Read this article about parking in Loudoun County, VA and consider the questions below.
- What do you make of Brett Fulcer's comment about parking in paragraph 4? Why should you pay to park somewhere?
- What is it about suburbs that has ingrained in us the idea that parking has no monetary cost? What are some of the non-monetary costs of parking?
- In paragraph 10, a parent complains about having to pay for sports and parking as something that "goes against what is normal and fair practice."
- How does the concept of opportunity cost help explain the budgetary decisions that are being made?
You do not necessarily have to answer every bullet, but remember to use economic concepts (opp. cost, scarcity, etc) in your answers. Your first blog post is due by midnight on Saturday, September 17th. The second post is due by midnight on Sunday, September 25th.
Addendum: Tuesday, September 20th
So as I trolled the internet looking for news, I stumbled on this article concerning an app that allows you to auction your parking space. Yes, even free ones.
I would like for you to read the article, and consider the following questions:
Addendum: Tuesday, September 20th
So as I trolled the internet looking for news, I stumbled on this article concerning an app that allows you to auction your parking space. Yes, even free ones.
I would like for you to read the article, and consider the following questions:
- What is your general reaction to the app? Good idea? Waste of money?
- The app allows you to sell your parking space; implicitly, it seems to be implying that you "own" the property rights to the space. If curbside parking is free, do you really "own" the space? Should this even be legal?
- What are the economic costs of waiting for parking?
Again, your second blog post is due by midnight on Sunday, September 25th.
50 comments:
I usually go to school by way of foot, airship, nether portal, or giant lizard, so this really is a non-issue for me. However, I must respond to the questions in order to receive a grade.
Topic 1: I am disappointed in you Brett Fulcer. A parking fee is a good way to get a lot of money very fast. Folks also have to clean the parking lots that people like you trash or spill beer on; perhaps this is a trade off for your poor behavior! Dude, just walk there; you probably live across the street from the school anyway. Besides, paying to park somewhere is nothing new last time I checked. Buck up and pay that fee, Brett!
Topic 2: The suburbs tend to make people weak and unadaptive. Whilst they spend their pathetic lives lying on cushy furniture and living in 100% germ free environments, I am battling demons and giants in the realm of the gods. This is an example of opportunity cost. Suburban peoples give up strength and honor for comfort, whilst I give up weakness and comfort for glory. Suburban life makes people think they deserve a lot more than they actually do, which is why people were so outraged at the parking fee. I, on the other hand, would pay the fee with the milk of Auðumbla and grant the toll master five hundred golden coins from the Kingdom of Asteroth. I suppose some non-monetary costs of parking are having to deal with bad traffic and worrying about someone wrecking your car.
Topic 3: Again, a fool who claims to be a sage. This insect must not have had it that bad before the fee came to town. In my whole 6570 years I have had to pay a fee for either keeping a horse at stable, tipping the hot-air balloon guy, or simply putting some quarters into a parking meter. Let's talk about paying $100 for sports. Equipment just doesn't show up Borman; this stuff can be worth quite a hefty sack of florins! It also looks like in turn the $86 AP test cost will be abolished. Pretty much you are only paying $14. $14 can usually only buy you some decent fajitas at a typical Mexican restaurant; now it pays for sports equipment. Be thankful, dog!
When you turn 16, the first thought that comes to mind is "I CAN DRIVE NOW!!". This is more true today for so many eager teenage drivers that our society has a scarcity of parking spots. In order to solve this problem, countless trees and parks are demolished everyday for the construction of new parking lots. Our school did the same thing freshman year when they got rid of the little circular field in the old busloop in order to add...more parking spaces! I think an overhaul of new parking spaces and the pride of owning a car gives people the idea they should be able to park in most places for free. In the article, Kaitlin Bledsoe gives up driving to school and endures being ridiculed by underclassmen and walking home at the mercy of the weather. Being one of the only seniors on my bus, i think her oppt. cost is enormous, and i commend her decision becasue her school is tryin to hustle (urban definition)those kids out of their money!!!
I believe that a person should have to pay sometimes to park your car depending on the location and the circumstance. For example if the city such as Washington DC has a large population and parking lots are scarce, then it makes dense that someone should have to pay for parking. Also another thing totals into consideration is the convenience factor. For instance the high school parking lot is right on the campus so a really short walk is required.
Since in a suburban situation parking lots are more abundant we rarely ever have to pay. This creates the expectation of free parking. The monetary costs associated with parking would be convenience and safety. Both play a big role in where we are going to park our cars.
The schools opportunity cost for issuing a higher price for parking is low. The know the students would be the ones who would have to pay, and it is not likely a student would not goto that school or transfer because of a small parking fee. The parents might also complain but overall the opportunity cost is low.
Well, economically, the parking lot took time and money to create. Not only money for the resources needed to build the lot, but also money shelled out for the workers who built it. Therefore in order to make the parking lot a true utility for the area in which it's built there has to be something that the area gets back for it. Charging those who park there is an easy way to regain what they lost and possibly more. Driving and parking for free has become a part of the everyday life of people in suburbs. It is very close to city life and therefore driving is a very common way of getting around. Most common parking lots do not cost money to park in them because they build them for a restaurant, mall or any other type of money maker that will gain back what is lost by building the lot. The school is willing to lose the crowd of driving teens in order to gain some extra money through the parking permits. Also, as was stated later in the article, few students actually stopped driving to school and bought the pass. So obviously the school made the right decision in opting to give up the few students who no longer drive to school.
The article in the Washington Post entitled “Loudon High Schools’ $200 Parking Fee Dents Rite of Passage” raises several interesting questions about the rights of consumers and the rights of producers. In this scenario, the high school administrators are the producers. They have a valuable commodity, parking spots close to a high school. Since school is, in fact, mandatory, students and parents have no choice but to either pay whatever price the school demands or be forced to walk to school, park farther from the school, or ride the dreaded bus. As a result, school administrators can charge hefty prices for this scarce commodity and also retract this “privilege” when they see fit. School administrators can also argue that the fee they charge to park is much less than the opportunity cost of having a parking lot. By maintaining a parking lot, school administrators give up space that could possibly be used for a new building, sports practice fields, or a water-park. Therefore, parking does have a monetary cost for the school, not only in general maintenance but also in opportunity cost. Loudon High School uses this and the high demand of the good that they are providing as ammunition for charging a high price. Without the presence of consumer protection laws, the only limits to what the producer can charge is what the market can carry, which is apparently $200. This price will most likely be grumbled about, but will be paid nevertheless.
