Sell your S.F. street parking spot for $20?(blog.sfgate.com)
blog.sfgate.com
Sell your S.F. street parking spot for $20?
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/05/05/sell-your-s-f-street-parking-spot-for-20/
14 comments
So I'm waiting behind a soon-to-be (or not-so-soon) leaving car and some other jerk with an app pulls up and claims it's his spot because he "paid" for it? And I'm supposed to recognize this transaction and carry on? Yeah, right. Fuck both these guys, he'll have to pay me 20 bucks not to break his taillight.
Presumably the people creating this app have thought of this, seeing as it's like one of the critical parts of completing a transaction. With a few seconds of thought you can come up with a quick way to make sure it all works.
What might happen though is that if a car is about to leave and a non-paying car pulls up to get in, the leaving car might decide to stay a bit longer until a paying car gets first into queue.
What might happen though is that if a car is about to leave and a non-paying car pulls up to get in, the leaving car might decide to stay a bit longer until a paying car gets first into queue.
They might have thought of it, but there is actually no solution to it because the non-paying person waiting for the spot isn't a player in the system they are constructing and thus can't be relied upon to react in a predictable manner.
"What might happen though is that if a car is about to leave and a non-paying car pulls up to get in, the leaving car might decide to stay a bit longer until a paying car gets first into queue."
Yeah good luck with that. I've seen near brawls break out when two or more people thought they had "dibs" on an opening spot based merely on proximity and some ill-defined rules. Introduce a money component into this and that just raises the stakes on the rage response.
If I arrived at a spot where it was clear someone was ready to leave and realized he was waiting longer for a "paying" replacement to arrive to take the public parking spot, unless I absolutely had to be somewhere immediately I would queue up behind the leaving guy and block out the paying party and wait them out just out of spite for the whole concept of this model.
"What might happen though is that if a car is about to leave and a non-paying car pulls up to get in, the leaving car might decide to stay a bit longer until a paying car gets first into queue."
Yeah good luck with that. I've seen near brawls break out when two or more people thought they had "dibs" on an opening spot based merely on proximity and some ill-defined rules. Introduce a money component into this and that just raises the stakes on the rage response.
If I arrived at a spot where it was clear someone was ready to leave and realized he was waiting longer for a "paying" replacement to arrive to take the public parking spot, unless I absolutely had to be somewhere immediately I would queue up behind the leaving guy and block out the paying party and wait them out just out of spite for the whole concept of this model.
And then there will be an app for that. Welcome to San Francisco.
bang on !! i think no one will leave the spot after waiting for it.
San Francisco: a city which is happily dysfunctional as long as everyone enjoys the same level of dysfunction. Once you demonstrate that money can buy the things that citizens of other towns get for free, San Francisco gets up in arms about how money is ruining the great things SF has going for it.
On which planet is parking ever free?
Most neighborhoods; all shopping malls; your driveway; any gas station (for a while).
Perhaps you meant 'business district parking'. I always felt it is a huge mistake to have a 'cover charge' for shopping downtown. What is it supposed to do? It certainly discourages customers.
Perhaps you meant 'business district parking'. I always felt it is a huge mistake to have a 'cover charge' for shopping downtown. What is it supposed to do? It certainly discourages customers.
A charge and limited time is meant to keep people who work there from parking all day, so that there is more parking for customers.
In my town, the businesses ask for it for this reason.
In my town, the businesses ask for it for this reason.
If all the parking spaces are full, it most certainly makes sense to charge. Otherwise, people will stay parked there all day, and use is sub-optimal.
Most healthy business districts have few available parking spaces, so charges are appropriate. Not-being-able-to-find-a-space-because-they're-all-taken also discourages customers.
Most healthy business districts have few available parking spaces, so charges are appropriate. Not-being-able-to-find-a-space-because-they're-all-taken also discourages customers.
I live in Foster City (~30 mins from SF) and parking is free here,
Parking is free? It has no cost associated with it?
