5 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by dahart 5y ago

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.