6 ms·

The problem with this business is not that it forces people to pay high prices for high value parking spaces, rather it's that it incentivizes people to camp ou

by minimax 12y ago

The problem with this business is not that it forces people to pay high prices for high value parking spaces, rather it's that it incentivizes people to camp out in high value spaces, and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not to the city. If this app is popular at all, it's probably an indication that the city isn't charging enough for parking.

cabalamat 12y ago
> and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not the city Then the city should build their own version and get the money that it feels it is entitled to.
- Nursie 12y ago
  I really don't understand this mindset. Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable. Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something? Why do you want to live in that world?
  - danielweber 12y ago
    There is a market-clearing price. Call it $N. That's the level at which people willing to pay $N can always get a parking spot. For a smaller value of $N, someone wants to get a parking spot by paying $N can't. (That price might even be $0 if you have more supply than demand. Some economists will talk about "The High Price Of Free Parking," and there's something to that, but if the city decides to make the market-clearing price $0, then they should do it by always having enough supply available.) If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. Instead of paying money, people have to drive in circles, or queue, or wait to find out the results of a lottery. No one benefits by this. If you are trying to help the poor, just give them more money, and they will decide on their own how valuable parking is to them. For the record, I fully support the city deciding that these other people don't get to extract the city's rents. The city should stop people from occupying a public space merely because they want to get paid to move on. It's the city's resource to sell. (And maybe the market clearing price becomes $0 once you kick out the people who are making a problem just to be paid to stop making it -- which is the definition of a racket.)
    - Nursie 12y ago
      >> If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. why is efficiency always the best goal for common resources? Why should poorer people be priced out of an efficient market on public resources we have all paid for?
  - jtc331 12y ago
    Because that's what balances the supply and demand. Artificially low prices are precisely what cause shortages. The kind of world you describe would far more efficiently allocate resource--even helping people to determine whether or not to drive versus bike versus walk versus other transportation. It also would help people determine the actual value of their property: should it be a house? A restaurant? A parking garage?
    - Nursie 12y ago
      Shortages for who? You, that can afford to pay whatever you feel like? Or people on a lower incomes who would just be priced out entirely? Your 'shortage' is only eased by making life difficult for others.
  - bobcostas55 12y ago
    >Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Because it's the only reasonable choice? Overly cheap parking is not just inherently stupid and wasteful, it also generates other problems: "cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts"[0] You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why? Cities that have started using the price mechanism have seen great results.[0][1] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=1332820800&en=cdabf3ece6c4a862&ei=5088 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=13... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-the-streets-of-san-francisco-easier-to-park-on.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-th...
    - Nursie 12y ago
      >> You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why? Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though. I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.
      - bobcostas55 12y ago
        If your concern is for poor people being priced out of the market, the best solution is (obviously) not to destroy the market, but to subsidize poor people. Proper pricing of parking would bring in significant revenues, some of them could be directed to pay for poor people's parking.
        Nursie 12y ago
        Why? that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served). It's nonsensical
        12y ago
  - cabalamat 12y ago
    >Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? I would have no problem if Edinburgh -- where I live -- adopted that policy for car parking. > Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something? Car parking spaces are not "everything in the world".
    - Nursie 12y ago
      But this mindset gets applied to everything, and people valiantly leap to defend it as applied to everything because apparently if it's a market it must be virtuous. I live in Southampton I know a bunch of people who would have a problem with this becoming the norm there - poorer local people would be priced out of city-centre parking as we have a regional shopping-centre. A first-come first-served basis lets everyone have a chance at access rather than reserving for those who can pay most.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable. Particularly, while the tariffs are intended to provide revenue they are mostly intended to supplement hard time limits in providing an incentive to limit how long you spend in the space, and largely are intended to be low given that purpose because they (and the hard limits) exist to enable commerce by encouraging turnover and thereby providing accessibility. Maximizing fees by using an auction mechanism would not serve that purpose.
- valdiorn 12y ago
  Parking is a service, provided by the city. The people who pay taxes have already paid for that parking spot. If you, or somebody else (Even the city!) try to profiteer in excess of that, it's predatory and against the rules. If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expect me to pay. You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge for a "crossing toll". It's not yours to profit from!
  - jtc331 12y ago
    >> "You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge" That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      But you have not paid for the right to sell that spot.
SilasX 12y ago
This is deifferent from land speculation ... how?

by minimax 12y ago

cabalamat 12y ago

> and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not the city Then the city should build their own version and get the money that it feels it is entitled to.

