4 ms·

>Tickets as a revenue mechanism is a social ill, full stop I never buy an argument that is so simple. Tickets are a revenue source and that keeps taxes lower o

>Tickets as a revenue mechanism is a social ill, full stop I never buy an argument that is so simple. Tickets are a revenue source and that keeps taxes lower on the backs of people who flaunt the law. If the alternative is New York where parking is such a cluster it's an impediment to business, I think I might take the corruption. It's a far more nuanced problem than you're making it. Political oversight of revenue sources is necessary, yes, but to say they are an unmitigated bad is to be ignorant of most local budget processes.

bitwalker 13y ago
Tickets being a revenue source because some people value the convenience of parking illegally over the cost of the ticket is one thing. Tickets being given deliberately as a means of increasing revenue is another. I've been given tickets for parking illegally when I was parked in my own residential parking lot, while displaying the required parking tag on my dash. It was done deliberately in the off chance that I might be too lazy to fight it. It's that kind of blatant disregard for the spirit of the law that they are arguing against, not tickets being a source of revenue in the more general sense. Granted, I'm not them, so maybe they were - but that was what my impression was from their comment.
awjr 13y ago
Aberystwyth (UK) had a weird year where they had no parking officers. Apparently caused complete parking chaos. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-18267009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-18267009
scarmig 13y ago
Political oversight is the issue: to supply revenue, a politician is given a choice, between raising taxes and issuing more fines. Raising taxes is always a difficult battle, while jaywalkers or people who speed on the highway make a convenient target. So the latter happens more than it should. These tickets disproportionately target the poor, who have the hardest time paying them on short notice, leading to additional fines that accumulate and build on each other. So officials are incentivized to either game the system by doling out tickets more than is socially productive or by targeting people who are most likely to pay back the most in fines. The revenue has to go somewhere, but it absolutely should not go into the pockets of the agency issuing the fines. Where should it go? Best case would be to reimburse the people harmed by the social ill that's being fined: that level of targeting is hard, leaning toward impossible. Next best is to give everyone an equal share of the fines: this is also difficult, and overly costly for what would amount to a couple bucks. Third best would be to have it go into the government's general fund, to the exclusion of the agency issuing the fines. Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund. Second worst is giving it to the agency issuing the tickets, which is where we're at now. Worst of all would be allowing the officers issuing the fine to pocket it themselves, which leads to the lowest levels of ability to audit and the most perverse and misaligned incentives.
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  People keep saying this, but I really have nothing more than anecdotal evidence to believe that it is true. But seriously, if you are concerned, that is why we have a democratic process. Deal with it in the election. >Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund. I'm curious where you think it goes? I have worked at a number of municipalities and all revenue goes to the general fund. During the budget process departments predict expected revenue. This is taken into account when setting the city budget overall (which also takes into account tax revenue and reserves). No money "goes into the department's pockets". They account for it and turn it over to the city's auditor. Those fees go into providing city services, it's not like they are lining someone's pocket. My issue is the term "full stop". That is not a good way to deal with problem solving in the real world. I have been to municipalities where there is little to no parking enforcement or that have very lax parking laws (ahem, New York) and I don't personally find it pleasant. No system is perfect, they all require political oversight and constant vigilance, but most states have open records laws that allow you (or local press) the audit these processes and the revenue raised. All systems should have recourse in case of design flaw or human flaw. All systems should have the final say rest with citizens through their elected officials.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Couple points: 1) I said nothing about whether parking enforcement should be lax or not: that's an entirely separate question from how it's funded. 2) Municipalities do differ, but the fee associated with a ticket either often ends up divvied up to agencies related to the ticket-issuing. See [1], for instance. (I couldn't find one where that wasn't the case, but I suspect that's probably because of people complaining loudly about this issue, resulting in Google giving a bad sample) 3) The meta-political discussion seems odd to me: no one (here, at least) is saying we should move to an authoritarian regime that institutes all these regulations by fiat. Speaking for myself, I want the public to build democratic governance structures that give officials the correct incentives to maximize social good. [1] https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-ticket-money-go https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-tick...
Zigurd 13y ago
> on the... people who flaunt [sic] the law That's only correct if you believe parking fines are fairly administered. If not, they are in fact a social ill.
josephlord 13y ago
Sorry to be picky on language but I think this misuse may be spreading and this comment is pretty high. You 'flout' the laws and you 'flaunt' your ridiculous good looks.
- triplesec 13y ago
  round here I hope you'd more like flaunt your kickass coding skills

