61–70 of 88 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? 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 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 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-cle…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pub…
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).
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
>> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mo…
> 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.
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.)