't get the spot is bogus. The information only has value if it is true, but if it isn't he doesn't have to pay. So I wonder: how can there be a fraud unless the buyer pays for something he doesn't receive? With the way the app is set up, that's impossible. He doesn't pay unless the information was valid.

As I already noted, the buyer's claim is no more enforceable than anyone else's claim. His only advantage is that he has advance knowledge that a space is being vacated.

Yes, in order for the transaction to be consummated the buyer needs to have access, and yes, the odds that that happens go up immensely if the seller waits until the buyer arrives, but, once again, the seller is well within his rights to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it.

Your statements mean that the buyer isn't selling information of any sort.

1. Remember: According to you, information is what is being sold.
2. However, the transaction can't go through unless the person who put the "information up for sale" is occupying it and can grant access to it.
3. That means you've misrepresented about what is being sold the entire time. Because...
4. The information is simply an advertisement for the spot & what is being sold is access to the spot, not information on where to get it.

That is illegal.

Thanks for playing.
 
Thanks for playing.

Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:
 
Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:

As I understand it, there is bidding taking place. Basically, if you don't have the means to bid a lot of money for a space, you don't get to park. Our public parking system should not run like an aristocratic system where only those with a lot of cash get to park and to hell with everyone else. It should run first come first serve.
 
Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:

no the only person that has holes in his argument is you.

1. a private lamp belongs to the person that owns it. therefore that person can buy and sell that lamp with no problem at all.
2. These spaces are not owned by the person in them they belong to the public at large.

you do not have the right to sell public own property as you are not the owner of said property.
 
Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:

It's so abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about business it's almost laughable.

1. The person holding the spot is not being paid a finder's fee for someone else's private property like in your example.
2. They are paying an access fee for public property they are occupying. Remember, the transaction can't go through unless the spot is being occupied by the person who placed the ad on it.

I can't believe you actually tried to pass that ridiculous example off as being the same thing. Here you go again:

1. You don't have a right to charge access fees for public property. This has been explained to you through the use of actual law statutes from San Francisco.
2. You don't have a right to place advertisements of any sort that place the use of public property as the transferable good. Same as above.
3. You have been dishonest about what is being transferred here.
4. The information and use of technology are irrelevant without access to the spot being granted.
5. A person could place an sign on their car (which isn't public property) advertising that they'll move their car for a fee and it would still amount to the exact same illegal activity.

I wish you actually knew something about business.
 
Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:
Does that apple taste like an orange to you?
 
Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

Of course it doesn't. He's been trying to sneak around what the law says on this matter through the entire thread. He actually tried to claim that laws against advertising the sale/use of public property pertained to people who physically place ads and not internet based advertisement. He's probably a shrill for the company and was expecting people on this forum to actually buy the bull**** claim that what is being transferred for information. If information was what was being transferred, there wouldn't be a need for payment after the parking spot has been taken over from the person who placed the advertisement for it in the first place.What is being paid for is access to spot, not the information for it.
 
The seller (of the info) has a right to occupy the spot. He also has a right to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it. As far as the buyer having exclusive rights to it, I don't think anyone is making that claim; a "buyer" can only enforce his claim to the same extent as any other driver, with the general operating principle in such matters being "The early bird gets the worm." The early bird in this case gets the worm because he knew something the other drivers didn't.
By holding the parking spaces until another car comes, and then collecting money for holding those spaces, these people are in practice selling parking spaces. Call it selling information all you want, but that is simply attempted to put lipstick on a pig. End of story. What these people are doing is no more legal than random people deciding to park on my driveway.
 
Back
Top Bottom