Nursie 12y ago
I really don't understand this mindset. Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable. Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something? Why do you want to live in that world?
- danielweber 12y ago
  There is a market-clearing price. Call it $N. That's the level at which people willing to pay $N can always get a parking spot. For a smaller value of $N, someone wants to get a parking spot by paying $N can't. (That price might even be $0 if you have more supply than demand. Some economists will talk about "The High Price Of Free Parking," and there's something to that, but if the city decides to make the market-clearing price $0, then they should do it by always having enough supply available.) If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. Instead of paying money, people have to drive in circles, or queue, or wait to find out the results of a lottery. No one benefits by this. If you are trying to help the poor, just give them more money, and they will decide on their own how valuable parking is to them. For the record, I fully support the city deciding that these other people don't get to extract the city's rents. The city should stop people from occupying a public space merely because they want to get paid to move on. It's the city's resource to sell. (And maybe the market clearing price becomes $0 once you kick out the people who are making a problem just to be paid to stop making it -- which is the definition of a racket.)
  - Nursie 12y ago
    >> If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. why is efficiency always the best goal for common resources? Why should poorer people be priced out of an efficient market on public resources we have all paid for?
- jtc331 12y ago
  Because that's what balances the supply and demand. Artificially low prices are precisely what cause shortages. The kind of world you describe would far more efficiently allocate resource--even helping people to determine whether or not to drive versus bike versus walk versus other transportation. It also would help people determine the actual value of their property: should it be a house? A restaurant? A parking garage?
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Shortages for who? You, that can afford to pay whatever you feel like? Or people on a lower incomes who would just be priced out entirely? Your 'shortage' is only eased by making life difficult for others.
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  >Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Because it's the only reasonable choice? Overly cheap parking is not just inherently stupid and wasteful, it also generates other problems: "cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts"[0] You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why? Cities that have started using the price mechanism have seen great results.[0][1] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=1332820800&en=cdabf3ece6c4a862&ei=5088 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=13... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-the-streets-of-san-francisco-easier-to-park-on.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-th...
  - Nursie 12y ago
    >> You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why? Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though. I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.
    - bobcostas55 12y ago
      If your concern is for poor people being priced out of the market, the best solution is (obviously) not to destroy the market, but to subsidize poor people. Proper pricing of parking would bring in significant revenues, some of them could be directed to pay for poor people's parking.
      - Nursie 12y ago
        Why? that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served). It's nonsensical
        12y ago
- cabalamat 12y ago
  >Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? I would have no problem if Edinburgh -- where I live -- adopted that policy for car parking. > Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something? Car parking spaces are not "everything in the world".
  - Nursie 12y ago
    But this mindset gets applied to everything, and people valiantly leap to defend it as applied to everything because apparently if it's a market it must be virtuous. I live in Southampton I know a bunch of people who would have a problem with this becoming the norm there - poorer local people would be priced out of city-centre parking as we have a regional shopping-centre. A first-come first-served basis lets everyone have a chance at access rather than reserving for those who can pay most.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable. Particularly, while the tariffs are intended to provide revenue they are mostly intended to supplement hard time limits in providing an incentive to limit how long you spend in the space, and largely are intended to be low given that purpose because they (and the hard limits) exist to enable commerce by encouraging turnover and thereby providing accessibility. Maximizing fees by using an auction mechanism would not serve that purpose.
valdiorn 12y ago
Parking is a service, provided by the city. The people who pay taxes have already paid for that parking spot. If you, or somebody else (Even the city!) try to profiteer in excess of that, it's predatory and against the rules. If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expect me to pay. You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge for a "crossing toll". It's not yours to profit from!
- jtc331 12y ago
  >> "You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge" That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    But you have not paid for the right to sell that spot.

SilasX 12y ago

This is deifferent from land speculation ... how?