San Francisco bans parking space apps(bbc.com)
bbc.com
San Francisco bans parking space apps
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27995429
14 comments
Nature finds a way. The free market is the little green shoots growing up between the cracks of the grey statist utopian paved earth. Technology is allowing innovators to outpace the entitled dullards that inhabit the halls of political privilege. They'll shut this down, with all you fine citizens celebrating, but the innovators will route around it again.
People making money out of someone else's property is what this app and airbnb do. That's not a clever hack or capitalism finding a way - that's stealing and hoping no one notices.
Regulation at its core is a vital part of a free market (and by the way the only free part we really care about is freedom to set a price)
We regulate murder, kidnap, extortion and parking bye-laws. We do that so we can all move forward in a society packed full of other selfish Great Apes with weapons.
It works - we are living proof. It can always be improved, but almost always a market failure in the western world is down to some greedy bastard somewhere breaking the rules to obtain an advantage and not getting shutdown fast enough.
Regulation at its core is a vital part of a free market (and by the way the only free part we really care about is freedom to set a price)
We regulate murder, kidnap, extortion and parking bye-laws. We do that so we can all move forward in a society packed full of other selfish Great Apes with weapons.
It works - we are living proof. It can always be improved, but almost always a market failure in the western world is down to some greedy bastard somewhere breaking the rules to obtain an advantage and not getting shutdown fast enough.
airbnb makes money off private property and I cannot possibly see how renting your own house to someone would be called stealing. This app makes money of public property, and that is where the difference is - it's as if you were auctioning off your place in a homeless shelter, if you want to stick to the AirBnB reference.
A "large proportion" of airbnb is sub-letting - either a flat for a week while away, a room for months or other types banned in the original lease contract. Even some people who own their own leasehold in the uk don't have rental rights.
The BBC estimated that was 40% of rentals on airbnb - it is my contention that airbnb is doing a YouTube - basing its growth on breaches of copyright / lease law whilst hoping to grow big enough fast enough for it to not matter.
I think a better analogy is ticket touting - you buy a ticket at the baseball game and then sell the seat again, leaving when the next buyer turns up. And you only buy at "public good" rates and sell at "market rates"
This app would also go out of business if SF city sold parking places at market rates - there would be no margin.
In all, it's a silly app trying to create an after market in something where they and their customers have no legal rights and no practical enforcement, and I think they were hoping to scrape enough and not get noticed.
The BBC estimated that was 40% of rentals on airbnb - it is my contention that airbnb is doing a YouTube - basing its growth on breaches of copyright / lease law whilst hoping to grow big enough fast enough for it to not matter.
I think a better analogy is ticket touting - you buy a ticket at the baseball game and then sell the seat again, leaving when the next buyer turns up. And you only buy at "public good" rates and sell at "market rates"
This app would also go out of business if SF city sold parking places at market rates - there would be no margin.
In all, it's a silly app trying to create an after market in something where they and their customers have no legal rights and no practical enforcement, and I think they were hoping to scrape enough and not get noticed.
I don't know what to think. Devilishly clever. Instant new market. But so detrimental if it catches on...
People who live paycheck-to-paycheck wouldn't be able to afford this. If it becomes very popular, those without disposable income may be unfairly abused by the system. Till now, finding a spot has been random lottery. Pay-for-privilege will leave struggling families out in the cold (perhaps literally).
Yet to punish a company so harshly before the phenomenon has proven to be a problem in practice seems draconian. The gap between theory and reality is large. Something that's harmful in theory can sometimes prove itself advantageous in unexpected ways.
And what if the company wasn't based in California? Would there be any recourse for California to exert regulatory pressure over a company based in another state? Pg's quote "if you outlaw the future, it will just happen elsewhere" seems relevant. Maybe it's a matter of time until this app catches on in other large cities. Nobody likes spending ~30 minutes searching for a parking spot.
But it's difficult to shake the feeling that the whole concept is, well, douchey. I dislike that word, but it seems quite applicable here. Sitting in a parking space for longer than you need it in order to personally profit is pretty much the definition of a dick move. Yet should that argument alone be sufficient reason to outlaw the entire market? I don't know.
People who live paycheck-to-paycheck wouldn't be able to afford this. If it becomes very popular, those without disposable income may be unfairly abused by the system. Till now, finding a spot has been random lottery. Pay-for-privilege will leave struggling families out in the cold (perhaps literally).