Money is only buying something here because someone, i.e. the previous parker, is getting it for less than it is worth and can now monetize the difference.
Money is only buying something here because someone, i.e. the previous parker, is getting it for less than it is worth and can now monetize the difference.
The very first thing that I see arising from this is people who simply drive around all day, acquiring parking spots, and reselling them. If you can find 3 parking spots an hour consistently, then that's the equivalent of $120K/year.
What's bad about that model, is the people looking for parking spaces are likely to get very aggressive about taking one that is opening up.
What's bad about that model, is the people looking for parking spaces are likely to get very aggressive about taking one that is opening up.
You could actually have multiple shitty cars that you park in prime spots and get a consistent payout just by moving them all every day. Kind of like how people rent out multiple apartments just to put them on airbnb
This is only possible because SF street parking is wrongly priced. If parking meters charged enough so that there were always at least one parking stall available on the street within two blocks of everywhere in the city, you'd never be able to charge for saving one.
The City actually installed the technology to set prices dynamically in a network with predictive systems so that prices can rise to keep those free spaces open.
But the city insists on charging so little at the meters that the very chance to pay such a low rate is worth $20. Let's have market rate parking in The City so drivers can always find a place to park. The money they pay for the privilege could be used to make MUNI less awful.
The City actually installed the technology to set prices dynamically in a network with predictive systems so that prices can rise to keep those free spaces open.
But the city insists on charging so little at the meters that the very chance to pay such a low rate is worth $20. Let's have market rate parking in The City so drivers can always find a place to park. The money they pay for the privilege could be used to make MUNI less awful.
Agreed. However, people don't seem to want market-based pricing of parking. The city actually recently turned off the meters on Sunday in part due to public outcry, and now parking is once again hard to find on Sundays.
There was no outcry:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/03/20/contrary-to-ed-lee-reco...
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/03/20/contrary-to-ed-lee-reco...
Considering that SF is piloting
"demand-responsive pricing"
http://sfpark.org/how-it-works/pricing/
this seems like a natural evolution.
Alpha-test in Rome, beta in SF, then
try to expand to Boston & New York. :-)
As Donald Shoup http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ keeps reminding us, if there are no free spaces in a block, then the parking is under-priced. The city needs to charge more, in that block, at that time, so that spaces are made available and there is no need for cruising for parking. It would be interesting to see whereabouts in SF the app is offering parks for, probably not in the SFPark pilot areas.
Bottom line, it's a market problem but the market is dysfunctional. The app is not disruptive, it's simply exploiting market failure.
Bottom line, it's a market problem but the market is dysfunctional. The app is not disruptive, it's simply exploiting market failure.
I don't understand why this would separate the haves from the have nots. Surely, a jobless person with a car can drive into town every morning at 7 AM or so, park there, and wait for someone to pay $25 or more for 'their' spot. If they want to take a chance (spot-hoarding counter-measures will only work if they tie them to a license plate number, and if everyone buying a spot checks that plate. I doubt people would do the latter, so the counter-countermeasure would be to have multiple accounts)
In general, I think lesser paid people would be more willing to wait in their cars for a few minutes to make a few dollars. So, I would expect money to flow towards them.
Having said that I think this service is immoral, and should be forbidden. What's next? Renting out seats in the subway? A picket line on he street where you pay $1 for the right to pass? Paying someone a monthly fee for not seeing your customers intimidated/beaten up?
In general, I think lesser paid people would be more willing to wait in their cars for a few minutes to make a few dollars. So, I would expect money to flow towards them.
Having said that I think this service is immoral, and should be forbidden. What's next? Renting out seats in the subway? A picket line on he street where you pay $1 for the right to pass? Paying someone a monthly fee for not seeing your customers intimidated/beaten up?
This really feels like a "tragedy of the commons" scenario in the making. I'm curious to see what the legal considerations for this type of service may be.
