
San Francisco bans parking space apps - Varcht
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27995429
======
lifeisstillgood
Well, duh ! They have an app that auctions the public parking space you are
currently in - and you wait in it till the buyer arrives

How did anyone expect that would remain ethical or legal?

There are many ways technology could improve parking in SF but making private
profits off public resources is not it.

~~~
naturalethic
Nature finds a way. The free market is the little green shoots growing up
between the cracks of the grey statist utopian paved earth. Technology is
allowing innovators to outpace the entitled dullards that inhabit the halls of
political privilege. They'll shut this down, with all you fine citizens
celebrating, but the innovators will route around it again.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
People making money out of someone else's property is what this app and airbnb
_do_. That's not a clever hack or capitalism finding a way - that's stealing
and hoping no one notices.

Regulation at its core is a vital part of a free market (and by the way the
only free part we really care about is freedom to set a price)

We regulate murder, kidnap, extortion and parking bye-laws. We do that so we
can all move forward in a society packed full of other selfish Great Apes with
weapons.

It works - we are living proof. It can always be improved, but almost always a
market failure in the western world is down to some greedy bastard somewhere
breaking the rules to obtain an advantage and not getting shutdown fast
enough.

~~~
gambiting
airbnb makes money off private property and I cannot possibly see how renting
your own house to someone would be called stealing. This app makes money of
public property, and that is where the difference is - it's as if you were
auctioning off your place in a homeless shelter, if you want to stick to the
AirBnB reference.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
A "large proportion" of airbnb is sub-letting - either a flat for a week while
away, a room for months or other types banned in the original lease contract.
Even some people who own their own leasehold in the uk don't have rental
rights.

The BBC estimated that was 40% of rentals on airbnb - it is my contention that
airbnb is doing a YouTube - basing its growth on breaches of copyright / lease
law whilst hoping to grow big enough fast enough for it to not matter.

I think a better analogy is ticket touting - you buy a ticket at the baseball
game and then sell the seat again, leaving when the next buyer turns up. And
you only buy at "public good" rates and sell at "market rates"

This app would also go out of business if SF city sold parking places at
market rates - there would be no margin.

In all, it's a silly app trying to create an after market in something where
they and their customers have no legal rights and no practical enforcement,
and I think they were hoping to scrape enough and not get noticed.

------
sillysaurus3
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 punish a company so harshly before the phenomenon has proven to be a
problem in practice seems draconian. The gap between theory and reality is
large. Something that's harmful in theory can sometimes prove itself
advantageous in unexpected ways.

And what if the company wasn't based in California? Would there be any
recourse for California to exert regulatory pressure over a company based in
another state? Pg's quote "if you outlaw the future, it will just happen
elsewhere" seems relevant. 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.

But it's difficult to shake the feeling that the whole concept is, well,
douchey. I dislike that word, but it seems quite applicable here. Sitting in a
parking space for longer than you need it in order to personally profit is
pretty much the definition of a dick move. Yet should that argument alone be
sufficient reason to outlaw the entire market? I don't know.

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

~~~
jtc331
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.

~~~
viraptor
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.

~~~
danielweber
Closer to racket[1]: causing a problem in order to get paid to fix it

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_\(crime\))

------
TallGuyShort
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 very apt). Paying for the spot gives you the
right to park there - it does not give you the right to determine who comes in
next, and especially not to make money off that decision.

~~~
jtc331
It's unlikely you're making [net] money if you're paying to get in and getting
payed when you leave.

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

Getting payed when you leave requires being willing to spend extra time when
you are done -- and depends on how willing you are to do that. People with
reasons for being in the spot beyond arbitrage may have other needs that make
that less viable.

------
minimax
The problem with this business is not that it forces people to pay high prices
for high value parking spaces, rather it's that it incentivizes people to camp
out in high value spaces, and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not
to the city. If this app is popular at all, it's probably an indication that
the city isn't charging enough for parking.

~~~
cabalamat
> 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.

~~~
Nursie
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?

~~~
bobcostas55
>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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=1332820800&en=cdabf3ece6c4a862&ei=5088)

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-the-streets-
of-san-francisco-easier-to-park-on.html?_r=1&hp)

~~~
Nursie
>> 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.

~~~
bobcostas55
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.

~~~
Nursie
Why?

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

~~~
bobcostas55
>while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start

No it doesn't. Less traffic, less pollution, faster parking.