I understand that to most teenagers it is a big deal to get your license and an even bigger deal to get a car so you can drive to school. I personally believe that the school has the complete right to raise the price of the parking permit if they feel. For Brett Fulcer's comment, I believe he is a bit spoiled because wherever you go you are forced to pay a parking fee and that fact that the school gives you a student parking lot is a privilege. If he thinks the parking permit costs to much he can always ride the bus which is free. Since we live in a open area where parking is usually free but we have taken this privilege and assumed that it will always be free. The school is justified in every way because there is a lot of cost in making a parking lot. Then the non-monetary cost of parking is dealing with traffic on the way in and out of school, and the possibility of your car getting wretched. In paragraph 10 when the parent complains about the price of parking he is also spoiled by suburban life. It takes about 10-15 dollars to park in a parking garage per day so the parent needs to realize that 200 dollars for the whole year is actually much more reasonable then paying 10-15 dollars a day. in the end why wouldn't the school raise the price. The opportunity cost is very low. There may be a few kids who don't drive to school anymore but there will also be many that do so the school will actually make money. So basically I completely agree with the school and if the parents or students don't want to pay 200 just ride the bus and stop complaining.
I think the school is totally justified in charging these kids to park. Paying to park is certainly not a novel concept, parking meters are everywhere from mainstreet Catonsville to inner-city Baltimore. If Brett were wise he would appreciate having to pay a fee to park. Since he apparently loves driving he should realize that his fees will not only contribute to improving the quality of the roads on which he drives, but might also be used to buy new textbooks or computers for the school, or expand the parking lot so there's more spots! Frankly, driving and parking at school is not worth the price. The opportunity cost to park at school is $200 and 40 minutes every day after school trying to get off the lot! In that 40 minutes, a student could be doing homework, working at a job, or in James' case battling demons (a truly noble cause). I ride a bus to school, and I don't look any less cool because of it. Even complaining about having to pay to play sports seems unreasonable, you pay to play for fancy club teams and rec soccer teams alike.
According to the article, "no Loudoun high schools ha[ve] reported significantly fewer parkers. . . there also hasn't been a surge in upperclassmen riding the bus." According to the law of demand, as the price rises, quantity demanded should decrease. It seems however from the evidence in the article that parking is an upward sloping demand curve, or at least a zero slope demand curve. Since I just basically revolutionized economics with that observation should I be expecting the Nobel Prize?
Paying for a parking permit means that he can park on campus, and closer to school. For most, this would provide more utils than parking farther away off campus where they would have to walk farther to the front door. The opportunity cost of not paying for the permit is the ability to have a 30 second walk to school as opposed to a 2 minute walk to school. It seems that for Brett the extra minute and a half is a big deal. He wants his parking close and at his price. Paying to park is a personal preference based on utils a short walk gives you, and if that leaves you with a consumer surplus. For Brett, it would not give him that surplus.
Concerning the complaining parent, he is stuck in the past. In today's culture in america, money drives everything. Tradition cannot stay alive, especially with a lack of cash flow. Sports teams are not cheap. Uniforms, ref fees, equipment, and registration fees all need to be paid. My club soccer team fee is $500, excluding uniforms and equipment. 100 dollars to play a sport is a small number. The opportunity cost for the players of not paying these fees no matter where the money comes from is not being able to field the team. In today's economic times for this county, the only way the money can be raised is through making the athletes pay. For the county, the money previously used for sports may need to be used for additions to the school, textbooks, teacher salaries, etc. For the school, the opportunity cost of paying for the sports is less money towards academics, the main focus of school. Paying the fee is a personal choice, but for most the benefit of playing is greater than the price, creating a consumer surplus.
I believe that Brett Fulcer makes a valid point. If there is a parking lot as big as a Walmart’s, there should not be a parking fee. Although, if parkers are allowed to keep their car stationary for a long period of time, like those who park in lots airports provide for long vacations, then there is justification for a fee. No one should have to worry about paying for parking if it is only for a short amount of time.
Living in the suburbs makes every day errands quicker and less stressful. It is normal for people to avoid what makes them unhappy. If suburban people had to pay to simply go to Safeway, families would have to save up extra money to get their groceries and maintain a sense of sanity in order to handle the chaos in the store for dealing with the people running out of time on their parking meters. Free parking allows us to have a sense of security. If our car is close by, our worries are lessened. One non-monetary cost for parking dealing with location would be the possibility of a person’s car overheating from the sun. In this situation, parking spaces with shade are valued. However, trees tend to attract birds and those birds could leave a nice surprise or two for you on your windshield.
Parents value a friendly school environment for their children. Allowing authority figures to make students pay for parking is like letting bullies force classmates pay for their lunch. The parking fee ultimately benefits the school as does the lunch money ultimately benefit the bully. To the classmate, paying is worth not getting physical harm, but it still is not moral. This is the conflict that Russ Borman was having with the parking fee. Even though each party values their opportunity cost less, the ethics of the scenarios are unsettling. This relationship with money makes people feel inferior.
Schools with outrageous parking fees value their profit over student happiness. This opportunity cost makes them selfish. Not all families can provide for such an expense, leaving the students with humility and the school with fewer students that park. The schools should make profit off of something that the students would find paying for more worthwhile. Selling attractive school spirit wear would boost a strong and positive bond between the students and the school.
Suprisingly as a student who drives to school every day, I don't feel bad for these students. If CHS charged me for a parking pass, I would pay it. By not charging me, the lost revenue would be the opportunity cost. I think $200 isn't the best cost to raise the most revenue, but I understand the idea. As for Brett Fulcer, I don't think he understands the purpose of charging for parking. Not only could it raise revenue for the school, but it could be paying for the huge parking lot they built in the first place. This doesn't always apply to schools, but property taxes are a fairly good reason why people should have to pay for parking, especially at sports event in urban areas. Because we live in the suburbs, we do take for granite free parking. But, in urban areas, paying for parking is necessary because of the scarcity. If they didn't charge for parking, not only would they make no money but imagine how much worse the traffic would be, nobody would carpool. Charging for parking at school would also depend on the situation. At Catonsville, if you live outside a mile of the school, you will have a bus. So, its not like your walking too far if you choose not to buy a parking pass. I think the people in Loudoun County, VA should stop complaining, although I have no room to talk...
