6 ms·

SF cracks down on ‘Monkey Parking’ mobile app

51 points by dmckeon 12y ago

dmckeon 12y ago
Previous discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7702659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7702659
sukuriant 12y ago
"MonkeyParking and any motorists using the app face fines of $300 per violation of the city’s law prohibiting selling or contracting for parts of a public street, according to the city attorney." I was going to ask what the actual law was, but it seems I've found some version of the gist of it here. Where I live (not San Fransisco) we have privatized parking in plots of land that aren't on the public street. Would using this app on places like that in SF be legal?
- mahyarm 12y ago
  I can park nearly all day at moscone center with little time investment for $20-$30, why the hell would I use this then?
  - sukuriant 12y ago
    You wouldn't :) but, it can be hard to find a parking spot in, for example, Seattle on a Friday night.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Maybe. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about selling the information that you're ready to leave a 100% privately owned/operated off-street parking space to someone else who is looking for such a space and is willing to pay the parking fees to the owner/operator, as well as paying you for the tip about the vacant space. Basically it would depend on whether the parking space vendor's contract with motorists sought to prohibit such arrangements as a condition of use. Of course that's a rather heavy-handed unilateral tactic, but you're not legally required to enter into a parking arrangement with them so if you don't like their terms and conditions, you don't park there in the first place. The mere inconvenience to you of having to seek other parking or transit options doesn't constitute a property interest, so you have no particular claim on the fairness of the T&C. Same logic that allows parking lot operators to disclaim liability for theft/damage to your vehicle.
coldcode 12y ago
While I think some of what the city says makes sense, how can a city in the US force a company in Rome to cease and desist? Even Apple might be loath to follow this order since you can't follow every city and country on earth's laws and stay in business.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Because the company is operating in the US city, of course. Would it be OK to sit in San Francisco and remotely run a service that was illegal in Rome? Of course not, Italian prosecutors would issue demands and then seek a court ruling that they would then ask US courts to enforce. This is the sort of thing that international treaties are for. EDI for clarity, of course there are no treaties about parking spaces. But treaties usually include general provisions about courts recognizing each others' judgments in criminal and civil matters, not least to prevent cross-border financial fraud, tax evasion and so on. It's not foolproof because not all territories have treaties, eg someone based in Somalia could run an illegal internet business with relative impunity because the US has no treaties with Somalia (as far as I know). On the other hand, countries that have no criminal or commercial treaty relations with other countries tend to be hellholes.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries. US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant chilling effect on business.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Those services are not inherently illegal in other jurisdictions* for one thing, and where specific activities have been deemed illegal the operators either abide by the judgment of the courts or exit the market. Case in point: Google allowing EU citizens to apply for delisting of privacy-infringing search results in accordance with EU data protection laws. * I'm not sure about places like North Korea, but trying to offer services there would be embargoed by domestic sanctions in any case.
whence 12y ago
Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.
- dsl 12y ago
  The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resulting in crap covered sidewalks. etc.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - r00fus 12y ago
    While it's easy to demonize "environmentalists", it's pretty clear in the SF Bay Area that environmentalists and property owners are in collusion (or property owners are using the environmentalist label to limit supply). Ultimately, the best way to root-cause a policy issue is to follow the money. Someone is making money from a lack of governance.
    - dsl 12y ago
      It is not so much money as it is power. San Francisco has a reverse-Tea Party problem. When all viable candidates for a position are already left of center, the only way to shine is to seem more-progressive and out liberal the other guy. As evidenced by the problems on the right currently - the biggest danger is that as we keep creeping to the extreme left, the "far out nutjobs" are only a tiny step away and seem almost reasonable by comparison.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        The 'left' has vary little presence in current US government (including in San Francisco) on any level. 'Far-left nutjobs' in the modern context refers to anyone to the left of Nixon.
bitlord_219 12y ago
Good. The idea of a couple guys in Italy making money on trades of public parking spaces in SF baffles me. I assume they're not paying any taxes back to the city that maintains the spaces. How does one possibly defend this?
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  How does one possibly defend this? Well, it typically comes across like this (if you notice depends on if you like the company): Their disruptive innovation is just scaring the shit out of those dinosaurs down at City Hall. Local government are stupid for protecting citizenry financially and/or setting minimum standards for a service. It doesn't matter if the service model is the kind of things that the law is meant to protect or genuinely a case not considered when drafting the law. All valley business models are golden, market success makes them beyond reproach!
- gizmo686 12y ago