It's called providing liquidity for parking spots ;). But really, this is an excellent idea. They can add another twist to it: Normally people know when they would be leaving. So they can advertise spot and time. Other users can then "book" the spot at the times being advertised.
If this becomes illegal then police can track down sellers using same app so things are flaky at that point. However I would doubt if selling information about available parking lots can be made illegal.
For those of you "troubled" by this, get this: Pretty much everything in life with short in supply is essentially an auction. When you reserve dinner at restaurant, they have adjusted their price such that their supply meets the demand. In Essence they sold the spots to highest bidders. This is not limited to private properties. When try to buy a house in the same area as great public school, same thing happens - you get priced out of the area and the goods goes to highest bidder.
If this becomes illegal then police can track down sellers using same app so things are flaky at that point. However I would doubt if selling information about available parking lots can be made illegal.
For those of you "troubled" by this, get this: Pretty much everything in life with short in supply is essentially an auction. When you reserve dinner at restaurant, they have adjusted their price such that their supply meets the demand. In Essence they sold the spots to highest bidders. This is not limited to private properties. When try to buy a house in the same area as great public school, same thing happens - you get priced out of the area and the goods goes to highest bidder.
I'm rather shocked you don't see the flaw in every one of your examples. The owner is the person to whom the gains of short supply are accruing. There's no app to sell your reservation to someone else, scalping tickets is illegal or banned by the ticket vendor, etc etc.
The short supply is due to a market failure; the city underprices the parking spots it owns relative to demand, increasing congestion and making it impossible to find a spot. This is to the point that people are theoretically willing to pay 20 dollars (or whatever Monkeypark will charge) in order to get an underpriced parking spot. It makes no sense to distribute foregone gains from underpriced city land to random squatting motorists, instead of just raising pricing and having that benefit accrue to the owner of the land (the city). It's the same concept behind not allowing people to sublet my rent-controlled apartment for market rates; the price distortion issue isn't with the sublet policy, it's with the rent control in the first place.
The short supply is due to a market failure; the city underprices the parking spots it owns relative to demand, increasing congestion and making it impossible to find a spot. This is to the point that people are theoretically willing to pay 20 dollars (or whatever Monkeypark will charge) in order to get an underpriced parking spot. It makes no sense to distribute foregone gains from underpriced city land to random squatting motorists, instead of just raising pricing and having that benefit accrue to the owner of the land (the city). It's the same concept behind not allowing people to sublet my rent-controlled apartment for market rates; the price distortion issue isn't with the sublet policy, it's with the rent control in the first place.
Restaurants are a bad example. First, have you tried getting a seat at a trendy restaurant on Friday night in SF? Second, most popular restaurants deliberately charge less than an equilibrium price to avoid seeming unfair, and to keep all the seats full. Similarly, popular bands sell concert tickets for less than market rate to avoid seeming elitist, and also to make it more likely to sell out a show, which is more fun for their fans and attracts more attention for the band.
In short, not all business decisions are about extracting the most money possible at the present time. There are often other longer-term considerations.
In short, not all business decisions are about extracting the most money possible at the present time. There are often other longer-term considerations.
Re: bands underpricing tickets, it just leads to Ticketmaster, StubHub, and scalpers swooping in, correcting the pricing error, and pocketing the difference.
Does this app specify the how long the space is?
A person moving their SMART car doesn't leave room for an SUV.
Another negative is this would encourage a few people who have their own garage/private spot to now park on the street to make a few $ (even if it is not economically worth their time people are not always rationale)
Another negative is this would encourage a few people who have their own garage/private spot to now park on the street to make a few $ (even if it is not economically worth their time people are not always rationale)
I thought of a similar but somewhat different system where cooperative users of a paying system would point free parking spot when passing by or leaving the spot. This would not ensure the spot to be free upon arrival of a user but it would give an edge and prevent the hassle of dealing with someone who (reasonably) wants the spot you supposedly paid for.