Driving to school is definitely a rite of passage for upperclassmen in high school. Although this is a rite of passage, I do not believe that it is a right for students. People are charged for parking all over, even in a suburban town like Catonsville. Paying for parking at school does not seem to me like too much to ask, although I do believe $200 seems a bit steep. You should pay to park somewhere because millions of dollars each year go into the convenience of parking all over and the opportunity cost of a pair of jeans or a week's pay is not nearly that much. Paying for parking is simply the opportunity cost for the convenience of parking somewhere. In cities, it is much more convenient to park in a parking garage so that costs much more than taking public transportation. With such a scarcity of parking, the opportunity cost of this convenience just rises. Suburbs make us think that we don't need to pay for parking because there are just so many huge parking lots filled with free spaces. When we are handed something over and over, it makes us feel entitled to it all of the time and when that changes we get upset. Even in suburbs, however, there can be parking scarcity. In downtown Catonsville we have to pay to park on Fredrick Road because there are so few spaces. People think that parking should just be plentiful and free everywhere but in a place like the campus at CHS the opportunity cost of building more student parking would be trees and open field space. The concept of opportunity cost helps explain the budgetary decisions that are being made because the opportunity cost of parking for a student is very different from what the opportunity cost for the school could be. With budget cuts happening across the board $100 for a season of lacrosse is worth it to me if the other option would be my sport being the opportunity cost to highly needed new textbooks for the school. Two weeks of working seems like it is not the worst opportunity cost for a dry mode of transportation to and from school (and possibly a cooler one...). Growing up we think that things should just be handed to us but maybe this is just a reality check, EVERYTHING in life costs money.
Paying for a parking permit doesn't really affect me because I get rides in the morning and I walk home after school. In the interview with Brett Fulcer, we are told that it takes forty minutes to leave after school because of the traffic. The permits, in theory, would reduce the amount of people parking, therefore the traffic would be reduced and everyone would be able to leave earlier. It would also reduce the scarcity of parking places, so drivers would not be fighting over parking spots. The opportunity cost for raising the price of parking permits would be less people parking.
Well, I just wrote three awesome paragraphs full of wit and intellect, and they just got erased. So, yeah.
Obviously, I’m well-rehearsed in complaint. So, whining about the institutions of public education is nothing new to me. When Brett gets upset about the hike in prices at his high school, I feel for the guy. His question about why one should pay for parking is actually pretty simply to answer, too. If I want to go into Baltimore city and find a nice, quiet alcove in which to store my vehicle, where it’ll be safe from stray bullets or thugs with crowbars, the quarters I feed to the meter hardly seem a bad price to pay for that privilege. But if Brett wants to drive his crummy Volkswagen to school every day, hoping he won’t break down before homeroom, is it really justified to charge that poor kid $200 bucks just for the honor of having a reserved slab of concrete?
Second, there are a lot of things I could say about the suburbs. A lot. Living in a place reminiscent of The Truman Show comes with a fair share of accepted privileges, though. Here, one can drive around and always expect to see bare stretches of curb by which to stash one’s car during a late-night taco run. There is the small chance that hoodlums from the city might infiltrate this nice village and take the radio straight from the dashboard, but that’s a mild concern. The benefits of driving and parking, i.e. convenience, time conservation, wasting gas, obviously outweigh the costs. And Loudon High School knows that. So when the school board noticed that scarcity of parking spaces (and of their funding), they saw an ample opportunity to take advantage of a comfort to which the average licensed student has become accustomed. And apparently, they knew their market well, given the fact that not even an increase in prices could convince those lazy kids to hop on a bike for a day.
Parents seem to think that driving is some right of passage. What does that even mean? I don’t even understand that lame concept. But I do have to agree that those kids should have a right to not be charged $200 to park at school. And $100 to play sports? Well, this is clearly incentive for students to stop competing in inane activities such as running or kicking balls at each other; I’ve been saying that for years.
I guess it’s hard for us to part with our trusty vehicles and tendency to waste gas every opportunity we get. The utils we get out of driving to school are clearly better and more plentiful that those we get from walking or riding a bike. Choosing to pay the fee just empties your wallet of that hard-earned 7-11 paycheck faster.
I think Brett's comment was justifiable because he does go to a public school, and I don't think students should have to pay to park there. It would be different if it were a private school or college where it is expected to have to pay for things such as parking. But a public school is supposed to provide their services for free, using taxes and fundraising to pay the bills.
The suburbs are generally parking-meter-free areas so the residents wouldn't be expected to be as accustomed to parking meters as someone who lives in the city.
I guess some non-monetary costs of parking would be getting a bad spot or having your car vandalized if you don't park in a garage.
The opportunity cost of not paying for sports or parking is that you save a quick buck to miss out on things that you only have a short time to do: play high school sports and drive to school.
I grew up in Sacramento, CA for a good number of years, so the concept of paying to park is completely foreign to me. Parking meters, parking permits, etc. all confuse me with their existence. I think it's quite stupid to have to pay for parking. Especially at school. I think that if the teachers and administration want the kids to come to school, they should back off with the two hundred dollar parking permits and lower it. One could say that the opportunity cost of driving to school is missing out on the joy of waiting in the rain to catch a crowded smelly bus, but something tells me that not too many kids are mourning that loss. The solution I give: boycott. If the entire driving population boycotts the buying of those stupid permits, and then in turn boycott busses, consequently boycotting school, then the demand for parking spaces will go down, and the demanding of parents and teachers that the kids be in school will go up, and so in my head, the market for parking permits will be eliminated. Boycotting is the solution to everything. Except cancer. Boycotting cannot cure cancer. :(
At high schools across America, students expect to be able to drive to school when they get their license. It is a rite of passage to finally drive yourself to school and not have to ride the bus. However, parking at school is not a right that everyone is entitled to. Brett Fulcer's comment shows just how spoiled we all are as residents of a suburban area. We can go almost anywhere and there is a free parking lot right around the corner. But this is not true everywhere, and parking is a commodity that has value. This is made clear by the fact that students are willing to pay $200 for their parking space. Parking spaces are a good with demand, in this case a very high demand. They have value that the school system is clearly taking advantage of. As for saying that charging for parking goes against what is fair, the parents are only saying this because they don't want to pay. If I was being asked to pay $200 for my parking space, I would probably be saying the same thing. But from an economic standpoint, the school is taking great advantage of this commodity over which they have a monopoly. Only they can provide parking, so they can set the price. The opportunity cost of not buying a parking permit is, for many students, too large. The school officials know that this is true, probably because when they were in high school parking on campus was as big of a deal as it is now. But if they want to use the money of the parents and the students to bridge the gap in their budget, they are choosing the correct method. As the article shows, the cost of buying a permit is not a large enough problem for the students for them to stake a protest.
Parking is a luxury that goes unoticed nearly everyday of our lives. One should have to pay for parking simply because he/she is occupating space that is owned by someone else. Living in the suburbs, the mortage that my parents pay includes the surrounding land so I can park outside of my house with no cost to anyone. People get used to this privelege and it's one of the main reason why teens have a difficult time understanding why some lots require fees. A few non-monetary costs of parking include traffic, gas usage, and time. When considering the costs that students are required to pay for school priveleges, the school administration has to consider not only what they might gain (usually just extra funding) but also what they lose. If something such as free parking puts a dent in the school budget, then it would probably be in the school's best intrest to toll students who park on school property.