  They are proving value by solving a market inneficiency (a good, parking spaces, being available at sub-market rates, free). As such, they have a right to some of the profits. By increasing the cost of parking spaces, they improve the efficiency of allocation by making sure they go to people who value them at $20 before people who value them at 0.003$ Or, more likely, they live outside of US juristiction, so they have plenty of time to make a profit, and when the law does catch up to them, they are likely not looking at anything worse then needing to shut down the service.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
I can't really see any moral difference between this and , say, ticket scalping.
pessimizer 12y ago
At least one of these companies is a pure protection racket. "ParkModo was recently offering $13 an hour to drivers who would occupy parking spaces in the Mission District during peak weekend times and then sell the spot through its app, a Craigslist job posting showed. "'Get paid $13.00 per hour just to park!' the ad read. 'Our company is launching an awesome app that rewards people to sell their on-street parking spots before leaving to people who need a spot.' "It went on to say that: 'Once you are parked, using the app, you will offer the spot for sale. … Once someone purchases the spot, you will complete the transaction with the buyer and then find another space to park in and start the process all over again!'" It's as if AirBnB were paying people to burn down hotels.
- TrainedMonkey 12y ago
  This is disgusting. Parking in SF is already not easy, and now this cancer is moving in and exacerbating the problem.
  - cloakandswagger 12y ago
    Heh, I think you mean exacerbating
- oalders 12y ago
  Looking for a parking spot is already a form of predatory behaviour in many places. Encouraging people to put a dollar value on a public space can't help. Where do we go from here? An app to sell your spot in the grocery store checkout line?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    Oh man! An app to sell your spot in the line at Centrelink - the Australian government agency who manages the 'Unemployment Benefit' aka 'Social Security'.
- avacadovich 12y ago
  Chill people, the city is already doing this by adjusting meter rates with demand to assure that there is will always be a few street parking spaces available for those who are willing to pay for them. Living and parking in SF is not a god given right. EZ John
microcolonel 12y ago
They're not selling the spots, they're selling prior knowledge of their departure. They have no right or means to block or make exclusive the spots, so what's the problem?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  The law prohibits selling or contracting around public parking spaces, ie contracts formed for the purpose of exploiting a public resource are automatically void. The app itself invites users to 'request a parking spot' and asks 'how much would you pay?' The knowledge of imminent departure is just an instrumentality for gaining occupancy of the parking spot, to claim otherwise is disingenuous. There's a mentality among some hackers that 'the means justify the ends,' ie if you can find some definitional wiggle room on what you're doing it automatically validates the outcome. That works OK on computers, but the law is not a big computer system and does not operate on the same sort of binary logic as computers do.
- smackfu 12y ago
  Here's the specific law they say that people are violating: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to enter into a lease, rental agreement or contract of any kind, written or oral, with or without compensation, for the use of any street or sidewalk."
- blatherard 12y ago
  The means of blocking is the car that they have sitting in the spot, which presumably they won't move until the payee shows up. Its also not paying for prior knowledge but payment for vacating, as the Monkey Parking website clearly states: "Get notified about drivers willing to pay you for leaving your parking spot"
- aikah 12y ago
  > so what's the problem? According to the article it's plain illegal.That's the problem.
incision 12y ago
>'ParkModo was recently offering $13 an hour to drivers who would occupy parking spaces in the Mission District during peak weekend times and then sell the spot through its app, a Craigslist job posting showed.' Wow, I remember when parking spot squatting was the province of bold homeless men near nightclubs. This sort of rent-seeking on the commons is particularly distasteful, but simply 'cracking down' on it seems like a wasted opportunity. If the demand and divide are such that this is a real issue it seems like time for a progressive congestion tax or similar. Collect and invest in infrastructure.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  SF already has the nation's most advanced parking space pricing system, called SFPark. However, that is a low bar. The prices change very slowly and some neighborhoods still have not found their equilibrium price (for example, a busy stretch of Valencia has had its price increased in every adjustment round and is now up to $6/hr. Nobody knows the equilibrium price for that area.) There's also the problem that SFPark isn't very widespread because "local merchants" who are a kind of caveman often oppose it.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  A generous interpretation of their intent would be that they were trying to inflate their transaction volume in order to create a better user experience for the early adopters trying out their app (a challenge that every e-commerce / marketplace business faces in its early stage). Still doesn't absolve them of the distasteful nature of their actions, of course.
smackfu 12y ago
Here's the letter (PDF): http://www.sfcityattorney.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1669 http://www.sfcityattorney.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?docu...
smoyer 12y ago
San Francisco's attorney further stated that they believe it's illegal for anyone outside northern California to create an iPhone application or any web-based property. When asked for additional insight he responded "We've studied the situation and believe we have world-wide jurisdiction to applications running on mobile devices and computers used in our city".