Yet to punish a company so harshly before the phenomenon has proven to be a problem in practice seems draconian. The gap between theory and reality is large. Something that's harmful in theory can sometimes prove itself advantageous in unexpected ways.
And what if the company wasn't based in California? Would there be any recourse for California to exert regulatory pressure over a company based in another state? Pg's quote "if you outlaw the future, it will just happen elsewhere" seems relevant. Maybe it's a matter of time until this app catches on in other large cities. Nobody likes spending ~30 minutes searching for a parking spot.
But it's difficult to shake the feeling that the whole concept is, well, douchey. I dislike that word, but it seems quite applicable here. Sitting in a parking space for longer than you need it in order to personally profit is pretty much the definition of a dick move. Yet should that argument alone be sufficient reason to outlaw the entire market? I don't know.
It's not draconian; it's counter to the goals of paid public parking.
Public parking is designed to ensure spots are available. This is why many cities have meter parking with a 2 hour limit; to discourage people from parking on the street all day long (there are garages for that).
This type of app encourages people to occupy spots by camping out in them and selling them to the highest bidder. If your goal is to ensure parking spots are available to people that need them for short-term parking, allowing that behavior seems counter-productive towards your goal.
Public parking is designed to ensure spots are available. This is why many cities have meter parking with a 2 hour limit; to discourage people from parking on the street all day long (there are garages for that).
This type of app encourages people to occupy spots by camping out in them and selling them to the highest bidder. If your goal is to ensure parking spots are available to people that need them for short-term parking, allowing that behavior seems counter-productive towards your goal.
Seeking rent from public property is a a problem in itself.
You pay to get in and pay to get out. Doesn't really seem like seeking [net] rent as much as it is efficiently allocating available resources.
It's not efficient if you park longer, waiting for someone who's going to pay you, rather than just pull out and let anyone else in. Drivers are being paid explicitly for making the allocation less efficient for everyone apart from the app user. It's the tragedy of the commons again.
Closer to racket[1]: causing a problem in order to get paid to fix it
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)
How is it a problem that the public entity responsible for the property charges rent to individual users?
EDIT: Or is the problem you are referring to what the app is doing? I read it as that the app wasn't the problem, but that the underlying idea of paid parking which it sits on top of is wrong, but I realize that it might also be read the other way.
EDIT: Or is the problem you are referring to what the app is doing? I read it as that the app wasn't the problem, but that the underlying idea of paid parking which it sits on top of is wrong, but I realize that it might also be read the other way.
Maybe it's a matter of time until this app catches on in other large cities. Nobody likes spending ~30 minutes searching for a parking spot.
More likely, cities will find a way to auction off parking spaces, in real time, as a source of revenue. This can be zoned to high-congestion / high-activity neighborhoods, like anything else. Not much different from parking meters, in basic conceptual terms (which I've heard also weren't so popular when they were first introduced). Or congestion pricing.
But the idea that people "own" the parking spaces they're sitting on, and have an inalienable right to extort as much money as they'd care to fancy from the next hapless driver -- let alone that the "market" for this kind of an activity has an inalienable right to exist (just because someone created an app for it) -- is, well, very Silicon Valley.
More likely, cities will find a way to auction off parking spaces, in real time, as a source of revenue. This can be zoned to high-congestion / high-activity neighborhoods, like anything else. Not much different from parking meters, in basic conceptual terms (which I've heard also weren't so popular when they were first introduced). Or congestion pricing.
But the idea that people "own" the parking spaces they're sitting on, and have an inalienable right to extort as much money as they'd care to fancy from the next hapless driver -- let alone that the "market" for this kind of an activity has an inalienable right to exist (just because someone created an app for it) -- is, well, very Silicon Valley.
Well it does meet the definition of a private good (excludable, rivalrous.) Maybe it should be treated like all other private goods and rationed by price. I guess in theory the money can be given to poor (if it's done by the city which owns the parking spots.)
I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it does seem arbitrary to have some private goods rationed by price and others rationed by lottery. Just because "that's the way it's always been". In any case this app or rather the people using it don't rightfully own the parking spaces, but they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency.
I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it does seem arbitrary to have some private goods rationed by price and others rationed by lottery. Just because "that's the way it's always been". In any case this app or rather the people using it don't rightfully own the parking spaces, but they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency.