I think Brett Fulcer was right because you shouldn't have to pay for parking at public school. They get enough money from taxes.
You should have to pay to park in the city because there are way more cars than spaces, so paying for parking is reasonable.
People in the suburbs feel entitled to free parking because they normally don't have to pay for it.
A non-monetary cost of parking is the 40-minute wait after school for the kids.
I think that paying for sports and parking at a public school is not a normal or fair practice so I agree with the parent.
The opportunity cost is not being able to drive to school or play sports to save money.
I'm gonna have to disagree with most of the comments so far. Charging students $200 for a parking permit is unethical. As Catonsville residents, we seem to assume that the alternative to driving to school is a 10-15 minute bus drive or possibly a short walk, but though Catonsville has a population density of 2,843.9/sq mi, not every town is as crowded. Loundoun County, Virginia is a historically rural area that has only recently undergone suburbanization, and it's population density is therefore a fraction of what we are accustomed to, at only 600.6/sq mi. Less people per square mile means each high school serves a much larger portion of the county's geographic area, which in turn means that the average distance between students' homes and their districted school is much larger. As a former student and current resident of Howard County, I know from experience that the larger distance, both between students and between students and their school, frequently means a very, very long bus drive. Throughout middle school, I endured a 45 minute bus ride twice daily, and my step-brother, currently attending a Howard County high school, has to wake up ridiculously early in order to catch his 6:20 bus every morning. Considering Howard County has about twice the population density of Loundoun County, I assume that its students have a similar, if not more miserable, alternative to driving. The county may be wealthy, but charging students $200 yearly to avoid excessively long bus rides and sleep deprivation is an immoral solution to the school system's budget shortfall.
First, it's hard for me to comment on parking on school campus because I live RIGHT across the street from CHS so it would take me longer to park than it would to walk all 2 seconds. Having said that, I do believe you should pay to park on school campus. They are letting you park on their property, and parking for all upperclassmen and staff can cause scarcity issues, so charging students is justified and smart. Just like you need to pay to park at a meter or garage in a busy place like the Inner Harbor, for example, that generates a lot of traffic and need to park. However, paying such a ridiculously high amount in my opinion is uncalled for. I know the school is attempting to make up some ground in the budget department, but driving your prices that high seems a little outrageous to me, personally. The article stated that the parking passes used to be only $25 dollars, which makes a lot more sense in my opinion. $50 or even $100 may be worth paying, but not $200.
"Why should you pay to park somewhere?" The empathetic human side of me feels the frustration from my boy Fulcer. Yet the cold, unfeeling, meticulous, calculating economist side of me feels the sensation of a fierce tiger, readying himself to pounce on his unsuspecting prey, the students that are seeking refuge in a six by ten foot long parking spot. This market commodity of parking is a pristine, untouched source of revenue for well managed county budgets. Students probably receive in excess of up to 223 utils when they feel the rush of sliding a 2002 Honda Civic into a plush asphalt parking spot, whose pleasure boundaries are clearly marked by two milky white lines. This experience is util intensive to say the least. And students WILL PAY to have this util high.
My economist self meets the comment that paying for sports and parking "goes against what is normal and fair practice" with an indifferent shoulder, that is turned adjacent to the whining victim; showing the hapless man that in economics sympathy is for the weak. The opportunity cost of simply having a parking lot is outrageously high for the school. My fellow economist Ms. Olivia N. has pointed out in her recent blog, published on September 16, that a water-park would provide an excellent source of revenue for a high school. To this I say why stop there? Schools are missing out on such lucrative industries as petting zoos and backyard aquarium exhibits in order to provide a few hundred students a place to park a few stagnate vehicle for a few 8 hours a day.
I conclude this blog with a friendly reminder to all those who might reed my post...or James Granderson's. Please. When you arrive to school via giant lizard, make sure that the reptile is well fed before school. I don't want to blame anyone, but there seems to have been a few freshman missing and it's only natural to believe JAME GRANDERSON'S lizard is to blame.
I think that it is fair that students should have to pay to park and that it is a privilege. During the day your car is taking up part of the schools space that could be used for other purposes. The opportunity cost for the school is why they must charge. The parking lot could be used as a field or an area for another building so in order to gain from the space they charge for it. I do think that $200 for a parking pass seems a bit ridiculous , but when you consider the opportunity cost it makes sense.
We pay to park our cars all the time. From reading the posts so far, it seems like there's a general consensus that raising the parking fee isn't a ludicrous idea. Parking meters are all along the curbs on Frederick Road and with a recession grabbing the school budget by the family jewels it makes complete sense that Loudoun County High School's would raise prices; however, the immediate shift from $25 to $200 shows the people running the school's are corrupt and in need of grounding. The county execs have masterfully calculated the parking pass's value to students in utils (0___o). These satanic villains understood the massive consumer surplus students were receiving for paying a measly $25 a year for grade-A parking.
The opportunity cost for increasing the price of parking passes is a loss in paid passes. With a constant opportunity cost the decision for the county would've been a lot harder to make, but they understood there was still money to be made. They raised the marginal cost to meet the marginal benefit without gaining a high opportunity cost (those scoundrels!!).
I SAY THE STUDENTS REVOLT!!!!!!!!!!!
In the near future, $300 dollar passes will weigh over the perks such as increased popularity, and parking options to leave almost no consumer surplus, leaving the once valued pass valueless. I've worked hard to keep my "weak and comfortable" suburban lifestyle, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let Loudoun County create a domino effect. My Sperry's and I aren't leaving the junior lot or paying a $200 pass.
I think paying for parking is good for some places like going into the city and parking near a stadium or near a building. I do not think people should have to pay for parking at a school though.
kids do not want to go to school but are forced to and shouldn't have to pay for that. However, many people don't want to pay their taxes but they still need to do that for the things they benefit from so it can be a good lesson. There are other oppurtinity cost that are mentioned that they did not make a big deal about, like the forty min to get off of the parking lot every day. They also did not mention being where other students could see your car and do something or the fact that most are new drivers and your car could get hit. I think living in the suburbs does make people softer and complain more. Living in the city but going to school in the county it and getting to see the contrast in how people act, I think city people complain about things as much but their problems are more serious. I think the school takes advantage of the money the students in the suburbs have because I don't think city students would be able to pay as much on average.