51 points by dmckeon 12y ago

Previous discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7702659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7702659

"MonkeyParking and any motorists using the app face fines of $300 per violation of the city’s law prohibiting selling or contracting for parts of a public street, according to the city attorney." I was going to ask what the actual law was, but it seems I've found some version of the gist of it here. Where I live (not San Fransisco) we have privatized parking in plots of land that aren't on the public street. Would using this app on places like that in SF be legal?

mahyarm 12y ago
I can park nearly all day at moscone center with little time investment for $20-$30, why the hell would I use this then?
- sukuriant 12y ago
  You wouldn't :) but, it can be hard to find a parking spot in, for example, Seattle on a Friday night.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Maybe. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about selling the information that you're ready to leave a 100% privately owned/operated off-street parking space to someone else who is looking for such a space and is willing to pay the parking fees to the owner/operator, as well as paying you for the tip about the vacant space. Basically it would depend on whether the parking space vendor's contract with motorists sought to prohibit such arrangements as a condition of use. Of course that's a rather heavy-handed unilateral tactic, but you're not legally required to enter into a parking arrangement with them so if you don't like their terms and conditions, you don't park there in the first place. The mere inconvenience to you of having to seek other parking or transit options doesn't constitute a property interest, so you have no particular claim on the fairness of the T&C. Same logic that allows parking lot operators to disclaim liability for theft/damage to your vehicle.

coldcode 12y ago

While I think some of what the city says makes sense, how can a city in the US force a company in Rome to cease and desist? Even Apple might be loath to follow this order since you can't follow every city and country on earth's laws and stay in business.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Because the company is operating in the US city, of course. Would it be OK to sit in San Francisco and remotely run a service that was illegal in Rome? Of course not, Italian prosecutors would issue demands and then seek a court ruling that they would then ask US courts to enforce. This is the sort of thing that international treaties are for. EDI for clarity, of course there are no treaties about parking spaces. But treaties usually include general provisions about courts recognizing each others' judgments in criminal and civil matters, not least to prevent cross-border financial fraud, tax evasion and so on. It's not foolproof because not all territories have treaties, eg someone based in Somalia could run an illegal internet business with relative impunity because the US has no treaties with Somalia (as far as I know). On the other hand, countries that have no criminal or commercial treaty relations with other countries tend to be hellholes.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Of course it's OK to run a service in the US that might be illegal abroad. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. have all been banned, blocked, and threatened by various foreign governments, even in nominally democratic countries. US-based Internet companies have flourished due to the relatively hands-off regulations concerning websites. To suddenly apply every foreign law that's ever been written would be a significant chilling effect on business.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Those services are not inherently illegal in other jurisdictions* for one thing, and where specific activities have been deemed illegal the operators either abide by the judgment of the courts or exit the market. Case in point: Google allowing EU citizens to apply for delisting of privacy-infringing search results in accordance with EU data protection laws. * I'm not sure about places like North Korea, but trying to offer services there would be embargoed by domestic sanctions in any case.

whence 12y ago

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

dsl 12y ago
The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resulting in crap covered sidewalks. etc.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 12y ago
  While it's easy to demonize "environmentalists", it's pretty clear in the SF Bay Area that environmentalists and property owners are in collusion (or property owners are using the environmentalist label to limit supply). Ultimately, the best way to root-cause a policy issue is to follow the money. Someone is making money from a lack of governance.
  - dsl 12y ago
    It is not so much money as it is power. San Francisco has a reverse-Tea Party problem. When all viable candidates for a position are already left of center, the only way to shine is to seem more-progressive and out liberal the other guy. As evidenced by the problems on the right currently - the biggest danger is that as we keep creeping to the extreme left, the "far out nutjobs" are only a tiny step away and seem almost reasonable by comparison.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      The 'left' has vary little presence in current US government (including in San Francisco) on any level. 'Far-left nutjobs' in the modern context refers to anyone to the left of Nixon.

bitlord_219 12y ago

Good. The idea of a couple guys in Italy making money on trades of public parking spaces in SF baffles me. I assume they're not paying any taxes back to the city that maintains the spaces. How does one possibly defend this?

forgottenpass 12y ago
How does one possibly defend this? Well, it typically comes across like this (if you notice depends on if you like the company): Their disruptive innovation is just scaring the shit out of those dinosaurs down at City Hall. Local government are stupid for protecting citizenry financially and/or setting minimum standards for a service. It doesn't matter if the service model is the kind of things that the law is meant to protect or genuinely a case not considered when drafting the law. All valley business models are golden, market success makes them beyond reproach!
gizmo686 12y ago
They are proving value by solving a market inneficiency (a good, parking spaces, being available at sub-market rates, free). As such, they have a right to some of the profits. By increasing the cost of parking spaces, they improve the efficiency of allocation by making sure they go to people who value them at $20 before people who value them at 0.003$ Or, more likely, they live outside of US juristiction, so they have plenty of time to make a profit, and when the law does catch up to them, they are likely not looking at anything worse then needing to shut down the service.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