Your logic applies equally to private jets. Guess what? There are other modes of transportation than cars. Shhhhocker.
Reality: This will harm middle class people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, not struggling families.
Reality: This will harm middle class people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, not struggling families.
And that is better how?
> And what if the company wasn't based in California? Would there be any recourse for California to exert regulatory pressure over a company based in another state?
If the company is doing business in California and has assets or income streams in or coming from California then there are probably avenues for enforcement.
And if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be an issue here in the first place.
If the company is doing business in California and has assets or income streams in or coming from California then there are probably avenues for enforcement.
And if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be an issue here in the first place.
> What if the company wasn't based in California?
The article says it was built in Rome, Italy.
The article says it was built in Rome, Italy.
I assumed that California couldn't issue fines against a company unless the company is based within its borders. Every app is de facto international nowadays, so does that mean California can issue fines against any company with a popular app? I'm rather ignorant of the legal dynamics in play here, so it'd be wonderful to hear from someone with experience.
California isn't issuing fines, San Francisco is. And, yes, either can issue fines to a company irrespective of where its headquarters is located, though its ability to actually collect fines may be limited.
OTOH, any company doing business in the San Francisco probably has assets or income streams that are going to be subject to the jurisdiction of courts through which either the City and County of San Francisco or the State of California could act to enforce fines.
OTOH, any company doing business in the San Francisco probably has assets or income streams that are going to be subject to the jurisdiction of courts through which either the City and County of San Francisco or the State of California could act to enforce fines.
[deleted]
You can get paid for the spot when you leave it in the same way you paid for it when you took it. So I don't see how this is supposed to disproportionately affect poor people.
Because you need a smartphone with the appropriate app to be in the market in the first place!
Oh come on now.
I agree with Mr. Herrera, even as a libertarian. Apps like Uber and Airbnb are fundamentally different from this. You could make an argument that those apps should be regulated consistently with other business in the same market, but at the end of the day they are dealing with private property. This app takes property that is already paid for and maintained by all tax payers and holds it hostage (their metaphor is very apt). Paying for the spot gives you the right to park there - it does not give you the right to determine who comes in next, and especially not to make money off that decision.
It's unlikely you're making [net] money if you're paying to get in and getting payed when you leave.
> It's unlikely you're making [net] money if you're paying to get in and getting payed when you leave.
Getting payed when you leave requires being willing to spend extra time when you are done -- and depends on how willing you are to do that. People with reasons for being in the spot beyond arbitrage may have other needs that make that less viable.
Getting payed when you leave requires being willing to spend extra time when you are done -- and depends on how willing you are to do that. People with reasons for being in the spot beyond arbitrage may have other needs that make that less viable.
The problem with this business is not that it forces people to pay high prices for high value parking spaces, rather it's that it incentivizes people to camp out in high value spaces, and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not to the city. If this app is popular at all, it's probably an indication that the city isn't charging enough for parking.
> and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not the city
Then the city should build their own version and get the money that it feels it is entitled to.
Then the city should build their own version and get the money that it feels it is entitled to.
I really don't understand this mindset.
Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable.
Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?
Why do you want to live in that world?
Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable.
Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?
Why do you want to live in that world?
Because that's what balances the supply and demand. Artificially low prices are precisely what cause shortages.
The kind of world you describe would far more efficiently allocate resource--even helping people to determine whether or not to drive versus bike versus walk versus other transportation. It also would help people determine the actual value of their property: should it be a house? A restaurant? A parking garage?
The kind of world you describe would far more efficiently allocate resource--even helping people to determine whether or not to drive versus bike versus walk versus other transportation. It also would help people determine the actual value of their property: should it be a house? A restaurant? A parking garage?
Shortages for who? You, that can afford to pay whatever you feel like? Or people on a lower incomes who would just be priced out entirely?
Your 'shortage' is only eased by making life difficult for others.
Your 'shortage' is only eased by making life difficult for others.
> Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable.
Particularly, while the tariffs are intended to provide revenue they are mostly intended to supplement hard time limits in providing an incentive to limit how long you spend in the space, and largely are intended to be low given that purpose because they (and the hard limits) exist to enable commerce by encouraging turnover and thereby providing accessibility.
Maximizing fees by using an auction mechanism would not serve that purpose.