~~~
Nursie
And that's just not true if you're giving money back to the poorer folks so
they can afford to park again!!

This works if you price people out of the market, not if you price people out
and then subsidise them back in, and it's the pricing out in the first place
that is my problem with it.

Or are you saying not to give the poor some of the money so they can continue
to park, but just as a bit of a bung as an apology for taking away their
access to yet another public service?

------
seanmcdirmid
Rich jerks in China bribe public parking attendants for exclusive places to
park their black Audis on the street. These apps at least distribute the
bribes more evenly but nonetheless they are still scummy.

------
davidw
Not directly related, but here's Godwin (yes, that one) posting "Hitler tries
to find an apartment in SF":
[https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/480572531749826561](https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/480572531749826561)
\- it's pretty funny.

------
apostate
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 considered a public good, it will bring
the minutes paid for / minutes used ratio closer to 1, which should be the
goal. I understand that it's probably not the goal of the app creators, but it
is a reasonable compromise. Of course, this type of efficiency means more
social benefit and lower revenues for the city, so that's not likely to
happen.

~~~
netcan
regulating = endorsing.

Regulating badly is usually worse than not regulating at all.

~~~
apostate
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.

------
Nursie
Good.

Monetising antisocial behaviour is not to be encouraged.

------
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?

~~~
jsutton
Because domain names aren't public property.

------
Nursie
Hey, I should do this with tables at popular restaurants during peak hours
too. That's not being an asshole, it's letting the market decide!

~~~
viraptor
You can book a table at restaurants. Maybe booking a parking would be a thing
to look at instead.

Being paid for leaving the place actually creates market for people who would
bend the rules for profit. For example get a low-mpg/electric car that you
drive around, take any space, then immediately resell it. Even worse, if you
get together with others, you probably could create enough artificial resource
scarcity to lift the prices to the level that makes doing this all day long
profitable.

~~~
Nursie
Not all restaurants. Maybe that lunch place that's real popular, you know the
one, where seating's unreserved. I could really draw out my meal until the
right person comes along and pays me to move on.

But yes, I agree, this whole thing creates incentives that add up to a bad
situation for an allegedly public resource.

------
dzhiurgis
If SF can devise a system that notifies drivers of a free parking spot for
less than it currently costs - go ahead and implement it.

But I have admit that I doubt there is a cheaper way. And city probably has
more important problems to solve.

~~~
danielweber
A decent transportation infrastructure -- whether it's cars (with associated
parking) or trains or buses or bikes or footpaths -- is an essential function
of local government.

------
derwiki
"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 gladly have paid $7 for a spot. Have the time you don't even
find a spot, you find someone leaving and take the spot immediately.

~~~
danielweber
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 move.

The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. Let
the market decide what the price of parking is, and pay the supplier.

~~~
bkmartin
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 public parking. The residents of the city
need affordable parking. Unless, their goal is to get less people to drive in
the city and take public transit. There are so many factors at play here. So
many agendas and concerns. So I repeat my question... for what reasons
"should" SF auction off the spots? What are its ramifications? I have no skin
in the game, I'm just an east coaster. These issues are hardly ever so cut and
dry as to whether a market exists or not.

~~~
derwiki
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).

~~~
bkmartin
You mention the Zipcar garage. Why doesn't the city build a couple of these
garages? Why don't they offer an affordable solution in that respect? What if
they got rid of on street parking all together and created more parking
garages so that they took up less acres and they could then reuse that street
space for more driving lanes or bike lanes or bus lanes etc? They could then
have more parking spots in a given geographical area and better public land
use overall. I think that affordable and plentiful parking is vital to most
downtown areas. Private industry will only put in so much parking themselves
to maximize revenue over and above the purpose of the service itself.

------
cabalamat
AIUI, this is people paying for, and parking their car in a city-owned car
parking space, and then giving up that space to someone who's willing to pay
more money for it.

This is simply arbitrage, and it's legal when Wall St fatcats do it, it should
be legal for everyone. If the city objects, they should charge the market-
clearing price for parking. If that leads to a problem where only rich people
can park, then California should build as much low-cost housing as it takes so
that everyone can afford a house without paying an arm and a leg.

~~~
viraptor
I see it as something very close to protection racket. This app creates an
incentive to take the space for longer than necessary and get paid for freeing
it up. Maybe as an add-on you won't get your car scratched for an extra
payment?