I think he. Trying to say that you should have to pay an obsurd amount of money to put yourafar in a space. However, I believe that the stuents need to deluxe being able to drive to school is a privilege, not a necessity. The suburbs make you think about luxury. Those students think that if you have a car, you should be able to drive it to school and park where you want. Those students should be grateful they even have cars. Yes, the amount of money for a permit is a lot, but I believe this will help the school keep down traffic after school and the will be able to take the money and put it to good use. The school is trying to bring down the number of students who drive to school ; so, by raising the price of a permit they hope to limit the number of students who actually do drive. In conclusion, parking is a privilege, not a necessity, and if you don't like the price, take the bus.
Here is the post for part II, steel yourselves, for I shall not restrain myself.
Bullet 1: I use carrier pigeons and stunted dragons to carry my messages; not any newfangled devices, therefore I am not aware of how an "app" works. When I brought the Demon King Feldar low on the accursed plains of Asteroth, I did not require an app that told me how to properly disembowel him. I used common sense and the skill of my sword arm to do such handsome work. I think the same should go with parking. One would have to be a king of jests, a fool among fools, and a goblin's hand rattle to think that finding a parking spot is so difficult that it requires an app. The use of the app also requires that one picks up a device whilst driving an automobile; this can lead to bad decision making. It is undesirable enough that I must see others use their cellular voice machines while in the front seat; to see them access the parking app would be cause for me to impale them. In other words, the app is most foul.
Bullet 2: I am an advocate for the rights of parking spaces. Many ne'er-do-wells leave their grease and oils upon the asphalt; it can leave the poor slot feeling rather forlorn. What would make this worse? Claiming to own it like it is some sort of slave! I thought that we have become better in this day and age; I was wrong. Clearly no one really owns a curbside parking space. That would be like me saying that I own the shadow-dwarf that dwells in the log pile in my backyard just because I own the backyard. If a person does not own the parking lot, I do not believe that he or she has the right to sell it.
Bullet 3: There are some economic costs of waiting for parking, but there are also some benefits. I shall start with the benefits because I enjoy being uplifting. One can learn patience, restraint, and driving skills while on the search for the right parking spot. If two people are after the same parking spot, they can challenge each other to single combat and through this learn valuable fighting skills for the upcoming War with the Otherworld. Now I shall mention the costs. There is the issue of Car Water (gas); driving around for a long time has the effect of draining the poor creature's tank. Pollution is also a most foul cost; Emperor Bloomberg of New York city says it costs a hefty 13 billion florins. I have a simple solution for this: use a nether portal or ride a giant lizard. Make the switch.
This app is ridiculous. Why would anyone think they have the right to sell a public parking space? Are parking spaces going to have to have a written statement saying “not for individual sale” on them like candy bars do? Tons of regulations would need to be made in this trade. Plus, where is the safety in this business? Someone selling a parking space won’t know who their potential buyers are and vice versa. You could be potentially setting yourself up for someone to come kill you. Sure it is not the most likely thing to occur, but you never know what could come out of such an app. People engaging in this activity are giving up their safety, something I do not consider a low opportunity cost.
People parking their cars borrow parking spaces (assuming that there is no parking meter). You are not entitled to sell something that you have permission to merely borrow. Parkers have no ownership over parking spaces. People don’t even entirely own the rights of things they actually buy, say a DVD. There are laws against making copies of movies and selling them for personal profit. Like the copying and selling of DVD’s, selling parking spaces should not be legal. People could just spend the day getting hard to find parking spots and then selling them to people without the actual initial need of the parking spot.
Of course no one enjoys trying to find a parking space. You could be trying to get to a store before it closes and in the time that you finally get a spot, the store may have closed. Time spent looking for parking spaces could be spent in ways seen as more beneficial, such as having more time to sit down and enjoy that Peppermint Mocha from Starbucks. Parkers who wait are also using up the increasingly expensive gas that they put in their cars. Looking for parking spaces also takes up some energy. People tend to get irritable after five minutes of strolling through aisles of full parking spaces. Although I do not find the app safe or legal, it offers parkers more time, energy, and gas.
Blog Post: 2.
Not to be offensive or anything, but I’ve probably never heard of anything as ridiculous as “Parking Auction.”
As if we don’t spend enough time flicking through the Internet while sitting at Starbucks and hoping the barista doesn’t screw up our venti soy latte, some yuppie morons from the Manhattan's Upper West Side thought it would be a good idea to invent a completely useless app to give us all a little more reason to list the iPhone as our significant other on Facebook.
Co-founders Nick Oliva and Brian Rosetti (who sound like they should belong to the Italian mob) provide a bundle of environmentally conscious reasons to prove that auctioning one’s parking space is clearly a good investment, but it ends up sounding like they’re grasping at straws trying to make a lame idea sound legitimate. A parking space is “too perishable a commodity to sell,” to use my dad’s eloquent phrasing. What’s the point of “Parking Auction” if the seller has to relinquish his or her hold on a space when any random car shows up, regardless of whether the "buyer" used the app?
In defense of their legal integrity, the co-founders state that they’re simply selling “information” about a spot, not the spot itself, which is a shady excuse to cover up what they’re trying to do. I find it slightly insulting that one should be expected to pay $5 for vague information regarding a parking spot he or she isn’t even guaranteed to have.
Having harshly condemned “Parking Auction” so far, I have to say I could see its appeal if I tried real hard. Looking for parking is the worst. Seriously. Waiting to find a spot means you waste gas, you get lost, you’re late for whatever you were trying to do (e.g. get to Baltimore Comic-Con), and you most likely end up hating whoever’s in the car with you.
But “Parking Auction” assumes you’re on your phone while driving – if you’re alone – which, in any case, is illegal. It would be more sensible to drive around for endless minutes looking for parking than to try and juggle the steering wheel and your smart phone with that five-dollar coffee you just bought.
I think the app is a brilliant idea. Parking in the city is not easy, and some are willing to do anything to get a spot, let alone a spot in a prime location. All the app does is provide a market place for something that could happen in person as well. It just makes it an easier. It gives an advantage to those who have smart phones. Although, this app will open the door to similar apps, both free and paid and create a new market for a parking app. It is only providing positive opportunities to make money.
The legality of it is not even a question. In no way are the creators of the app or the users stating that they own the parking space. They are merely letting another person know that they will be leaving a space open. While it could conceivably be interpreted in two ways, the app only has 1 stated purpose as per the creator: to sell the information of someone leaving a spot, not the spot itself.
The economic costs of not using the app and waiting for a spot are rising gas prices and money spent to try and curb pollution created by the fumes of a car driving endlessly to find the space, not including any possible costs that the person looking for the spot might incur.
I believe this app is crazy! Why should one have to pay for a free parking space? Also why should one get to profit and make money off a piece of property that isn't even theirs? The people are wasting their money by buying these free parking spaces. This is absurd, what have we come to now?