Particularly, while the tariffs are intended to provide revenue they are mostly intended to supplement hard time limits in providing an incentive to limit how long you spend in the space, and largely are intended to be low given that purpose because they (and the hard limits) exist to enable commerce by encouraging turnover and thereby providing accessibility.
Maximizing fees by using an auction mechanism would not serve that purpose.
There is a market-clearing price. Call it $N. That's the level at which people willing to pay $N can always get a parking spot. For a smaller value of $N, someone wants to get a parking spot by paying $N can't. (That price might even be $0 if you have more supply than demand. Some economists will talk about "The High Price Of Free Parking," and there's something to that, but if the city decides to make the market-clearing price $0, then they should do it by always having enough supply available.)
If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. Instead of paying money, people have to drive in circles, or queue, or wait to find out the results of a lottery. No one benefits by this. If you are trying to help the poor, just give them more money, and they will decide on their own how valuable parking is to them.
For the record, I fully support the city deciding that these other people don't get to extract the city's rents. The city should stop people from occupying a public space merely because they want to get paid to move on. It's the city's resource to sell. (And maybe the market clearing price becomes $0 once you kick out the people who are making a problem just to be paid to stop making it -- which is the definition of a racket.)
If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. Instead of paying money, people have to drive in circles, or queue, or wait to find out the results of a lottery. No one benefits by this. If you are trying to help the poor, just give them more money, and they will decide on their own how valuable parking is to them.
For the record, I fully support the city deciding that these other people don't get to extract the city's rents. The city should stop people from occupying a public space merely because they want to get paid to move on. It's the city's resource to sell. (And maybe the market clearing price becomes $0 once you kick out the people who are making a problem just to be paid to stop making it -- which is the definition of a racket.)
>> If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system.
why is efficiency always the best goal for common resources? Why should poorer people be priced out of an efficient market on public resources we have all paid for?
why is efficiency always the best goal for common resources? Why should poorer people be priced out of an efficient market on public resources we have all paid for?
>Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear?
Because it's the only reasonable choice? Overly cheap parking is not just inherently stupid and wasteful, it also generates other problems:
"cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts"[0]
You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?
Cities that have started using the price mechanism have seen great results.[0][1]
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=13...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-th...
Because it's the only reasonable choice? Overly cheap parking is not just inherently stupid and wasteful, it also generates other problems:
"cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts"[0]
You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?
Cities that have started using the price mechanism have seen great results.[0][1]
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=13...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-th...
Overly cheap parking is a problem for sure, but so is overly expensive parking. The articles you cite say that an 80-85% occupancy rate for parking spaces is most desirable, a figure I've seen before. Say the city determines that for every dollar parking is increased demand drops 10% and at $2 an hour demand is the optimal 80%. That means that the market is most profitable when parking spaces are actually $5 an hour and demand is 50%.
In the closed world of parking spaces $5 an hour is the optimal rate, but in reality this could be disastrous for traffic and business who are now dealing with increased congestion and reduced customers respectively. Taking the ability to set pricing out of the control of the city and placing it with independent/selfish actors might have unforeseen ripple effects on the wider community. Therefore it should well within the city's right as an actor who is responsible to the community to direct the use of its property as best suits the public good.
In the closed world of parking spaces $5 an hour is the optimal rate, but in reality this could be disastrous for traffic and business who are now dealing with increased congestion and reduced customers respectively. Taking the ability to set pricing out of the control of the city and placing it with independent/selfish actors might have unforeseen ripple effects on the wider community. Therefore it should well within the city's right as an actor who is responsible to the community to direct the use of its property as best suits the public good.
>> You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?
Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though.
I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.
Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though.
I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.
If your concern is for poor people being priced out of the market, the best solution is (obviously) not to destroy the market, but to subsidize poor people. Proper pricing of parking would bring in significant revenues, some of them could be directed to pay for poor people's parking.
I disagree with this statement a lot.
I will give you an example, based on trains.
In the country where I come from, Poland, trains lines are owned by the government, which makes them incredibly cheap. I know a lot of people who commute long distances to work or study,because the ticket for a 2 hour long journey costs an equivalent of $2-3 USD.
However, now I live in the UK, and despite the standard of living being much higher, and people making a lot more money in general, I know very few people who regularly take trains to go anywhere, because prices are "as high as the market will bear",which makes commuting longer distances very expensive - due to the fact that all train lines are private and they charge whatever they see fit, with higher prices during rush hours, and so on.