I thought of this while struggling to find a parking spot in Paris. Traffic jams and parking spot searches are great moments to have ideas.
I thought of this while struggling to find a parking spot in Paris. Traffic jams and parking spot searches are great moments to have ideas.
Moving to SF in June (for non-work-related reasons). I'm both fascinated and repelled by the opportunities appearing in the cracks between the market and public goods...
The public transit system is broken, the taxi system is broken, the parking system is broken. What's not broken in San Francisco public policy?
You obviously don't live in a metro city. Parking and driving in SF is an absolute nightmare. However public transportation is probably the best besides the east coast. Most people take Muni or the BART.
Compared to Europe or Asia or Latin America, SF public transit is a pathetic disaster.
Just because transit is slightly better in SF than in Atlanta or Antarctica doesn't make it other than broken.
Even third world cities the size of SF can build reasonable subway capacity with a real city-wide network, busses than run regularly with short lead times, affordable tickets without bizarre subsidies, BRT and some lines of fast commuter rail.
Just because transit is slightly better in SF than in Atlanta or Antarctica doesn't make it other than broken.
Even third world cities the size of SF can build reasonable subway capacity with a real city-wide network, busses than run regularly with short lead times, affordable tickets without bizarre subsidies, BRT and some lines of fast commuter rail.
What's a bigger incentive to leave a space than "I have things to do"?
Also, $20 is too little for people who don't have things to do.
Also, $20 is too little for people who don't have things to do.
$20 is probably more than enough to incentivize a market of people who will occupy spots in order to resell them, though, if this takes off. I bet you could do 10+ spots/hour driving around at the right day/time.
As one who has spent a considerable part of their life looking for parking spots in San Francisco - it will be challenging during busy hours to find more than 2-3 spots an hour. Which is the entire reason why this app is feasible - many people don't want to spend 20-30 minutes looking for a parking spot.
This may be a stupid question, but why don't people drive in with a bike rack, park in a non-busy section a mile or two from the busy section, then bike to the busy section? It'd probably be faster, and healthier too.
Bikes get stolen quite a lot in SF, and the cops don't really make any effort to find them again. Also, the bike lanes are mostly really taxi lanes.
The alternative strategy of parking a three or four miles away and taking a taxi is pretty common in San Francisco. Sometimes we don't even look for a spot, and just park at the Sony Metreon Lot, and head across town.
Fair, I'd love to see some hard data on this. I don't think I've ever spent more than ten minutes looking for a spot, though it's certainly seemed like a lot longer during the process itself.
Think about people who are currently unemployed, or stay at home parents, or teenagers on vacation, or retirees, or etc etc.
People camp out all night to save a few bucks on Black Friday, this is probably a better "deal".
$20 might not be a lot to you, but for a lot of people it is, especially if it's just side cash for a few minutes of work.
People camp out all night to save a few bucks on Black Friday, this is probably a better "deal".
$20 might not be a lot to you, but for a lot of people it is, especially if it's just side cash for a few minutes of work.
$20 is probably enough to convince someone to wait a minute or two while another car gets around a block for them.
Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage, I'd be surprised to find out if this didn't violate some law or another.
I get that parking is bad there, whenever I'm silly enough to stay in the city, I get to enjoy $40 a day in overnight parking fees, but while this arguably obviates the pain in a way that probably wouldn't cause any pain, there's almost certainly some law that prohibits this, or something close enough to this that it probably applies.
My real question is how you ensure that the person who bought the spot is the one who paid for the spot. What is currently stopping people from just jumping in open spots as they become available now?
I get that parking is bad there, whenever I'm silly enough to stay in the city, I get to enjoy $40 a day in overnight parking fees, but while this arguably obviates the pain in a way that probably wouldn't cause any pain, there's almost certainly some law that prohibits this, or something close enough to this that it probably applies.
