Ticket collector whines

[Gob]

If the zones were restricted to the length of the house fronts, and a maximum of one per house were allowed, then the system would be fair, right?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Glad I live in the suburbs and have 100feet of frontage on the street. I can fit four cars oon the street in front of my house. And I have a 90 foot driveway and a garage for more parking.

If the zones were restricted to the length of the house fronts, and a maximum of one per house were allowed, then the system would be fair, right?

If your saying that the permit would allow you, and only you, the right to park in front of your house, then that would be fair.

as AndrewD said

If the government had told me that by paying a fee, I could be guaranteed my own reserved parking space in front of my house, I would have snapped it up in a heartbeat

[Gob]

I was thinking more of allowing you to park on teh area of street frontage in your street, or subdivided into reasonable stretches,.

Have a look at the photo linked, if the area defined was exclusive for that row?

[Long Run]

The basic points are not in too much dispute: this woman could easily have gotten the permit she needed for a small fee and didn't both to do so; and the government will often start a program such as the residential parking permit program, or red light cameras or photo radar, and then like the revenue too much to the point that it becomes about the revenue and not the reason the program was started in the first place.

[Andrew D]

If the zones were restricted to the length of the house fronts, and a maximum of one per house were allowed, then the system would be fair, right?

Would I be guaranteed that space?

Under San Francisco's system, even if the one parking space in front of my house were its own zone, I still would not be guaranteed that space. Under San Francisco's system, people without parking-zone permits were (and, I presume, still are) not entirely prohibited from parking in that zone. They were prohibited from parking in that zone for more than a specified period of time (two hours, I think). So I could come home and find that the parking space in front of my house was being lawfully occupied by some vehicle which was not mine. I would have to hunt around for some other space. And I could not park in that other space for longer than two hours (or whatever).

In short, I could come home late at night after a long day's work and still be unable to park in the parking space that I had paid for. And, assuming that I was hoping for a full night's sleep, I would have to hunt for a parking space that was not zoned for someone else. And if all the nearby parking were zoned for individual addresses, I would face the choice of parking far from my home or risking getting a parking citation. All because the parking space which I had been required to pay for was, when I wanted to park in it, being lawfully occupied by someone else.

So, no. Under that kind of parking-regulation scheme, my having to pay for a permit which did not guarantee that I would actually be able to park in the space for which I was paying would not be fair.

Again, requiring me to pay for a space in order to reserve it for myself is perfectly fair. But requiring me to pay for a space which, although I was required to pay for it, can lawfully be occupied by people who have not paid for it is not fair: Requiring me to pay for a space which can lawfully be occupied by people who have not paid for it is nothing but a government-revenue-generating scam -- it enables the government to charge me for a space which, although I was required to pay for it, is not actually mine; and it enables the government to cite others for parking too long in the space which, although I was required to pay for it, is not actually mine.

And after all that paying money to the government, there is still no guarantee that when I want to park in the space which I was required to pay for, I will actually be able to do so. There is nothing fair about charging me for a permit that guarantees me almost nothing.

[Gob]

If the zones were restricted to the length of the house fronts, and a maximum of one per house were allowed, then the system would be fair, right?

Would I be guaranteed that space?

A space within that small defined area, yes.

[Andrew D]

So, just to make sure that we're clear: I would have exclusive access to one parking space directly in front of my home? No one else (setting aside emergency vehicles and such) would be allowed to park there at any time, even for a short time?

That would be a reserved parking place. And as I have said, I have no objection to the government's making me pay for a reserved parking space -- a parking space absolutely (except for fire trucks, ambulances, and the like) mine: mine when I am using it and mine even when I am not using it -- on a public roadway.

Is that what what's-her-name in this case would have got had she paid for the permit?

If the answer to that question is "yes," then she should have paid for the permit, and the consequences of her not having done so are all on her. (Well, there is still that registering-a-vehicle-to-an-address-rather-than-to-a-person bit, which I still do not understand. But if, by paying for the permit, she would have obtained the exclusive right to park (a) a vehicle owned by her (b) in a space directly in front of her home, then she should have; and if she didn't, too damn bad.)

But if the answer to that question is not "yes," then it was unfair for the government to insist that she pay for a parking permit. What is the justification for requiring people to pay for "residential" parking permits which do not actually enable them to park in front of their own residences?

[Gob]

So, just to make sure that we're clear: I would have exclusive access to one parking space directly in front of my home? No one else (setting aside emergency vehicles and such) would be allowed to park there at any time, even for a short time?

You would have permission to park in the block of parking along your streetfront as per the image I linked to. That is what the woman would have got, the residents parking permit is done per street, and only for that street, also it is limited to one car per house.

[Andrew D]

So, just to make sure that we're clear: I would have exclusive access to one parking space directly in front of my home? No one else (setting aside emergency vehicles and such) would be allowed to park there at any time, even for a short time?

You would have permission to park in the block of parking along your streetfront as per the image I linked to. That is what the woman would have got, the residents parking permit is done per street, and only for that street, also it is limited to one car per house.

Again, let me make sure that I am clear about this. (I have to drill down to the details in order to decide whether I think the system fair or not; the system appears to be rather different from what I suffered through in SF.)

I would have permission to park in the block of parking along my streetfront, and the permit would be done per street. So I would be able to park in front of someone else's house on that street? And someone else with a parking permit for that street would be able to park in front of my house? If that would be the case, then the system would not be fair: I would be forced to pay to be entitled to park in front of my house, even though I might not be actually able to park in front of my house.