And no, the solution is not to subsidize poor people. In fact, I would not describe myself poor, making $30k a year, and I still would not take a train every day, as it would be ruining financially. In Poland, even if I was making a third of what I make here I could afford to commute by train every day, as it is absurdly cheap.
I feel like the same thing applies here. Cheap, publicly owned parking spaces guarantee better opportunities for everyone, and that's how it should be like.
However, now I live in the UK, and despite the standard of living being much higher, and people making a lot more money in general, I know very few people who regularly take trains to go anywhere, because prices are "as high as the market will bear",which makes commuting longer distances very expensive - due to the fact that all train lines are private and they charge whatever they see fit, with higher prices during rush hours, and so on.
And no, the solution is not to subsidize poor people. In fact, I would not describe myself poor, making $30k a year, and I still would not take a train every day, as it would be ruining financially. In Poland, even if I was making a third of what I make here I could afford to commute by train every day, as it is absurdly cheap.
I feel like the same thing applies here. Cheap, publicly owned parking spaces guarantee better opportunities for everyone, and that's how it should be like.
Why?
that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served).
It's nonsensical
that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served).
It's nonsensical
>while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start
No it doesn't. Less traffic, less pollution, faster parking.
No it doesn't. Less traffic, less pollution, faster parking.
And that's just not true if you're giving money back to the poorer folks so they can afford to park again!!
This works if you price people out of the market, not if you price people out and then subsidise them back in, and it's the pricing out in the first place that is my problem with it.
Or are you saying not to give the poor some of the money so they can continue to park, but just as a bit of a bung as an apology for taking away their access to yet another public service?
This works if you price people out of the market, not if you price people out and then subsidise them back in, and it's the pricing out in the first place that is my problem with it.
Or are you saying not to give the poor some of the money so they can continue to park, but just as a bit of a bung as an apology for taking away their access to yet another public service?
>Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear?
I would have no problem if Edinburgh -- where I live -- adopted that policy for car parking.
> Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?
Car parking spaces are not "everything in the world".
I would have no problem if Edinburgh -- where I live -- adopted that policy for car parking.
> Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?
Car parking spaces are not "everything in the world".
But this mindset gets applied to everything, and people valiantly leap to defend it as applied to everything because apparently if it's a market it must be virtuous.
I live in Southampton I know a bunch of people who would have a problem with this becoming the norm there - poorer local people would be priced out of city-centre parking as we have a regional shopping-centre. A first-come first-served basis lets everyone have a chance at access rather than reserving for those who can pay most.
I live in Southampton I know a bunch of people who would have a problem with this becoming the norm there - poorer local people would be priced out of city-centre parking as we have a regional shopping-centre. A first-come first-served basis lets everyone have a chance at access rather than reserving for those who can pay most.
Parking is a service, provided by the city. The people who pay taxes have already paid for that parking spot. If you, or somebody else (Even the city!) try to profiteer in excess of that, it's predatory and against the rules.
If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expect me to pay. You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge for a "crossing toll". It's not yours to profit from!
If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expect me to pay. You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge for a "crossing toll". It's not yours to profit from!
>> "You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge"
That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.
That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.
But you have not paid for the right to sell that spot.
This is deifferent from land speculation ... how?
Rich jerks in China bribe public parking attendants for exclusive places to park their black Audis on the street. These apps at least distribute the bribes more evenly but nonetheless they are still scummy.
Not directly related, but here's Godwin (yes, that one) posting "Hitler tries to find an apartment in SF": https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/480572531749826561 - it's pretty funny.
Perhaps regulating a cap is better than banning the practice outright. If the max price is equal to the minutes left on the meter * fare per minute, the seller will never get back more than they put in. They will just be selling back the unused minutes, which can be useful if someone puts a few hours on the meter because they don't know how long they will need it. This would prevent scalping, and if parking is considered a public good, it will bring the minutes paid for / minutes used ratio closer to 1, which should be the goal. I understand that it's probably not the goal of the app creators, but it is a reasonable compromise. Of course, this type of efficiency means more social benefit and lower revenues for the city, so that's not likely to happen.
regulating = endorsing.
Regulating badly is usually worse than not regulating at all.
Regulating badly is usually worse than not regulating at all.
I tend to agree with that sentiment.