Because curbside parking is free you do not really own the space. The city owns the space so it would be justifiable if the city ran this app program and the money went directly to them to create more parking or even fix the roads. I can't believe people get to profit off something owned by the city, that isn't even theirs. There is no way this should be legal.
The economic cost of waiting for parking is having your car running a little longer and burning a little gas. But I don't believe that having this app is going to save the planet. If your so worried about the planet don't buy an escalade, but instead something smaller. What happens if you do find a spot? It is free and you didn't have to pay anything. Therefore this app sucks!!
I think the app is a clever idea with some inherent issues. The appeal is obviously that it could save drivers time and money on parking. The bidding system allows users to offer whatever they feel a spot is worth instead of paying the likely higher price charged by nearby parking garages and lots. The money spent on the spot could also potentially be recouped (minus the app's fair <10% sale fee) through reselling the purchased spot. If the system works efficiently, users could also save users some time by removing the necessity of searching for a spot and by allowing them to park closer to a specific destination. I don't foresee the system working all that efficiently though. The app requires significant effort from both the buyers and the sellers. The buyer needs to choose a nearby spot for sale, make a bid, wait for a response, and locate the purchased spot (or repeat the process if the seller declines), all of this while presumably driving. I wouldn't attempt this while driving in city traffic, especially with my manual transmission car, but even if a passenger handled the purchase, there would still be the problem of coordinating timing with the seller. In order to ensure the right person gets the spot, the seller would have to wait until the buyer arrives, verify their identity, and quickly give up the spot (to avoid stopping traffic). There would also have to be a lenient buyer protection policy to prevent scamming, but that would just open the door to buyer abuse (false complaints).
The potential benefits just don't seem worth the hassle. If I needed a spot that bad, I would just pay to use a parking garage and enjoy the bonus of an assured spot and no bumper taps(I would never park my baby on a crowded city street anyway.). The app seems aimed at frequent city-parkers due to the review system and the amount of information that would be be needed for an account, but it's not convenient enough to be used that commonly.
Location based apps like this one sadly all share the same problem: a lack of users. In order to be useful, the app needs A LOT of people using it, and for a niche app like Parking Auction, that is not going to happen. Smartphone popularity is increasing, but it will be a long time before everyone has one (and everyone actually knows how to use them fully). Most target users will not have a smartphone, not know about the app, give up on the app due to lack of users, or be content without the app.
I think the thinking behind it is a good idea. if the people are about to leave why not make an easy five dollars. The people are riding around looking for a spot so this will just save time. I wouldn't like it if they waited for the people to come but since if someone comes they give up there spot there really is no harm done.
I do not think the people own the space because one of the rules that is made it the people have to give up the spot if someone else comes along that did not know about the auction. For that reason I do think it is legal because they do not act like they own the spot. However, if the seller does not give the spot to someone then I think it is illegal because they are taking control of private property and it is now defeating its purpose of making it easy for someone else to find a spot.
The economic cost of waiting is obviously the time spent waiting but also the money that is used for riding around and if someone has to go to the bathroom all of the torture they would have to endure. In addition, if it was in a bad neighborhood it could be dangerous to everyone's safety too.
Despite my initial expectations of an app that allows sellers to auction a parking spot, after reading the article I believe the Parking Auction app is a legitimate, beneficial method of organization in the often-hectic world of New York City. As explained in the article, the app is legal because the seller notifies buyers of the location of the parking spot, therefore each seller is producing information as opposed to actual parking spots. Another safe measure built into the app is that if someone wants to park in the spot, it is their right whether or not they discovered the spot via the app. As a result, the app does not price consumers who are unwilling to pay out of the market. The benefits of this app can’t be ignored. The amount of time, money, and energy spent looking for a space far exceeds the cost of paying an online seller.
This app truly shows how cheap Americans are. I mean, c'mon, making a couple bucks by selling a public, free parking space. Nobody owns the property except for the city, so therefore nobody should be making money off of it. Maybe if there was an app to show free parking spaces that people recently left, that would be nice. But no, people always want to be making money off of something. Of course, there could be some costs to not using this app. Assuming the person looking for a parking spot is driving a Hummer and not a Prius, gas could cost a lot of money. I hate paying for gas and I only fill up every three weeks. Driving around in a Hummer could add up to more than 5 dollars very quickly, so maybe paying somebody for a spot isn't a bad idea. Then again, they don't own the spot! Get rid of of this app.
The parking app is ridiculous and absurd. Although the app might have a legal loophole, it is only selling information, and cannot constitute a parking reservation system because reservation implies a gurantee and the the app doesnt gurantee a parking spot, it is nevertheless a waste of money. The opportunity costs of waiting to park include wasting time, stressing out, harming the environment, and contributing to traffic congestion. The app however does not significantly reduce any of these costs. It does not take a greater proportion of cars off the road, and without guranteeing a spot, it cannot gurantee that users will save money or lesssen their environmental impact. There are however other options for genuinely environmentally and economically minded New Yorkers. First, the bicycle, a wonderful little invention that not only alleviates traffic congestion, emits no pollution, saves time by allowing the rider to avoid existing traffic congestion, and provides the rider with exercise. The opportunity costs and actual costs of bicycling versus driving or using the parking app are significant and indicate the rationality of simply riding a bike. Another high-speed option exists for New Yorkers. Lets say Rosetti and Oliva have hot dates and they don't wann cruise up to their ladies' houses on their 1978 Schwinn banana seater. Well they can just walk a block with their date to the nearest Subway station. New York City has the best public transportation system in America, and like bicycling, the opportunity costs of taking the subway are lower than using a car and the parking app.
My reaction to the app is that it is an attempt to create an industry from an unexploited market. But an incredibly dumb idea as a member of the general public. As an economist point of view, I think its a great idea for the sellers for that reason; these creators can be the first to get their foot in the door of a new market. However, the service that is provided should be evaluated by the consumer, an already free service is enhanced for a price. The legality of the transaction is out of my knowledge. But simply speaking I don't think anyone has the right to charge money for public property. Granted they aren't actually buying the parking spot, simply reserving it, but non the less the seller is profiting off of a publicly owned parking spot. The economic cost of waiting for parking mostly involve fuel costs and city related emissions cleaning projects.
Well Mr. Fulcer... you're parking in a lot that, like everything else, costs money. People love to lay claim to things they had no part in paying for, and
your flawed thought process is a prime example. But why should you pay to park somewhere? Well, like I've already said, the lot does cost money. But
it also shows that you recognize the establishment is providing a service for you. Don't you think that questioning why you just paid for your food a little
bizzare? Well, it's essentially the same thing. Goods and services require man power, raw materials, and time; man power, raw materials, and time require
money.
