3 ms·

From a certain perspective, is this even morally wrong? The way these meters are always justified is that they help to shape behavior in urban areas and allocat

From a certain perspective, is this even morally wrong? The way these meters are always justified is that they help to shape behavior in urban areas and allocate limited space efficiently. It doesn't really matter who gets the money as long as people are paying. Moreover, if the city is in any way hurt by the loss of revenue there's already an inherent conflict of interest in city planning. Sure, scammers are bad, meter maids could incorrectly cite vehicles, and it's highly likely the scammers are doing more than just collecting the fees, but I don't find the basic premise that terrible.

cma 5y ago
It is better for it to go to the common good than be burnt up in a sticker-over war that would eventually spill over into a violent territory war.
megablast 5y ago
If they are charging a lot more for parking, this is a good. Parking is such a waste of space, and far too cheap.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Houston's got plenty of parking. Agree parking is generally too cheap, but their zoning laws went crazy with parking requirements and the spots aren't going away anytime soon.
dahart 5y ago
> Moreover, if the city is in any way hurt by the loss of revenue there's already an inherent conflict of interest in city planning. It’s strange to frame this as us vs them. Revenue lost by the city is coming out of your pocket. Don’t you have a vested interest in not having scammers drain your city’s income? I do. It definitely matters who gets the money, if you aren’t singularly focused on the behavioral results of drivers having to pay for parking. It’s also strange to use language suggesting the city couldn’t possibly be damaged by the loss of revenue. Enforcement efforts are trying to be net positive, cover their costs, and contribute any remainder to other public works.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Revenue lost by parking meters may be coming out of your pocket. It depends on the city and their contract with the meter company. If you're in Chicago for example, 100% of revenue for the next 60-odd years goes to a private company and the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. The contract in chicago also reportedly contained stipulations that the city wouldn't install certain types of infrastructure that might affect parking revenues like bike lanes. That's the sort of conflict-of-interest I was talking about. In general, of course I agree that metered parking can be a great solution to many issues. I would just prefer that the money actually go to the city rather than terrible private companies.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. Right. And that money comes from taxes, right? It’s plausible under the scenario you’re describing that fake QR codes could end up costing the city as well; contractor may argue the city is responsible for enforcing & cleaning QR graffiti. (I have no idea whether that’s the case in reality, just imagining ways it’s possible that you are paying for scammers even though you don’t think so.) The regulatory capture sucks, especially if a meter contractor is preventing bikes lanes. The city needs to resist such stipulations, but I realize this kind of shit happens all the time. I wonder why the contractor would have such leverage; I would think the city’s in the stronger position. I agree with you, I wish the money were going directly to the city rather than for-profit businesses, especially when those businesses are draining city revenue on a larger scale than some QR hackers.
kfarr 5y ago
Good point. There are even laws on the books in certain states/cities that they can only charge up to the amount it costs them to provide the service and collect fees. So from the city’s perspective it’s not a horrible outcome.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
> It doesn't really matter who gets the money as long as people are paying. May as well just not pay the scammers at all then, and now the allocation strategy is just "first come, first serve, stay forever, try to avoid police".

cma 5y ago

It is better for it to go to the common good than be burnt up in a sticker-over war that would eventually spill over into a violent territory war.

megablast 5y ago

If they are charging a lot more for parking, this is a good. Parking is such a waste of space, and far too cheap.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Houston's got plenty of parking. Agree parking is generally too cheap, but their zoning laws went crazy with parking requirements and the spots aren't going away anytime soon.

dahart 5y ago

> Moreover, if the city is in any way hurt by the loss of revenue there's already an inherent conflict of interest in city planning. It’s strange to frame this as us vs them. Revenue lost by the city is coming out of your pocket. Don’t you have a vested interest in not having scammers drain your city’s income? I do. It definitely matters who gets the money, if you aren’t singularly focused on the behavioral results of drivers having to pay for parking. It’s also strange to use language suggesting the city couldn’t possibly be damaged by the loss of revenue. Enforcement efforts are trying to be net positive, cover their costs, and contribute any remainder to other public works.

AlotOfReading 5y ago
Revenue lost by parking meters may be coming out of your pocket. It depends on the city and their contract with the meter company. If you're in Chicago for example, 100% of revenue for the next 60-odd years goes to a private company and the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. The contract in chicago also reportedly contained stipulations that the city wouldn't install certain types of infrastructure that might affect parking revenues like bike lanes. That's the sort of conflict-of-interest I was talking about. In general, of course I agree that metered parking can be a great solution to many issues. I would just prefer that the money actually go to the city rather than terrible private companies.
- dahart 5y ago
  > the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. Right. And that money comes from taxes, right? It’s plausible under the scenario you’re describing that fake QR codes could end up costing the city as well; contractor may argue the city is responsible for enforcing & cleaning QR graffiti. (I have no idea whether that’s the case in reality, just imagining ways it’s possible that you are paying for scammers even though you don’t think so.) The regulatory capture sucks, especially if a meter contractor is preventing bikes lanes. The city needs to resist such stipulations, but I realize this kind of shit happens all the time. I wonder why the contractor would have such leverage; I would think the city’s in the stronger position. I agree with you, I wish the money were going directly to the city rather than for-profit businesses, especially when those businesses are draining city revenue on a larger scale than some QR hackers.

kfarr 5y ago

Good point. There are even laws on the books in certain states/cities that they can only charge up to the amount it costs them to provide the service and collect fees. So from the city’s perspective it’s not a horrible outcome.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

> It doesn't really matter who gets the money as long as people are paying. May as well just not pay the scammers at all then, and now the allocation strategy is just "first come, first serve, stay forever, try to avoid police".