I suppose I was just thinking about the city I live in. Here, the meter prints out a receipt that the driver leaves on the dash of the car. People often will give the receipt to someone else when they are leaving their spot. Of course this practice is illegal, but I don't think it should be if the spot was paid for. Of course, it would be douchey if people started selling these tickets for high prices (that would be seeking rent from a public good), but I would have no problem buying a ticket off of a guy who wants to get his remaining three bucks back.
But I suppose you are right, there is no "good way" to get something between price gouging anarchy and outright banning of the practice.
I suppose I was just thinking about the city I live in. Here, the meter prints out a receipt that the driver leaves on the dash of the car. People often will give the receipt to someone else when they are leaving their spot. Of course this practice is illegal, but I don't think it should be if the spot was paid for. Of course, it would be douchey if people started selling these tickets for high prices (that would be seeking rent from a public good), but I would have no problem buying a ticket off of a guy who wants to get his remaining three bucks back.
But I suppose you are right, there is no "good way" to get something between price gouging anarchy and outright banning of the practice.
Good.
Monetising antisocial behaviour is not to be encouraged.
Monetising antisocial behaviour is not to be encouraged.
In this case, you have someone pay a small parking meter fee and then they sit in the public spot waiting for someone to offer them more than their original meter fee.
This is very similar to domain name registration. You have someone pay a small registration fee (~$12) to register a domain and then they sit on that domain waiting for someone to pay them substantially more for it.
If it is ethical for a domain name market to work this way, why is a parking meter market different?
This is very similar to domain name registration. You have someone pay a small registration fee (~$12) to register a domain and then they sit on that domain waiting for someone to pay them substantially more for it.
If it is ethical for a domain name market to work this way, why is a parking meter market different?
Because domain names aren't public property.
Hey, I should do this with tables at popular restaurants during peak hours too. That's not being an asshole, it's letting the market decide!
You can book a table at restaurants. Maybe booking a parking would be a thing to look at instead.
Being paid for leaving the place actually creates market for people who would bend the rules for profit. For example get a low-mpg/electric car that you drive around, take any space, then immediately resell it. Even worse, if you get together with others, you probably could create enough artificial resource scarcity to lift the prices to the level that makes doing this all day long profitable.
Being paid for leaving the place actually creates market for people who would bend the rules for profit. For example get a low-mpg/electric car that you drive around, take any space, then immediately resell it. Even worse, if you get together with others, you probably could create enough artificial resource scarcity to lift the prices to the level that makes doing this all day long profitable.
Not all restaurants. Maybe that lunch place that's real popular, you know the one, where seating's unreserved. I could really draw out my meal until the right person comes along and pays me to move on.
But yes, I agree, this whole thing creates incentives that add up to a bad situation for an allegedly public resource.
But yes, I agree, this whole thing creates incentives that add up to a bad situation for an allegedly public resource.
If SF can devise a system that notifies drivers of a free parking spot for less than it currently costs - go ahead and implement it.
But I have admit that I doubt there is a cheaper way. And city probably has more important problems to solve.
But I have admit that I doubt there is a cheaper way. And city probably has more important problems to solve.
A decent transportation infrastructure -- whether it's cars (with associated parking) or trains or buses or bikes or footpaths -- is an essential function of local government.
"creates a predatory private market for public parking spaces that San Franciscans will not tolerate"
Right, because I've never driven around Nob Hill for an hour trying to find parking, only to have to give up and pay $25 for a garage. The response from the city makes more sense if you've never actually had to do street parking in the city. When I'm at my wit's end, driving around the same streets continuously, I'd gladly have paid $7 for a spot. Have the time you don't even find a spot, you find someone leaving and take the spot immediately.
Right, because I've never driven around Nob Hill for an hour trying to find parking, only to have to give up and pay $25 for a garage. The response from the city makes more sense if you've never actually had to do street parking in the city. When I'm at my wit's end, driving around the same streets continuously, I'd gladly have paid $7 for a spot. Have the time you don't even find a spot, you find someone leaving and take the spot immediately.
It's easy to see this as a foolish reaction of "there is a market? But markets are unfair because money, so let's stop it!" by the city of San Fran. In fact, it would take remarkably little to make me believe San Fran was that foolish.
However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move.
The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. Let the market decide what the price of parking is, and pay the supplier.
However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move.
The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. Let the market decide what the price of parking is, and pay the supplier.