My real question is how you ensure that the person who bought the spot is the one who paid for the spot. What is currently stopping people from just jumping in open spots as they become available now?
The obvious way to solve this problem is to have the person entering the space confirm that they found parking. Only then would the person leaving get paid. This gives them incentive to hold the space for a few minutes while the person who paid shows up.
disclaimer: not that i fucking condone this _at all_
in response to your musings, the person leaving is supposed to wait for the person buying the spot. you can sort of say 'i am getting ready to leave', and then you get a buzz when someone wants your spot and you kind of arrange spending about 2-5min swapping out.
the idea is novel, but while i enjoy uber, i worry that things like uber and this parking app that make it impossible to navigate street-level resources without an active, connected smartphone become a sort of mandatory augmented reality.
some balance will need to be struck, but i suppose it might be better than circling a block ten or fifteen times to just pull off to the side [though probably in the _Fucking_ bike lane] real quick and see if anyone around is about to bail.
i dunno, i've always said anyone who drives regularly in sf is kind of.. eh.. yanno.
in response to your musings, the person leaving is supposed to wait for the person buying the spot. you can sort of say 'i am getting ready to leave', and then you get a buzz when someone wants your spot and you kind of arrange spending about 2-5min swapping out.
the idea is novel, but while i enjoy uber, i worry that things like uber and this parking app that make it impossible to navigate street-level resources without an active, connected smartphone become a sort of mandatory augmented reality.
some balance will need to be struck, but i suppose it might be better than circling a block ten or fifteen times to just pull off to the side [though probably in the _Fucking_ bike lane] real quick and see if anyone around is about to bail.
i dunno, i've always said anyone who drives regularly in sf is kind of.. eh.. yanno.
I'm going to have to demand a citation for your claim that it's illegal to store non-cars in SF garages.
You had to demand it? You couldn't ask for it? Or request it? The word demand here is curious, and strikes me as though my claim somehow offends you.
That aside, the citation is here[1]. In context, the most relevant bit is:
Justifications for the law are numerous, I"m sure. If you have a garage, and are parking on the street instead, then surely you're contributing to curbside congestion. Beyond that, there are likely justifications from preventing hoarders, meth labs, etc.
Still, as written, it seems a little onerous.
[1] - http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/
[2] - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridi...
That aside, the citation is here[1]. In context, the most relevant bit is:
> (a) No automobile or other motor vehicle shall
> occupy any portion of an apartment house or hotel
> except in a garage which meets the requirements of
> the Building Code and other provisions of the
> Municipal Code.
> (b) Use. Private and public storage garages in
> apartment houses and hotels shall be used only for
> storage of automobiles.
Justifications for the law are numerous, I"m sure. If you have a garage, and are parking on the street instead, then surely you're contributing to curbside congestion. Beyond that, there are likely justifications from preventing hoarders, meth labs, etc.
Still, as written, it seems a little onerous.
[1] - http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/
[2] - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridi...
Your claim was: "it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage".
Your citation [1] says that it's only illegal to do that in an apartment house or hotel, which is a far cry from your original claim.
And your citation [2] says even that is a little-known, completely unenforced law that appears to be on its way out.
Your citation [1] says that it's only illegal to do that in an apartment house or hotel, which is a far cry from your original claim.
And your citation [2] says even that is a little-known, completely unenforced law that appears to be on its way out.
Your response to claim 1 is of course valid, though I'm curious as to what percentage of homes in San Francisco would be categorized as apartment homes. Regardless, while it's a quibble over details for sure, I don't see that as a 'far cry' from the original claim, though I acknowledge that the original claim was incomplete.
As for point 2, that it's little known and/or unenforced has, I think, no bearing on the discussion. Whether or not a law is enforced does not relate to whether or not the law is on the books. Clearly, it is. If you have evidence that it's "on the way out", that I'd be happy to hear. I'm not a California resident, so that's news to me, and I don't see that in the second citation (though I do see that they're attempting to have it repealed, but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful).
