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

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

#31

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

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 treaties usually include general provisions about courts recognizing each others' judgments in criminal and civil matters, not least to prevent cross-border financial fraud, tax evasion and so on. It's not foolproof because not all territories have treaties, eg someone based in Somalia could run an illegal internet business with relative impunity because the US has no treaties with Somalia (as far as I know). On the other hand, countries that have no criminal or commercial treaty relations with other countries tend to be hellholes.

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

#32

Post by smackfu » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:10 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.

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.

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

#33

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #23

bitlord_219 wrote: post #8

Good. The idea of a couple guys in Italy making money on trades of public parking spaces in SF baffles me. I assume they're not paying any taxes back to the city that maintains the spaces. How does one possibly defend this?

They are proving value by solving a market inneficiency (a good, parking spaces, being available at sub-market rates, free). As such, they have a right to some of the profits. By increasing the cost of parking spaces, they improve the efficiency of allocation by making sure they go to people who value them at $20 before people who value them at 0.003$ Or, more likely, they live outside of US juristiction, so they hav…

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by revelation » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:11 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.

I don't get it. None of your points tell us why we would not charge for parking spots. But you seem to have realized that "cars.. are a bit meaningless in a city", that's the first step.

Right now, "free parking" is a tax on everyone actually living in the city. They pay more for living because prime space is given away for free to store heaps of steel on it. Moreover, building regulations require new projects to provide parking spots proportional to the number of units, even when many city dwellers no longer own a car. That drastically increases development costs in cities that are starved for housing.

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

#35

Post by dsl » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:12 PM UTC

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.

I've seen fliers posted in San Francisco. They are obviously operating here in some fashion.

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

#36

Post by smoyer » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:13 PM UTC

San Francisco's attorney further stated that they believe it's illegal for anyone outside northern California to create an iPhone application or any web-based property. When asked for additional insight he responded "We've studied the situation and believe we have world-wide jurisdiction to applications running on mobile devices and computers used in our city".

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

#37

Post by cloakandswagger » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:15 PM UTC

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #16

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…

This is disgusting. Parking in SF is already not easy, and now this cancer is moving in and exacerbating the problem.

Heh, I think you mean exacerbating

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

#38

Post by hkmurakami » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

incision wrote: post #15

>'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.' Wow, I remember when parking spot squatting was the province of bold homeless men near nightclubs. This sort of rent-seeking on the commons is particularly distasteful, but simply 'cracking down' on it seems…

A generous interpretation of their intent would be that they were trying to inflate their transaction volume in order to create a better user experience for the early adopters trying out their app (a challenge that every e-commerce / marketplace business faces in its early stage).

Still doesn't absolve them of the distasteful nature of their actions, of course.

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

#39

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:19 PM UTC

sukuriant wrote: post #3

"MonkeyParking and any motorists using the app face fines of $300 per violation of the city’s law prohibiting selling or contracting for parts of a public street, according to the city attorney." I was going to ask what the actual law was, but it seems I've found some version of the gist of it here. Where I live (not San Fransisco) we have privatized parking in plots of land that aren't on the public street. Would us…

Maybe. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about selling the information that you're ready to leave a 100% privately owned/operated off-street parking space to someone else who is looking for such a space and is willing to pay the parking fees to the owner/operator, as well as paying you for the tip about the vacant space.

Basically it would depend on whether the parking space vendor's contract with motorists sought to prohibit such arrangements as a condition of use. Of course that's a rather heavy-handed unilateral tactic, but you're not legally required to enter into a parking arrangement with them so if you don't like their terms and conditions, you don't park there in the first place. The mere inconvenience to you of having to seek other parking or transit options doesn't constitute a property interest, so you have no particular claim on the fairness of the T&C. Same logic that allows parking lot operators to disclaim liability for theft/damage to your vehicle.

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

#40

Post by dublinben » Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 7:22 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #32

drivingmenuts wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.