Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco bans parking space apps

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#41

Post by cujo »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #35
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #8

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 pun…

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!

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#42

Post by 300bps »

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?

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

Nursie wrote: post #12
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #8

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 pun…

Seeking rent from public property is a a problem in itself.

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.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#44

Post by danielweber »

Nursie wrote: post #25
cabalamat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

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.)

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#45

Post by netcan »

apostate wrote: post #38

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 consid…

regulating = endorsing.

Regulating badly is usually worse than not regulating at all.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#46

Post by jtc331 »

Nursie wrote: post #25
cabalamat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

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?

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#47

Post by jtc331 »

Nursie wrote: post #12
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #8

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 pun…

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.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #40
davidw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the company wasn't based in California? 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.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#49

Post by bobcostas55 »

Nursie wrote: post #25
cabalamat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

>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...

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#50

Post by bobcostas55 »

cujo wrote: post #41
bobcostas55 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.
Post reply on HN