4 ms·

It's easy to see this as a foolish reaction of "there is a market? But markets are unfair because money, so let's stop it!" by the city of San Fran. In fact, it

It's easy to see this as a foolish reaction of "there is a market? But markets are unfair because money, so let's stop it!" by the city of San Fran. In fact, it would take remarkably little to make me believe San Fran was that foolish. However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move. The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. Let the market decide what the price of parking is, and pay the supplier.

rayiner 12y ago
> However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move. This analysis is totally on point and I'm shocked someone downvoted you.
bkmartin 12y ago
Why "should" SF be auctioning off these spots? To maximize revenue? Is that why public services exist? Are they doing a larger disservice to the people of SF by NOT auctioning them off, thus raising the price to park, over having a lower price solution to $25 parking garages? Maybe SF should build a couple of public parking garages themselves if they, as a public service, wish to continue to offer more affordable public parking. The residents of the city need affordable parking. Unless, their goal is to get less people to drive in the city and take public transit. There are so many factors at play here. So many agendas and concerns. So I repeat my question... for what reasons "should" SF auction off the spots? What are its ramifications? I have no skin in the game, I'm just an east coaster. These issues are hardly ever so cut and dry as to whether a market exists or not.
- derwiki 12y ago
  When I had my car in the city, I took public transit every chance I could because I didn't dare lose my parking spot. I only used the car for out of town trips. Then I realized how ridiculous it was to own a car that I was stressed out to use. I switched to Zipcar and never looked back (in fact, my local Zipcar garage is closer than how far away I normally had to park).
  - bkmartin 12y ago
    You mention the Zipcar garage. Why doesn't the city build a couple of these garages? Why don't they offer an affordable solution in that respect? What if they got rid of on street parking all together and created more parking garages so that they took up less acres and they could then reuse that street space for more driving lanes or bike lanes or bus lanes etc? They could then have more parking spots in a given geographical area and better public land use overall. I think that affordable and plentiful parking is vital to most downtown areas. Private industry will only put in so much parking themselves to maximize revenue over and above the purpose of the service itself.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Parking is an inefficient use of land in a dense city. Cheap parking just subsidizes this inefficiency.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I made a longer comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577 TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource. If it is a public resource with a single public issuer, you don't have the requisites for a functioning market anyhow, so not auctioning it doesn't "break the market".
    - danielweber 12y ago
      If I want to pay the market clearing price to get a parking spot but cannot, the market has broken. This is otherwise a functioning market. There is demand that can react to prices, and the city can adjust supply based on price data.
moron4hire 12y ago
Are there not meters for these spots, for which time the squatters need to pay? It seems like this is a problem of arbitrage. The spots are worth more on the 2nd hand market than they cost in the first place. Supply/demand problems really pricing problems.
gambiting 12y ago
Aren't the places made for,and maintained with public money though?
- danielweber 12y ago
  If the city owns a ballpark, and 50,000 people want to sit behind homeplate on opening day, you still need a mechanism for allocating those seats. You can lottery, but then people would just trade the seats for money themselves. Why bother? If you want poor people to have more money, give them more money. You can even do it randomly if the lottery aspect is fun for them.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Because if you think about it, you paid in your taxes to build and maintain a parking place, and now some asshole sits there all day, waiting for someone to pay him to move his car. Even if it is not illegal, it is unethical.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      This doesn't seem to be a response to me. I think it's good for the government to put a stop to this racket (which is the term for creating a problem and then offering to receive money to stop it).
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. The purpose of paid, time-limited public parking isn't to maximize revenue (though providing revenue is not unimportant) , it is to maintain availability of spaces so that people can use them and promote commerce. Auction off spaces -- e.g., maximizing the cost to park -- is not really ideal for serving that goal.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I don't think auctions necessarily get to the maximum revenue, but they do get to a market clearing price. (An auction doesn't have to be "everyone who wins pays what they bid"; instead it can be "everyone who wins pays what the last person to squeeze in pays." I'm pretending for simplicity that "parking spot" is perfectly fungible when they obviously vary a lot by time and location.) I.e., say $N is the price at which no one willing to pay $N can't get a spot, and say $M is the price at which the city maximizes revenue. $M could be greater than $N, and it's a policy decision on the city's part which to choose. [1] If the problem is insufficient parking, though, charging less than $N is the solution. If "auction" doesn't work to get you there, find some other method that does. [1] (And it should be upfront to its citizens about which it chooses. Red-light cameras often are said to be about safety even if they end up causing accidents, because it helps the city get revenue.)