Because we aren't city-dwellers, we take parking for granted. It's absurd to us when we got to New York City and parking is twenty dollars an hour.
To the locals, they aren't too bothered. They get it; they understand the scarcity of spots that raise the value. And they don't pitch fits like my family does.
I can justify the parking costs absolutely; as an athlete, the sports fees are more unnerving. While parking is not absolutely neccesary (you can suck
it up and take the bus or make friends with people who drive), sports are vital for physical health, mental health, and social growth.
It would be sweet if everyone was willing and able to pay for both expenses, but in unless the school is located in Orange County, CA, that is
doubtful. It's your choice what you want to pay for, because the schools don't seem to be budging. So many families will need to make a
choice: Do I not let my kid play sports? or do I make him walk to school? This is a great example of an opportunity cost. Some families can pick
both, some only one, others will watch their kids age poorly and be tardy to school everyday until expulsion.
This app is a great idea! Everybody scrutinizing the app is probably jealous he or she didn't find the next easy solution to inner-city parking, air pollution, and traffic. The article states that "aimless driving" costs New York City's economy over $13 billion annually! This app will help eliminate that absurd waste of of money and allow the city to work on other more important issues (i.e. http://www.theonion.com/articles/84-million-new-yorkers-suddenly-realize-new-york-c,18003/). You can use the app while still feeling morally sound b/c the seller is merely distributing "information" as opposed to the actual parking space WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS IS PUBLIC. For the people who think it's unfair, you can "aimlessly drive" drive for a parking space and still find one since the auctioneer has to give up his space if another car beats the buyer to it(so anybody can win). I would gladly sell my parking space... &%$&%#!!!!! i mean "information."
Okay. This parking app is completely ridiculous. If you don't own the spot why should you allow someone to buy it ? This should be illegal because you should not be allowed to sell something that isn't your's. The only way this would be fair is if the person who owns the business could sell parking spaces when someone leaves. However, that's way too much of a hassle. The economic cost of waiting for a parking space: none.
Initially I thought this app had to be a crazy, and possibly illegal, idea that would never work out. What if someone else wanted the spot? How could you ensure that the buyer would be the first person to want to park there? However, after reading the article I think the app is a great way to find a parking space in such a crowded area. As the article said, if another driver who didn't use the app wanted the parking spot, the seller would have to give it up. Aside from this, it seems that the app would simplify city driving and reduce time and energy wasted looking for a parking space. As for the legality issue, the seller isn't actually selling the space. They can't reserve it for the buyer if someone else comes along, so they are only providing the buyer with information about available parking not the space itself. As long as the sellers don't set astronomical prices, I really don't see a problem. The biggest cost of waiting for parking is simply the time it takes out of your day that could be spent doing something else. You could be spending that time making money to spend on the gas you would be wasting driving around in search of parking. I think the positives definitely outweigh the negatives in this case. It would probably be cheaper to buy the location of a space than to drive around looking for an open space in a paid garage or in front of a meter.
Hmm. Well, I say bravo to the creators of this app. I personally think that the fact that these guys spent the time to create this calls for an immense amount of applause. Now, I do feel that this application will bomb; I don't think that it will work as smoothly as they hope because of what the article stated: if a random guy comes up in his nice Bentley looking for a good spot to stash it, it doesn't matter if Billy pulls up in his station wagon and expects a spot because he bought it online. Mister random guy wins. That in and of itself is the main issue that I have with the whole idea. Morally, I feel- wait, who even cares about morals? This app was designed to make money and save time instead of losing money and wasting time. If the lawyers said it was legal, then I have no more questions. I think that if the app was showing a tremendous rate of success, then getting the law involved would be worth the effort, but because I have no actual great expectations of this new found idea's success, I say that it is perfectly alright to want to sell your parking space since you don't need it anymore once you're driving off in pursuit of some other money-making endeavor. And for the buyers, I think that if you have time enough to spare to wait for your faulty 3G to work so you can use this app to find a parking spot, so be it, because the price of looking for parking can be extensive. Many a wedding, job, interview, drug bust, and bonfire picnic has had to cease all activity and wait for me to show up because I was frantically driving in circles looking for parking. This is the price we motor-dependent people have to pay when looking for parking! D:< My overall stance on this, therefore, is that this app is fine, but it won't be great until it actually proves to save people the torture that I have sadly had to experience. This is why I walk almost everywhere I go.
I would have to say that this a great idea, but the chances of it working are slim. I feel if you just look for a parking spot it wont take as long. There are many reasons this wont work someone might find the parking spot before you get there, the parking spot might be to small, the person might get there to later then you expected, and many more reasons. Also a person should not be allowed to sell something that they do not even own. Again I believe the idea behind selling your parking spot is a good one, but there are to many things involved in the plan that it will only cause more problems then there already are.
I personally think the app is a waste of money for the most part; I think the stats they showed on pollution and gas money are probably not what they seem and are intended to sell their product. I don't buy into the app being much more fiscally sensible than waiting, because you could still spend time waiting for someone to auction off a spot, especially considering that it's probably not in use by too many people.
As for the legality of the app, the lawyers said that it is legal because you are only selling information, not a piece of property. I would bank on that being true.
The economic costs of waiting for parking are obviously that you have to wait around and waste your gas most of the time, and I guess if you wait too long you can lose a spot that you could have paid for.
I think this app is pretty neat. If you're someone who spends minutes even hours a week floating around cities looking for parking, I think the app might be a reasonable investment for you. The cost of gas from driving around the city could in the end be much more of a cost to you than the $5 you spend on a parking space. It's also a semi-green app because saving gas also saves the environment. Seems like a win-win to me. As for any legal issues, I think it's totally fine. The article claims that the owners of the app are in the clear, so hopefully their lawyers are right.
I believe that just because you are going to be "parking your car somewhere" doesn't mean that it should be free. There is a limited supply of parking space and a demand, and the school is a business of its own so it is completely justified in charging for a product it provides. Parking space at his high school is scarce so obviously there is going to be an increase in the price(though $200 does seem a bit excessive), and we should have to pay for parking because we are using an area that does not belong to us to essentially "store" our car for a certain amount of time.
In the suburbs people can easily find places to park, so parking is readily available and they do not see a parking space as a product. The non-monetary costs of parking would be having to deal with the traffic and the time and gas spent waiting.
The concept of opportunity cost explains the decisions that are being made by the school and the students. The school sees that the opportunity cost of not charging the students for their parking space is substantial so it changed its policy. The student see that the opportunity cost for using the bus or walking home is being able to drive to school and park close to the school.
