SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app • Hacker News Board

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#41

Post by dublinben » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #31

coldcode wrote: post #6

While I think some of what the city says makes sense, how can a city in the US force a company in Rome to cease and desist? Even Apple might be loath to follow this order since you can't follow every city and country on earth's laws and stay in business.

Because the company is operating in the US city, of course. Would it be OK to sit in San Francisco and remotely run a service that was illegal in Rome? Of course not, Italian prosecutors would issue demands and then seek a court ruling that they would then ask US courts to enforce. This is the sort of thing that international treaties are for. EDI for clarity, of course there are no treaties about parking spaces. But…

Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries.

US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant chilling effect on business.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#42

Post by jeffdavis » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

mathetic wrote: post #18

whence wrote: post #7

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

Roads are public goods and more importantly they are built with tax money. They are also specifically built for cars to use and without a place to stop they are a bit meaningless in a city. They might just change this and start charging but that's a pretty stupid idea. Free market is not an answer to everything.

"Free market is not an answer to everything."

The problem here is one of rationing. There are a limited number of spots; who gets them?

In the current situation, the spaces are free/subsidized, but you pay instead by driving in circles. That's a big waste of time and adds to traffic congestion. Maybe that's more "fair" in some sense, but that doesn't make it good.

The app in question does either nothing or very little to help ration. It allows people who really need to park, and have the money to pay for it, to be more certain that they will get a space, which I guess is something. But it creates so many bad incentives that it's making the problem worse, not better.

The city is in a better position to create market incentives, because they can charge for the entire duration that you're in the space, not just the moment you happen to park. That means people would have no reason to camp out in a space waiting for the price to go up, which means more spaces will be available for useful purposes. It saves time and congestion, but perhaps loses out on some definitions of "fairness".

Any other ideas?

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#43

Post by oalders » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #11

At least one of these companies is a pure protection racket. "ParkModo was recently offering $13 an hour to drivers who would occupy parking spaces in the Mission District during peak weekend times and then sell the spot through its app, a Craigslist job posting showed. "'Get paid $13.00 per hour just to park!' the ad read. 'Our company is launching an awesome app that rewards people to sell their on-street parking s…

Looking for a parking spot is already a form of predatory behaviour in many places. Encouraging people to put a dollar value on a public space can't help.

Where do we go from here? An app to sell your spot in the grocery store checkout line?

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#44

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

dsl wrote: post #28

whence wrote: post #7

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resultin…

[deleted]

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#45

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:33 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #41

anigbrowl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the company is operating in the US city, of course. Would it be OK to sit in San Francisco and remotely run a service that was illegal in Rome? Of course not, Italian prosecutors would issue demands and then seek a court ruling that they would then ask US courts to enforce. This is the sort of thing that international treaties are for. EDI for clarity, of course there are no treaties about parking spaces. But…

Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries. US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant c…

Those services are not inherently illegal in other jurisdictions* for one thing, and where specific activities have been deemed illegal the operators either abide by the judgment of the courts or exit the market. Case in point: Google allowing EU citizens to apply for delisting of privacy-infringing search results in accordance with EU data protection laws.

* I'm not sure about places like North Korea, but trying to offer services there would be embargoed by domestic sanctions in any case.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#46

Post by joedrew » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:33 PM UTC

drivingmenuts wrote: post #19

smackfu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I parked at a spot in the Mission where the meter rate on the weekend was $6 an hour.

Sounds like you're already neck-deep in "parking for the rich only". I'd be seriously reconsidering plans to do anything where the parking was that expensive.

Honestly, in a city with good transit like SF, you shouldn't be driving to the places you want to go anyways.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#47

Post by guelo » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:35 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #40

smackfu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The main problem there was that the streets with retail businesses were surrounded by residential streets, and the residential streets were unmetered residential parking only. So there were literally not enough metered spots available.

I'm sure the intention of this scheme is to make you think twice before driving into the city. If you had arrived on foot, you wouldn't have cared how expensive the parking was.

The intention of the scheme is to make scarce parking spaces available by pricing them at the market clearing price.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#48

Post by kremlin » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:35 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #41

anigbrowl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the company is operating in the US city, of course. Would it be OK to sit in San Francisco and remotely run a service that was illegal in Rome? Of course not, Italian prosecutors would issue demands and then seek a court ruling that they would then ask US courts to enforce. This is the sort of thing that international treaties are for. EDI for clarity, of course there are no treaties about parking spaces. But…

Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries. US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant c…

I don't think that's what he meant.

He meant running a business, from SF, whose primary activity takes place in Rome, and was also illegal in Rome.

Not just running a business from SF that's illegal in Rome.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#49

Post by r00fus » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:41 PM UTC

dsl wrote: post #28

whence wrote: post #7

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resultin…

While it's easy to demonize "environmentalists", it's pretty clear in the SF Bay Area that environmentalists and property owners are in collusion (or property owners are using the environmentalist label to limit supply).

Ultimately, the best way to root-cause a policy issue is to follow the money. Someone is making money from a lack of governance.

Re: SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

#50

Post by dublinben » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #45

dublinben wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries. US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant c…

Those services are not inherently illegal in other jurisdictions* for one thing, and where specific activities have been deemed illegal the operators either abide by the judgment of the courts or exit the market. Case in point: Google allowing EU citizens to apply for delisting of privacy-infringing search results in accordance with EU data protection laws. * I'm not sure about places like North Korea, but trying to…

Google is a huge multinational company with sufficient nexus in the EU (specifically France) to fall under the jurisdiction of that ruling. This sounds like an app developed by a small team, physically and legally located far outside of San Francisco. If the city tried to enforce a judgment against them, it should be laughed out of court.

I'm not sure why so many here are so quick to throw the hackers under the bus as soon as they agree with the government's demands. This kind of thing could happen to anyone, and ruin any controversial startup.