I can't really see any moral difference between this and , say, ticket scalping.

pessimizer 12y ago

At least one of these companies is a pure protection racket. "ParkModo was recently offering $13 an hour to drivers who would occupy parking spaces in the Mission District during peak weekend times and then sell the spot through its app, a Craigslist job posting showed. "'Get paid $13.00 per hour just to park!' the ad read. 'Our company is launching an awesome app that rewards people to sell their on-street parking spots before leaving to people who need a spot.' "It went on to say that: 'Once you are parked, using the app, you will offer the spot for sale. … Once someone purchases the spot, you will complete the transaction with the buyer and then find another space to park in and start the process all over again!'" It's as if AirBnB were paying people to burn down hotels.

TrainedMonkey 12y ago
This is disgusting. Parking in SF is already not easy, and now this cancer is moving in and exacerbating the problem.
- cloakandswagger 12y ago
  Heh, I think you mean exacerbating
oalders 12y ago
Looking for a parking spot is already a form of predatory behaviour in many places. Encouraging people to put a dollar value on a public space can't help. Where do we go from here? An app to sell your spot in the grocery store checkout line?
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  Oh man! An app to sell your spot in the line at Centrelink - the Australian government agency who manages the 'Unemployment Benefit' aka 'Social Security'.
avacadovich 12y ago
Chill people, the city is already doing this by adjusting meter rates with demand to assure that there is will always be a few street parking spaces available for those who are willing to pay for them. Living and parking in SF is not a god given right. EZ John

microcolonel 12y ago

They're not selling the spots, they're selling prior knowledge of their departure. They have no right or means to block or make exclusive the spots, so what's the problem?

anigbrowl 12y ago
The law prohibits selling or contracting around public parking spaces, ie contracts formed for the purpose of exploiting a public resource are automatically void. The app itself invites users to 'request a parking spot' and asks 'how much would you pay?' The knowledge of imminent departure is just an instrumentality for gaining occupancy of the parking spot, to claim otherwise is disingenuous. There's a mentality among some hackers that 'the means justify the ends,' ie if you can find some definitional wiggle room on what you're doing it automatically validates the outcome. That works OK on computers, but the law is not a big computer system and does not operate on the same sort of binary logic as computers do.
smackfu 12y ago
Here's the specific law they say that people are violating: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to enter into a lease, rental agreement or contract of any kind, written or oral, with or without compensation, for the use of any street or sidewalk."
blatherard 12y ago
The means of blocking is the car that they have sitting in the spot, which presumably they won't move until the payee shows up. Its also not paying for prior knowledge but payment for vacating, as the Monkey Parking website clearly states: "Get notified about drivers willing to pay you for leaving your parking spot"
aikah 12y ago
> so what's the problem? According to the article it's plain illegal.That's the problem.

incision 12y ago

>'ParkModo was recently offering $13 an hour to drivers who would occupy parking spaces in the Mission District during peak weekend times and then sell the spot through its app, a Craigslist job posting showed.' Wow, I remember when parking spot squatting was the province of bold homeless men near nightclubs. This sort of rent-seeking on the commons is particularly distasteful, but simply 'cracking down' on it seems like a wasted opportunity. If the demand and divide are such that this is a real issue it seems like time for a progressive congestion tax or similar. Collect and invest in infrastructure.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
SF already has the nation's most advanced parking space pricing system, called SFPark. However, that is a low bar. The prices change very slowly and some neighborhoods still have not found their equilibrium price (for example, a busy stretch of Valencia has had its price increased in every adjustment round and is now up to $6/hr. Nobody knows the equilibrium price for that area.) There's also the problem that SFPark isn't very widespread because "local merchants" who are a kind of caveman often oppose it.
hkmurakami 12y ago
A generous interpretation of their intent would be that they were trying to inflate their transaction volume in order to create a better user experience for the early adopters trying out their app (a challenge that every e-commerce / marketplace business faces in its early stage). Still doesn't absolve them of the distasteful nature of their actions, of course.

smackfu 12y ago

Here's the letter (PDF): http://www.sfcityattorney.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1669 http://www.sfcityattorney.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?docu...

smoyer 12y ago

San Francisco's attorney further stated that they believe it's illegal for anyone outside northern California to create an iPhone application or any web-based property. When asked for additional insight he responded "We've studied the situation and believe we have world-wide jurisdiction to applications running on mobile devices and computers used in our city".