5 ms·

Just spitballing: Defund the meter maids to de facto legalize ignoring the meters. Or tell the cops to look the other way while everybody smashes the meters u

Just spitballing: Defund the meter maids to de facto legalize ignoring the meters. Or tell the cops to look the other way while everybody smashes the meters up with sledgehammers. Or ban street parking to screw the meter company.

asu_thomas 3y ago
Who? Who is supposed to do these things and why?
rapsey 3y ago
> Under the contract, the city must maintain at least 30,000 meters in any given year
- randomdata 3y ago
  If the people think the above is a good idea, they can also ignore the contract. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
  - zoky 3y ago
    No, it’s a very natural power—the courts. If Chicago ignores the contract, they’ll get sued and have to pay even more.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      That natural power is just people. Ignoring the contract is only significant if people choose to stand by the contract. But if the people believe what's contained in the original comment is a good idea, why would they stand by the contract? Without a supernatural power to uphold the contract, and without people to uphold the contract, there is nothing.
      - FredPret 3y ago
        True but there are many other contracts that are critical to our daily functioning. If the city honors this terrible beast of a contract according to the rule of law, that bodes well for all the good contracts the entire government of the States has.
        randomdata 3y ago
        Smashing parking meters in some "clever" attempt to evade the contract already doesn't bode well for other contracts. Once you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, the contract already means nothing. Obviously in the real world it is unlikely that the people would think that the above is a good idea, but if they did then the contract is only as worth as much as the paper it is written on. It can simply be ignored. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Very true - that's why some places are much easier to do business in. The USA is very good for this
      - Sharlin 3y ago
        Because of the rule of law? A court does not have the power to annul a contract simply because they think it was a really bad idea. Although I guess there ought to be some sort of a escape hatch for forced renegotiating of contracts that are as detrimental to the society at large (ie. the taxpayers) as this one. I have no idea whether there is one.
        randomdata 3y ago
        The rule of law is just people. It is only as good as their willingness to uphold it. If the people believe what is told in the original comment is a good idea, why would they uphold the contract? It is not like there is some supernatural power that enforces contracts.
    - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
      …and if the voters refuse to raise enough taxes to pay the fines?
      - econnors 3y ago
        detroit says hello
  - stevage 3y ago
    Doesn't the article begin by talking about how the courts are siding with the corporation?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      ”If” does not imply that the people do believe the above is a good idea. It is merely hypothetical.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    One of the US’s biggest assets is its trust-ability. People around the world clamor to do business in the US, and creating outsize demand for the US’s currency because of it. Obviously, the people of the US can choose to reduce that perception, but there are tradeoffs. See Somalia and their currency’s purchasing power at the other other end of the spectrum.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Obviously the people wouldn't actually think that smashing parking meters to renege on a contract is a good idea, but, as we said, if they thought it was a good idea then it wouldn't matter if the contract states something about not smashing meters. There would be nothing to enforce the contract. It is not upheld by a supernatural force.
- pmontra 3y ago
  Can't they be creative and put all of them in some place where they won't be used? Example, the emergency lane of highways, roads where nobody parks, etc.
  - blamazon 3y ago
    Lower Wacker Drive waves hello! But actually I think the contract accounts for this though, my memory is there's some kind of year-over-year value promise. (Plus inflation!) If true, moving the parking meters to a low demand location means the city would have to pay the difference in potential revenue, on top of the relocation costs.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    The parking meter company would have had to employ some astonishingly incompetent lawyers if they had left such an obvious loophole in the contract text. It's the exact same thing as with scientists. Any time some lay person on HN or Reddit or wherever asks about some research or a new phenomenon or whatever (textbook example: dark matter) a question of the form "but have they considered <some very obvious idea>?" the answer is "yes, they have because that's their job and they're not stupid!"
  - mminer237 3y ago
    Yes, and if revenue goes down because of where they places them, the city itself has to make up the difference.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
I've skimmed through the contract. The city is contractually obligated to have the meter maids but I think they could tell them to stop writing tickets. Problem is the city needs the money. There's a parking app now so smashing the boxes won't work. Anyway no matter what you come up with there's a clause that basically says "if the city does anything that causes us to lose money they have to reimburse us" so we are well and truly fucked.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  The city can get out of it. They could just flake out of the contract. The company is actually holding the risk because they think they can debt trap the city. They are holding the dragon by the tail and think they are in control. If the city just flakes on the contract and lets parking be free. Then everyone will be happy. The company will fight back in the courts and the city can just grind down that process for as long as possible. It doesn't have to settle, it can investigate back and do all sorts of things to cause trouble.
  - mminer237 3y ago
    If the city just ignores the contract, it will be sued. You can't delay a court hearing forever. Eventually it would have to pay all the lost revenue plus interest plus court fees. That's a terrible idea.
  - kodt 3y ago
    I believe the contract guarantees a certain level of income. The city would no doubt have to pay for this if attempted.
jimt1234 3y ago
Sorta related: A community near me recently experimented with "automated" parking enforcement. Basically, cameras around a parking space detected if the same car was parked longer than was paid for, and if so, the system fired off a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle (by OCR'ing the license plate). I heard a few rumors regarding why the experiment stopped: - people were really PO'ed for getting parking tickets in the mail, days or weeks later. - cheating husbands were getting caught by their wives: "What's up with this parking ticket from downtown when you told me you were visiting your mother in Big Bear?" - vandals (heroes?) were spray painting the cameras, then parking for free.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >vandals (heroes?) were spray painting the cameras, then parking for free. Why would they be heroes for unfairly preventing others from using the parking spaces?