(And, of course, if someone without a parking permit for that street would be able to park in "my" space for some limited time, that would be even more unfair: I pay for the space, the other person does not pay for the space, but the other person gets to park there even though her or his doing so means that I cannot.)

As to "limited to one car per house," does that mean that I would not be allowed to park my Jeep in the space in front of my house on one day and my Camry in that space on the next day? If that would be the case, then the system would not be fair: If I am to be forced to pay to park in front of my house, then I ought to have the choice to park whichever of my vehicles I choose -- only one at a time, of course -- in the space in front of my house.

It seems pretty straightforward to me:

--> If I get a reserved parking space in front of my house, then it is entirely reasonable to charge me for it.

--> If what I have to pay for amounts to my only maybe getting to park in front of my house, then it is unreasonable to charge me for it.

[Gob]

Ok, there would be no parking reserved directly outside your property, but you would be able to park within say 100 yards of your house.

[Andrew D]

Would I have a guaranteed parking space "within say 100 yards of [my] house"?

If yes, then fine; I'll pay for it (assuming that the price is reasonable).

If no, then I shouldn't have to pay for it: Why should I have to pay for a parking space which I might not be able to use?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I am convinced that most fees paid that pertain to automobiles are done for nothing but revenue. That some "good" comes out of the rules behind the fees (fewer people running red lights, traffic flow is better, etc) is secondary.

NY state tried to ram new license plates down our throats saying that we needed new ones as a hedge against counterfit plates. Turns out it was really a money grab (the pols finally admitted it). They retracted the mandatory new plate and instead only make people getting new registrations get the new style plate. Registration renewals give you the option of keeping your old plate or paying an extra $75 to get a new plate.

Oh and at the same time they doubled the registration fees.

[rubato]

Would I have a guaranteed parking space "within say 100 yards of [my] house"?

If yes, then fine; I'll pay for it (assuming that the price is reasonable).

If no, then I shouldn't have to pay for it: Why should I have to pay for a parking space which I might not be able to use?

What do you mean by "guaranteed"?

The local system in effect has meant that we have been able to park in front of our house every time we wished for 5 years except one time (save the period when the road was excavated to change some water and sewer pipes). There was no "guarantee" that this would be so but this was the practical outcome of this system. I would think the system was a screaming success even if there were more than one incident when we could not park there.

Why should public policy be limited by "guarantees"? It works much better when it is employed to change a statistical outcome and is judged successful when it has done so.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Why should public policy be limited by "guarantees"? It works much better when it is employed to change a statistical outcome and is judged successful when it has done so.

Because when you pay for something (aka buy) you would like to get what you pay for. Seems in AndrewD's neighborhood the "outcome" (aka getting what you paid for) was almost zilch.

I do understand how "statistically speaking" things could be made better creating parking zones however, seems where AndrewD lives the rules did not create an "exclusion zone" for the homeowners. They still allowed 2 hour parking for any and all. Seems a bit crazy to charge those living in the neighborhood to park for longer than 2 hours when much of the time the parking spots are taken by the 2 hour people forcing the homeowners to park outside their zone where now, they can only park for 2 hours and have to go get their cars on that time period and move them.

[rubato]

Why should public policy be limited by "guarantees"? It works much better when it is employed to change a statistical outcome and is judged successful when it has done so.

Because when you pay for something (aka buy) you would like to get what you pay for. Seems in AndrewD's neighborhood the "outcome" (aka getting what you paid for) was almost zilch.

I do understand how "statistically speaking" things could be made better creating parking zones however, seems where AndrewD lives the rules did not create an "exclusion zone" for the homeowners. They still allowed 2 hour parking for any and all. Seems a bit crazy to charge those living in the neighborhood to park for longer than 2 hours when much of the time the parking spots are taken by the 2 hour people forcing the homeowners to park outside their zone where now, they can only park for 2 hours and have to go get their cars on that time period and move them.

In the real world you 'get what you pay for' only a certain percentage of the time, a statistical outcome, if that percentage is agreeable then the system of transactions is considered a success.

A slight modification of the rules would give the desired outcome.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

A slight modification of the rules would give the desired outcome.

Like no non-homeowners in the zone are allowed to park at all. The would probably work for AndrewD given his earlier comments.

[rubato]

I think what is 'fair' depends on the circumstances. On-street parking is a limited public good which is paid for by fuel and local taxes. How that 'good' ought to be apportioned depends on a number of things.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I am still not seeing an answer to why I should have to pay for a permit to park in front of my own house when, pursuant to that permit, I might well be -- and in the days when I had to endure such things, often was -- unable to park in front of my own house.

[rubato]

So change the rules until it works.

You can try raising the penalty (larger fines or immediate towing) or increasing the level of enforcement (more frequent patrols increases the certainty of getting a ticket).

Charging for a permit to park on the street creates in incentive which, if done correctly, will reduce the numbers of cars parked on the street to that group for whom the price of a permit for each car is a good deal.

Permits are just a way of deciding how to divide up a limited resource which is paid for by the general public. If it isn't working to your satisfaction (or perhaps that of others) then you can change the system of rewards/costs until the outcome is satisfactory.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

You're missing the point. The government of San Francisco had no interest in rationally "deciding how to divide up a limited resource which is paid for by the general public." The purpose of San Francisco's permit-parking system was to generate revenue for the municipal coffers by maximizing the number of citations issued.