Why "should" SF be auctioning off these spots? To maximize revenue? Is that why public services exist? Are they doing a larger disservice to the people of SF by NOT auctioning them off, thus raising the price to park, over having a lower price solution to $25 parking garages? Maybe SF should build a couple of public parking garages themselves if they, as a public service, wish to continue to offer more affordable public parking. The residents of the city need affordable parking. Unless, their goal is to get less people to drive in the city and take public transit. There are so many factors at play here. So many agendas and concerns. So I repeat my question... for what reasons "should" SF auction off the spots? What are its ramifications? I have no skin in the game, I'm just an east coaster. These issues are hardly ever so cut and dry as to whether a market exists or not.
Parking is an inefficient use of land in a dense city. Cheap parking just subsidizes this inefficiency.
When I had my car in the city, I took public transit every chance I could because I didn't dare lose my parking spot. I only used the car for out of town trips. Then I realized how ridiculous it was to own a car that I was stressed out to use. I switched to Zipcar and never looked back (in fact, my local Zipcar garage is closer than how far away I normally had to park).
You mention the Zipcar garage. Why doesn't the city build a couple of these garages? Why don't they offer an affordable solution in that respect? What if they got rid of on street parking all together and created more parking garages so that they took up less acres and they could then reuse that street space for more driving lanes or bike lanes or bus lanes etc? They could then have more parking spots in a given geographical area and better public land use overall. I think that affordable and plentiful parking is vital to most downtown areas. Private industry will only put in so much parking themselves to maximize revenue over and above the purpose of the service itself.
I made a longer comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577
TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.
TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.
> TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.
If it is a public resource with a single public issuer, you don't have the requisites for a functioning market anyhow, so not auctioning it doesn't "break the market".
If it is a public resource with a single public issuer, you don't have the requisites for a functioning market anyhow, so not auctioning it doesn't "break the market".
If I want to pay the market clearing price to get a parking spot but cannot, the market has broken.
This is otherwise a functioning market. There is demand that can react to prices, and the city can adjust supply based on price data.
This is otherwise a functioning market. There is demand that can react to prices, and the city can adjust supply based on price data.
> However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move.
This analysis is totally on point and I'm shocked someone downvoted you.
This analysis is totally on point and I'm shocked someone downvoted you.
> The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own.
The purpose of paid, time-limited public parking isn't to maximize revenue (though providing revenue is not unimportant) , it is to maintain availability of spaces so that people can use them and promote commerce.
Auction off spaces -- e.g., maximizing the cost to park -- is not really ideal for serving that goal.
The purpose of paid, time-limited public parking isn't to maximize revenue (though providing revenue is not unimportant) , it is to maintain availability of spaces so that people can use them and promote commerce.
Auction off spaces -- e.g., maximizing the cost to park -- is not really ideal for serving that goal.
I don't think auctions necessarily get to the maximum revenue, but they do get to a market clearing price. (An auction doesn't have to be "everyone who wins pays what they bid"; instead it can be "everyone who wins pays what the last person to squeeze in pays." I'm pretending for simplicity that "parking spot" is perfectly fungible when they obviously vary a lot by time and location.)
I.e., say $N is the price at which no one willing to pay $N can't get a spot, and say $M is the price at which the city maximizes revenue. $M could be greater than $N, and it's a policy decision on the city's part which to choose. [1]
If the problem is insufficient parking, though, charging less than $N is the solution. If "auction" doesn't work to get you there, find some other method that does.
[1] (And it should be upfront to its citizens about which it chooses. Red-light cameras often are said to be about safety even if they end up causing accidents, because it helps the city get revenue.)
I.e., say $N is the price at which no one willing to pay $N can't get a spot, and say $M is the price at which the city maximizes revenue. $M could be greater than $N, and it's a policy decision on the city's part which to choose. [1]
If the problem is insufficient parking, though, charging less than $N is the solution. If "auction" doesn't work to get you there, find some other method that does.
[1] (And it should be upfront to its citizens about which it chooses. Red-light cameras often are said to be about safety even if they end up causing accidents, because it helps the city get revenue.)
Are there not meters for these spots, for which time the squatters need to pay? It seems like this is a problem of arbitrage. The spots are worth more on the 2nd hand market than they cost in the first place.
Supply/demand problems really pricing problems.
Supply/demand problems really pricing problems.
Aren't the places made for,and maintained with public money though?