bitwalker 13y ago

Tickets being a revenue source because some people value the convenience of parking illegally over the cost of the ticket is one thing. Tickets being given deliberately as a means of increasing revenue is another. I've been given tickets for parking illegally when I was parked in my own residential parking lot, while displaying the required parking tag on my dash. It was done deliberately in the off chance that I might be too lazy to fight it. It's that kind of blatant disregard for the spirit of the law that they are arguing against, not tickets being a source of revenue in the more general sense. Granted, I'm not them, so maybe they were - but that was what my impression was from their comment.

awjr 13y ago

Aberystwyth (UK) had a weird year where they had no parking officers. Apparently caused complete parking chaos. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-18267009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-18267009

scarmig 13y ago

Political oversight is the issue: to supply revenue, a politician is given a choice, between raising taxes and issuing more fines. Raising taxes is always a difficult battle, while jaywalkers or people who speed on the highway make a convenient target. So the latter happens more than it should. These tickets disproportionately target the poor, who have the hardest time paying them on short notice, leading to additional fines that accumulate and build on each other. So officials are incentivized to either game the system by doling out tickets more than is socially productive or by targeting people who are most likely to pay back the most in fines. The revenue has to go somewhere, but it absolutely should not go into the pockets of the agency issuing the fines. Where should it go? Best case would be to reimburse the people harmed by the social ill that's being fined: that level of targeting is hard, leaning toward impossible. Next best is to give everyone an equal share of the fines: this is also difficult, and overly costly for what would amount to a couple bucks. Third best would be to have it go into the government's general fund, to the exclusion of the agency issuing the fines. Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund. Second worst is giving it to the agency issuing the tickets, which is where we're at now. Worst of all would be allowing the officers issuing the fine to pocket it themselves, which leads to the lowest levels of ability to audit and the most perverse and misaligned incentives.

stinkytaco 13y ago
People keep saying this, but I really have nothing more than anecdotal evidence to believe that it is true. But seriously, if you are concerned, that is why we have a democratic process. Deal with it in the election. >Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund. I'm curious where you think it goes? I have worked at a number of municipalities and all revenue goes to the general fund. During the budget process departments predict expected revenue. This is taken into account when setting the city budget overall (which also takes into account tax revenue and reserves). No money "goes into the department's pockets". They account for it and turn it over to the city's auditor. Those fees go into providing city services, it's not like they are lining someone's pocket. My issue is the term "full stop". That is not a good way to deal with problem solving in the real world. I have been to municipalities where there is little to no parking enforcement or that have very lax parking laws (ahem, New York) and I don't personally find it pleasant. No system is perfect, they all require political oversight and constant vigilance, but most states have open records laws that allow you (or local press) the audit these processes and the revenue raised. All systems should have recourse in case of design flaw or human flaw. All systems should have the final say rest with citizens through their elected officials.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Couple points: 1) I said nothing about whether parking enforcement should be lax or not: that's an entirely separate question from how it's funded. 2) Municipalities do differ, but the fee associated with a ticket either often ends up divvied up to agencies related to the ticket-issuing. See [1], for instance. (I couldn't find one where that wasn't the case, but I suspect that's probably because of people complaining loudly about this issue, resulting in Google giving a bad sample) 3) The meta-political discussion seems odd to me: no one (here, at least) is saying we should move to an authoritarian regime that institutes all these regulations by fiat. Speaking for myself, I want the public to build democratic governance structures that give officials the correct incentives to maximize social good. [1] https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-ticket-money-go https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-tick...

Zigurd 13y ago

> on the... people who flaunt [sic] the law That's only correct if you believe parking fines are fairly administered. If not, they are in fact a social ill.

josephlord 13y ago

Sorry to be picky on language but I think this misuse may be spreading and this comment is pretty high. You 'flout' the laws and you 'flaunt' your ridiculous good looks.

triplesec 13y ago
round here I hope you'd more like flaunt your kickass coding skills