rayiner 12y ago

> However, these apps also create incentives for people to not give up their spots until someone pays. It's an incomplete market, where someone sits on a shared resource until paid to move. This analysis is totally on point and I'm shocked someone downvoted you.

bkmartin 12y ago

Why "should" SF be auctioning off these spots? To maximize revenue? Is that why public services exist? Are they doing a larger disservice to the people of SF by NOT auctioning them off, thus raising the price to park, over having a lower price solution to $25 parking garages? Maybe SF should build a couple of public parking garages themselves if they, as a public service, wish to continue to offer more affordable public parking. The residents of the city need affordable parking. Unless, their goal is to get less people to drive in the city and take public transit. There are so many factors at play here. So many agendas and concerns. So I repeat my question... for what reasons "should" SF auction off the spots? What are its ramifications? I have no skin in the game, I'm just an east coaster. These issues are hardly ever so cut and dry as to whether a market exists or not.

derwiki 12y ago
When I had my car in the city, I took public transit every chance I could because I didn't dare lose my parking spot. I only used the car for out of town trips. Then I realized how ridiculous it was to own a car that I was stressed out to use. I switched to Zipcar and never looked back (in fact, my local Zipcar garage is closer than how far away I normally had to park).
- bkmartin 12y ago
  You mention the Zipcar garage. Why doesn't the city build a couple of these garages? Why don't they offer an affordable solution in that respect? What if they got rid of on street parking all together and created more parking garages so that they took up less acres and they could then reuse that street space for more driving lanes or bike lanes or bus lanes etc? They could then have more parking spots in a given geographical area and better public land use overall. I think that affordable and plentiful parking is vital to most downtown areas. Private industry will only put in so much parking themselves to maximize revenue over and above the purpose of the service itself.
rayiner 12y ago
Parking is an inefficient use of land in a dense city. Cheap parking just subsidizes this inefficiency.
danielweber 12y ago
I made a longer comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7937577 TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > TLDR: if it's a limited resource ("more demand than supply", colloquially), allocate it by money. If you want to help the poor, give them money instead of breaking the market for the resource. If it is a public resource with a single public issuer, you don't have the requisites for a functioning market anyhow, so not auctioning it doesn't "break the market".
  - danielweber 12y ago
    If I want to pay the market clearing price to get a parking spot but cannot, the market has broken. This is otherwise a functioning market. There is demand that can react to prices, and the city can adjust supply based on price data.

moron4hire 12y ago

Are there not meters for these spots, for which time the squatters need to pay? It seems like this is a problem of arbitrage. The spots are worth more on the 2nd hand market than they cost in the first place. Supply/demand problems really pricing problems.

gambiting 12y ago

Aren't the places made for,and maintained with public money though?

danielweber 12y ago
If the city owns a ballpark, and 50,000 people want to sit behind homeplate on opening day, you still need a mechanism for allocating those seats. You can lottery, but then people would just trade the seats for money themselves. Why bother? If you want poor people to have more money, give them more money. You can even do it randomly if the lottery aspect is fun for them.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Because if you think about it, you paid in your taxes to build and maintain a parking place, and now some asshole sits there all day, waiting for someone to pay him to move his car. Even if it is not illegal, it is unethical.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    This doesn't seem to be a response to me. I think it's good for the government to put a stop to this racket (which is the term for creating a problem and then offering to receive money to stop it).

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The reality is that SF should be auctioning off these spots on its own. The purpose of paid, time-limited public parking isn't to maximize revenue (though providing revenue is not unimportant) , it is to maintain availability of spaces so that people can use them and promote commerce. Auction off spaces -- e.g., maximizing the cost to park -- is not really ideal for serving that goal.

danielweber 12y ago
I don't think auctions necessarily get to the maximum revenue, but they do get to a market clearing price. (An auction doesn't have to be "everyone who wins pays what they bid"; instead it can be "everyone who wins pays what the last person to squeeze in pays." I'm pretending for simplicity that "parking spot" is perfectly fungible when they obviously vary a lot by time and location.) I.e., say $N is the price at which no one willing to pay $N can't get a spot, and say $M is the price at which the city maximizes revenue. $M could be greater than $N, and it's a policy decision on the city's part which to choose. [1] If the problem is insufficient parking, though, charging less than $N is the solution. If "auction" doesn't work to get you there, find some other method that does. [1] (And it should be upfront to its citizens about which it chooses. Red-light cameras often are said to be about safety even if they end up causing accidents, because it helps the city get revenue.)