asu_thomas 3y ago

Who? Who is supposed to do these things and why?

rapsey 3y ago

> Under the contract, the city must maintain at least 30,000 meters in any given year

randomdata 3y ago
If the people think the above is a good idea, they can also ignore the contract. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
- zoky 3y ago
  No, it’s a very natural power—the courts. If Chicago ignores the contract, they’ll get sued and have to pay even more.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    That natural power is just people. Ignoring the contract is only significant if people choose to stand by the contract. But if the people believe what's contained in the original comment is a good idea, why would they stand by the contract? Without a supernatural power to uphold the contract, and without people to uphold the contract, there is nothing.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      True but there are many other contracts that are critical to our daily functioning. If the city honors this terrible beast of a contract according to the rule of law, that bodes well for all the good contracts the entire government of the States has.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Smashing parking meters in some "clever" attempt to evade the contract already doesn't bode well for other contracts. Once you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, the contract already means nothing. Obviously in the real world it is unlikely that the people would think that the above is a good idea, but if they did then the contract is only as worth as much as the paper it is written on. It can simply be ignored. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Very true - that's why some places are much easier to do business in. The USA is very good for this
    - Sharlin 3y ago
      Because of the rule of law? A court does not have the power to annul a contract simply because they think it was a really bad idea. Although I guess there ought to be some sort of a escape hatch for forced renegotiating of contracts that are as detrimental to the society at large (ie. the taxpayers) as this one. I have no idea whether there is one.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        The rule of law is just people. It is only as good as their willingness to uphold it. If the people believe what is told in the original comment is a good idea, why would they uphold the contract? It is not like there is some supernatural power that enforces contracts.
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    …and if the voters refuse to raise enough taxes to pay the fines?
    - econnors 3y ago
      detroit says hello
- stevage 3y ago
  Doesn't the article begin by talking about how the courts are siding with the corporation?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    ”If” does not imply that the people do believe the above is a good idea. It is merely hypothetical.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  One of the US’s biggest assets is its trust-ability. People around the world clamor to do business in the US, and creating outsize demand for the US’s currency because of it. Obviously, the people of the US can choose to reduce that perception, but there are tradeoffs. See Somalia and their currency’s purchasing power at the other other end of the spectrum.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Obviously the people wouldn't actually think that smashing parking meters to renege on a contract is a good idea, but, as we said, if they thought it was a good idea then it wouldn't matter if the contract states something about not smashing meters. There would be nothing to enforce the contract. It is not upheld by a supernatural force.
pmontra 3y ago
Can't they be creative and put all of them in some place where they won't be used? Example, the emergency lane of highways, roads where nobody parks, etc.
- blamazon 3y ago
  Lower Wacker Drive waves hello! But actually I think the contract accounts for this though, my memory is there's some kind of year-over-year value promise. (Plus inflation!) If true, moving the parking meters to a low demand location means the city would have to pay the difference in potential revenue, on top of the relocation costs.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Sharlin 3y ago
  The parking meter company would have had to employ some astonishingly incompetent lawyers if they had left such an obvious loophole in the contract text. It's the exact same thing as with scientists. Any time some lay person on HN or Reddit or wherever asks about some research or a new phenomenon or whatever (textbook example: dark matter) a question of the form "but have they considered <some very obvious idea>?" the answer is "yes, they have because that's their job and they're not stupid!"
- mminer237 3y ago
  Yes, and if revenue goes down because of where they places them, the city itself has to make up the difference.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

I've skimmed through the contract. The city is contractually obligated to have the meter maids but I think they could tell them to stop writing tickets. Problem is the city needs the money. There's a parking app now so smashing the boxes won't work. Anyway no matter what you come up with there's a clause that basically says "if the city does anything that causes us to lose money they have to reimburse us" so we are well and truly fucked.

gonzo41 3y ago
The city can get out of it. They could just flake out of the contract. The company is actually holding the risk because they think they can debt trap the city. They are holding the dragon by the tail and think they are in control. If the city just flakes on the contract and lets parking be free. Then everyone will be happy. The company will fight back in the courts and the city can just grind down that process for as long as possible. It doesn't have to settle, it can investigate back and do all sorts of things to cause trouble.
- mminer237 3y ago
  If the city just ignores the contract, it will be sued. You can't delay a court hearing forever. Eventually it would have to pay all the lost revenue plus interest plus court fees. That's a terrible idea.
- kodt 3y ago
  I believe the contract guarantees a certain level of income. The city would no doubt have to pay for this if attempted.

jimt1234 3y ago

Sorta related: A community near me recently experimented with "automated" parking enforcement. Basically, cameras around a parking space detected if the same car was parked longer than was paid for, and if so, the system fired off a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle (by OCR'ing the license plate). I heard a few rumors regarding why the experiment stopped: - people were really PO'ed for getting parking tickets in the mail, days or weeks later. - cheating husbands were getting caught by their wives: "What's up with this parking ticket from downtown when you told me you were visiting your mother in Big Bear?" - vandals (heroes?) were spray painting the cameras, then parking for free.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
>vandals (heroes?) were spray painting the cameras, then parking for free. Why would they be heroes for unfairly preventing others from using the parking spaces?