If the city owns a ballpark, and 50,000 people want to sit behind homeplate on opening day, you still need a mechanism for allocating those seats.
You can lottery, but then people would just trade the seats for money themselves. Why bother? If you want poor people to have more money, give them more money. You can even do it randomly if the lottery aspect is fun for them.
You can lottery, but then people would just trade the seats for money themselves. Why bother? If you want poor people to have more money, give them more money. You can even do it randomly if the lottery aspect is fun for them.
Because if you think about it, you paid in your taxes to build and maintain a parking place, and now some asshole sits there all day, waiting for someone to pay him to move his car. Even if it is not illegal, it is unethical.
This doesn't seem to be a response to me. I think it's good for the government to put a stop to this racket (which is the term for creating a problem and then offering to receive money to stop it).
What about people who can't pay $7? That's what public services need to think about.
How much does a parking meter cost in San Francisco normally? (Honest question, since I don't live anywhere near there.)
Frankly, if private prices for parking spaces really did start to soar, that would be an Enormous Clue for the city, though I fully trust them to bitch about the market long before they actually listen to it. (And by "listen" to it, I do not mean "mindlessly obey it"... I mean, listen to it. It would be trying to tell you something. Perhaps something you already know, but with fresh volume and urgency. But, of course, far better to just crucify the market, then live in a world of myth and mystery where things Just Happen and The Rich are mysteriously behind every bush and every lamppost keeping down The Good People via entirely mysterious and inscrutable magic mechanisms that can never be studied or understood by Good People lest they become Tainted and Unclean....)
Frankly, if private prices for parking spaces really did start to soar, that would be an Enormous Clue for the city, though I fully trust them to bitch about the market long before they actually listen to it. (And by "listen" to it, I do not mean "mindlessly obey it"... I mean, listen to it. It would be trying to tell you something. Perhaps something you already know, but with fresh volume and urgency. But, of course, far better to just crucify the market, then live in a world of myth and mystery where things Just Happen and The Rich are mysteriously behind every bush and every lamppost keeping down The Good People via entirely mysterious and inscrutable magic mechanisms that can never be studied or understood by Good People lest they become Tainted and Unclean....)
Parking varies greatly throughout the city. If you are downtown, it is really difficult to find a spot at all, so garages are usually the main option. Garage runs around $2 for 20 minutes, but then rate declines over more time with typically a $20 cap.
If you do find a street spot, its probably metered which now has adjustable rates depending on location and time. A meter will run about $1 for 15 minutes, but no upper cap and most of time limits.
If you get out of downtown, there is street parking in most neighborhoods for free, but typically with 2-hour limits, permit zones or weird street cleaning hours which if you leave it there you will get towed.
The app will probably benefit the neighborhoods the most, since a free spot with no street cleaning the next day is a gold mine.
If you do find a street spot, its probably metered which now has adjustable rates depending on location and time. A meter will run about $1 for 15 minutes, but no upper cap and most of time limits.
If you get out of downtown, there is street parking in most neighborhoods for free, but typically with 2-hour limits, permit zones or weird street cleaning hours which if you leave it there you will get towed.
The app will probably benefit the neighborhoods the most, since a free spot with no street cleaning the next day is a gold mine.
Other than the money going to private companies rather than the city, how is it any different from a parking meter? In my city, there are no parking spots that are walking distance from downtown that do not cost money to use.
[deleted]
AIUI, this is people paying for, and parking their car in a city-owned car parking space, and then giving up that space to someone who's willing to pay more money for it.
This is simply arbitrage, and it's legal when Wall St fatcats do it, it should be legal for everyone. If the city objects, they should charge the market-clearing price for parking. If that leads to a problem where only rich people can park, then California should build as much low-cost housing as it takes so that everyone can afford a house without paying an arm and a leg.
This is simply arbitrage, and it's legal when Wall St fatcats do it, it should be legal for everyone. If the city objects, they should charge the market-clearing price for parking. If that leads to a problem where only rich people can park, then California should build as much low-cost housing as it takes so that everyone can afford a house without paying an arm and a leg.
I see it as something very close to protection racket. This app creates an incentive to take the space for longer than necessary and get paid for freeing it up. Maybe as an add-on you won't get your car scratched for an extra payment?
[deleted]
How did anyone expect that would remain ethical or legal?
There are many ways technology could improve parking in SF but making private profits off public resources is not it.