I think the app is a good idea because with less people driving around looking for parking space, it seems that there would be less traffic and people would be saving gas and wasting less time.
Although I believe the app is a good idea I don't think you should be able to auction off free parking spaces because the space does not belong to you to sell. I think parking spaces that you paid for are OK to auction off because you have paid for a product and have the right to sell it.
The economic costs for waiting for parking is gas and your time.
I believe that the app is a decent idea, however, money should not be involved. It is simply wrong to be selling this information. There are many benefits to the system; less confusion, less air pollution, less traffic, and less conflict. People would easily be able to access parking spots and would not spent their time driving around mindlessly. The distribution of this information is a good idea and would benefit the community as a whole. But, since I think money should not be involved people would have to have the courtesy to post the information without gaining anything at that moment. In the long run, they would benefit because people would feel obliged to post empty spaces and the cycle would continue.
Though there are some benefits, it is wrong to sell parking spaces or information about parking spaces. There is nothing illegal about this, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable. This shows the problems American's have. People will not do anything unless it benefits themselves, but what they do not understand is that in the long run, as I said before, they will benefit. If an app was created that just shared the information for free, and enough people used it, the app could be revolutionary.
The costs of waiting for parking include pollution, traffic, and agitated people. These are reasons that if an app was executed correctly, it would be a huge benefit to the entire community!
-Brett Fulcer, I agree with you. Having to pay a fee for parking is redic. Students shouldn't have to pay more fees than they do now. It's a school parking lot, not a sports stadium. School isn't a leisure activity so don't make it even less enjoyable than it already is. Parking fees at actual venues can be justified, but not for student parking. But, don't worry, Brett Fulcer (I keep wanting to call him Ferris Bueller) it gets better. It may not seem like it now, but it will.
-Because suburbians never have to pay to park when they travel somewhere, like for example, when at Opies, you just park. There is no meter. You hop out of your vehicle of choice, get your ice cream or snowball, then carry on with your day. Remain calm, and carry on. So the idea that students would have to pay a hefty fee for parking is unheard of. In our society, it is treated as a human right to be able to park at school for free, not something that requires a monetary fee (I'm also a hard-core rapper, beeteedubs).
-Now, when at a sporting event, parking fees make sense because when it is GameDay Sunday, areas become heavily condensed with people. If there is no fee, the amount of traffic would increase. Speaking as a non-sports fan, attending a game is a leisure activity, not something that people need in order to survive. I disagree with that parent. Sports for some odd reason, require more money, again, their purpose is still not clear, so a fee is needed for games.
-By choosing other means of transportation: walking, the large yellow car of death, or carpooling, money is saved and the oportunity cost is increased. Why bother spending money on parking fees when it can go towards something useful like tickets to see Arctic Monkeys on October 6th (yeahhhh, budddy), or that new sparkle tunic at Forever 21 that you simply must have, or, play it safe and put it into a savings account or get all philanthropic and give it to the homeless man on route 40. all valid choices for opportunity cost.
This app seems ridiculous from a personal standpoint. How can people justify buying and selling something that isn't theirs to buy and sell? On the other hand, from an economic perspective I can see the appeal of this app. If the economic costs of parking are truly as high as this article says they are then maybe we are wasting more than we gain by driving around and looking for a parking space. In a case where you are running late, is $10 or another monetary number worth 10 or 15 minutes of finding a parking space and then walking from the car to the destination? This is a perfect example of consumer surplus and supplier surplus. Those 15 minutes may be worth $50 to a person who is on their way to something extremely important. The $10 someone makes by selling their spot may make them $5 more than they really wanted...or maybe they would have given the space away for free but instead gained $10. Time may be one major economic cost of searching for a parking space but gas and therefore money is another cost. Driving around at such slow speed does not help the average gas mileage for your current tank of gas or the strain on your wallet. With a recession at hand, saving as much as possible on gas is always a plus. If the number from the article, $130,000, is accurate or even close a few dollars for a space probably doesn’t add up the way that a few gallons of gas does.
P.S.- I tried to tweet…did not work out very well….but Wilco still was awesome!!!
A PARKING APP!?!?!? there really is truth to the saying "theres an app for that"...
Anyway. What a SUPERFANTABULOUS idea created by greedy Americans to squeeze a dollar out of every good and service known to man!!!! This parking app seems like a great idea to save time and reduce traffic congestion, oh, and lets not forget the profound impact it will have on air pollution as well. All at the expense of selling your "information"! Don't get me wrong, im sure information is the hottest thing on the market right now, just ask Facebook. Even though this idea looks like solid goold i just want to expand on few troubling points.
To begin, lets remember the opportunity cost of using this app: the wondrous journey around and around the parking lot. Personally, i enjoy this time. It allows one to have deep thoughts about life, and its the perfect time to contemplate whether or not society is heading down the porcelain throne. Also, the app lets people who would normally just leave their parking spot make a quick $5, or wait, sponsor a huge bidding war over their parking spot!! Think of the moolah (spelling?)!!! And after gaining this economic benefit, they get to conveniently wait for the buyer and then verify his or her identity...how fun!!
Another issue, what becomes of this "extra cash"? I'd like to think that extra $5 makes its way to the local charity or maybe helps start the Ban the Ridiculous Parking App Foundation. Alas, the money gained from this auction will end up purchasing more gas anyway. I mean the seller has to buy more gas in the long run. Although the marginal benefit for the seller and for the environment seems appealing, we're simply avoiding the inevitable. Finally, the article fails to fully address the problem of a driver who finds a parking space without the app and a driver who pays for the parking spot using the app meeting with the same burning desire to park in one spot. Hopefully, this would become a non-issue and the kind, loving nature in people would help the drivers settle the dispute without their fists. BUT i doubt it. This means the parking app could very well double, NO TRIPLE, the number of street brawls over parking spaces!!!
Overall, the new app that was meant to ease the parking experience poses several issues. So, I say forget the parking app, and just LEAVE THE DA@#$^%N PARKING SPACE!!!!
I personally believe that this app is ridiculous and in my mind a exploitation of hard working Americans. People work hard for there money and if someone is to come along and take it it is nothing but disrespect. Also the person selling his parking spot really doesn't own it. The land belongs to the state and you are basically selling something that isn't yours. I also think this app is a joke and that many people will take it as a joke. I really don't think people will waste money on buying a parking spot on a curb when they can just go to a parking garage where there car is actually safer. The opportunity costs of buying a parking spot is at most saving a couple cents of gas. I understand that money is important but it is not worth saving a few cents. I hope people realize this app is a joke and don't use it because you can't sell something that is not yours.
Post a Comment