65 ms·

> I'm honestly not convinced that's a reasonable expectation. It seems reasonable to me - not being allowed to keep money that isn't yours and that you shouldn

by woodman 10y ago

> I'm honestly not convinced that's a reasonable expectation. It seems reasonable to me - not being allowed to keep money that isn't yours and that you shouldn't have taken (even by mistake), consider the incentives - writing a huge number of false tickets and then returning the money only to those that are willing to go through the trouble of contesting the ticket.

ghaff 10y ago
Eh. Cities issue parking violations all the time when they shouldn't (partially because the rules can be confusing). And, at the same time, many, many people get off with parking violations because they weren't caught. It's hard for me to get excited about a specific group of non-violations because they happened to occur in high incidence spots as uncovered by an examination of public data. I'm not opposed to the city making a modest effort to refund money to this subset of individuals. Though if it does so I expect it will be purely because they see it as a good PR play.
- woodman 10y ago
  > ...all the time when they shouldn't... Yup, so maybe some harm reduction (returning money) and negative reinforcement (hassle of returning) can help incentivize an improvement in the quality of parking enforcement service. Individual employees would likely have the same level of interest that you've expressed, but department heads would have a lot more incentive to act (especially if there is any departmental rivalry). > ...many people get off with parking violations... Is your point that these people would have deserved a ticket in the past or future - so whatever, or are you talking about some sort of municipal level karma balance where individuals are irrelevant?
- tamana 10y ago
  So, it's OK to punish innocent people because guilty people go free? That's your argument?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I think the point is that sometimes fighting tooth & nail out of principle for an issue of minor relevance may not be worth it if it damages the goodwill of those making a big and relevant change for good.

by woodman 10y ago

ghaff 10y ago

Eh. Cities issue parking violations all the time when they shouldn't (partially because the rules can be confusing). And, at the same time, many, many people get off with parking violations because they weren't caught. It's hard for me to get excited about a specific group of non-violations because they happened to occur in high incidence spots as uncovered by an examination of public data. I'm not opposed to the city making a modest effort to refund money to this subset of individuals. Though if it does so I expect it will be purely because they see it as a good PR play.

woodman 10y ago
> ...all the time when they shouldn't... Yup, so maybe some harm reduction (returning money) and negative reinforcement (hassle of returning) can help incentivize an improvement in the quality of parking enforcement service. Individual employees would likely have the same level of interest that you've expressed, but department heads would have a lot more incentive to act (especially if there is any departmental rivalry). > ...many people get off with parking violations... Is your point that these people would have deserved a ticket in the past or future - so whatever, or are you talking about some sort of municipal level karma balance where individuals are irrelevant?
tamana 10y ago
So, it's OK to punish innocent people because guilty people go free? That's your argument?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think the point is that sometimes fighting tooth & nail out of principle for an issue of minor relevance may not be worth it if it damages the goodwill of those making a big and relevant change for good.