As for point 2, that it's little known and/or unenforced has, I think, no bearing on the discussion. Whether or not a law is enforced does not relate to whether or not the law is on the books. Clearly, it is. If you have evidence that it's "on the way out", that I'd be happy to hear. I'm not a California resident, so that's news to me, and I don't see that in the second citation (though I do see that they're attempting to have it repealed, but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful).
> Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage ...
Have you double-negatived yourself into an inversion of not incorrectness there?
Have you double-negatived yourself into an inversion of not incorrectness there?
That was an honest question.
But I researched it myself, and the answer is:
It is a law, but it only applies to buildings with three or more dwelling units, including residential condominiums and hotels.
I don't have the numbers to back it up, but disregarding hotels and apartment complexes, where anything-other-than-vehicles would be weird, I'd guess that most people with private garages are in the clear.
So, while it was not written in error as I wondered, it isn't completely correct either. Sorry if my question appeared snarky, it wasn't intended so.
But I researched it myself, and the answer is:
It is a law, but it only applies to buildings with three or more dwelling units, including residential condominiums and hotels.
I don't have the numbers to back it up, but disregarding hotels and apartment complexes, where anything-other-than-vehicles would be weird, I'd guess that most people with private garages are in the clear.
So, while it was not written in error as I wondered, it isn't completely correct either. Sorry if my question appeared snarky, it wasn't intended so.
I didn't interpret it as snarky, nor did I downvote it. I also (apparently) missed the email indicating I had a response until just now, to which you've already replied.
Yes, raldi pointed out that the 'apartment houses' provision, which does render my claim incomplete, at best. That said, I thought it was more wide-spread than that, and it's possible that the portion of the code I cited is only applicable to those types of dwellings, and there may be another such provision elsewhere in the code that applies to other types of dwellings. I dunno, and honestly, I'm not going to search all of San Francisco building codes to find out, so let's assume I'm wrong there.
The point I was making wasn't to insert some nefarious agenda into the workings of SF government as much to point out that San Francisco is crowded, and there have been at least some attempts to mitigate the problem of traffic through legislation, so it would surprise me if there wasn't some other law on the books that exist to mitigate the same problem.
Yes, raldi pointed out that the 'apartment houses' provision, which does render my claim incomplete, at best. That said, I thought it was more wide-spread than that, and it's possible that the portion of the code I cited is only applicable to those types of dwellings, and there may be another such provision elsewhere in the code that applies to other types of dwellings. I dunno, and honestly, I'm not going to search all of San Francisco building codes to find out, so let's assume I'm wrong there.
The point I was making wasn't to insert some nefarious agenda into the workings of SF government as much to point out that San Francisco is crowded, and there have been at least some attempts to mitigate the problem of traffic through legislation, so it would surprise me if there wasn't some other law on the books that exist to mitigate the same problem.
I read through all of the code that looked pertinent, and it seems to be exclusive to the larger buildings previously described.
I've had various garages in SF, and always kept vehicles (the 4-wheeled ones anyway) on the street, so I had a bit of a Richelieuian curiosity.
Elsewhere in the code, it defines a garage as "A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its tank is stored, repaired or kept.".
Electric vehicles would also appear to be exempt, then.
I've had various garages in SF, and always kept vehicles (the 4-wheeled ones anyway) on the street, so I had a bit of a Richelieuian curiosity.
Elsewhere in the code, it defines a garage as "A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its tank is stored, repaired or kept.".
Electric vehicles would also appear to be exempt, then.
That's an interesting definition of automobile, which evaluates upstream to an interesting definition of garage. I know that the original person attempting to fight the law doesn't own a car, and presumably, is upset that the law would prohibit them from being able to store their bike.
I know that legal definitions, by their very nature, can end up being confusing, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the reading of that bill and its discussion.
I know that legal definitions, by their very nature, can end up being confusing, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the reading of that bill and its discussion.