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

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#51

Post by jtc331 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #7

I agree with Mr. Herrera, even as a libertarian. Apps like Uber and Airbnb are fundamentally different from this. You could make an argument that those apps should be regulated consistently with other business in the same market, but at the end of the day they are dealing with private property. This app takes property that is already paid for and maintained by all tax payers and holds it hostage (their metaphor is ve…

It's unlikely you're making [net] money if you're paying to get in and getting payed when you leave.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#52

Post by dreamweapon »

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…

Maybe it's a matter of time until this app catches on in other large cities. Nobody likes spending ~30 minutes searching for a parking spot.

More likely, cities will find a way to auction off parking spaces, in real time, as a source of revenue. This can be zoned to high-congestion / high-activity neighborhoods, like anything else. Not much different from parking meters, in basic conceptual terms (which I've heard also weren't so popular when they were first introduced). Or congestion pricing.

But the idea that people "own" the parking spaces they're sitting on, and have an inalienable right to extort as much money as they'd care to fancy from the next hapless driver -- let alone that the "market" for this kind of an activity has an inalienable right to exist (just because someone created an app for it) -- is, well, very Silicon Valley.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#53

Post by jtc331 »

valdiorn wrote: post #37
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.

Parking is a service, provided by the city. The people who pay taxes have already paid for that parking spot. If you, or somebody else (Even the city!) try to profiteer in excess of that, it's predatory and against the rules. If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expe…

>> "You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge"

That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

danielweber wrote: post #10
derwiki wrote: post #4

"creates a predatory private market for public parking spaces that San Franciscans will not tolerate" Right, because I've never driven around Nob Hill for an hour trying to find parking, only to have to give up and pay $25 for a garage. The response from the city makes more sense if you've never actually had to do street parking in the city. When I'm at my wit's end, driving around the same streets continuously, I'd…

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.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#55

Post by danielweber »

bkmartin wrote: post #24
danielweber wrote: post #10

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…

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…

I made a longer comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577

TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#56

Post by Houshalter »

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…

Well it does meet the definition of a private good (excludable, rivalrous.) Maybe it should be treated like all other private goods and rationed by price. I guess in theory the money can be given to poor (if it's done by the city which owns the parking spots.)

I'm not saying that it's the best solution, but it does seem arbitrary to have some private goods rationed by price and others rationed by lottery. Just because "that's the way it's always been". In any case this app or rather the people using it don't rightfully own the parking spaces, but they are taking advantage of a market inefficiency.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#57

Post by cabalamat »

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?

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".

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#58

Post by apostate »

netcan wrote: post #45
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.

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

I suppose I was just thinking about the city I live in. Here, the meter prints out a receipt that the driver leaves on the dash of the car. People often will give the receipt to someone else when they are leaving their spot. Of course this practice is illegal, but I don't think it should be if the spot was paid for. Of course, it would be douchey if people started selling these tickets for high prices (that would be seeking rent from a public good), but I would have no problem buying a ticket off of a guy who wants to get his remaining three bucks back.

But I suppose you are right, there is no "good way" to get something between price gouging anarchy and outright banning of the practice.

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

danielweber wrote: post #55
bkmartin wrote: post #24

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…

I made a longer comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577 TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.

> TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.

If it is a public resource with a single public issuer, you don't have the requisites for a functioning market anyhow, so not auctioning it doesn't "break the market".

Re: San Francisco bans parking space apps

#60

Post by viraptor »

jtc331 wrote: post #47
Nursie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not efficient if you park longer, waiting for someone who's going to pay you, rather than just pull out and let anyone else in. Drivers are being paid explicitly for making the allocation less efficient for everyone apart from the app user. It's the tragedy of the commons again.
Post reply on HN