What if experiment is conducted like this:
1. 53 top bidders pay and get their spot.
2. total money collected is shared between everyone who doesn't park
1. 53 top bidders pay and get their spot.
2. total money collected is shared between everyone who doesn't park
Its a win win for all. People know that they always able to park. Price for lot goes up every month by itself, because there is less and less free space around office. Charity goes up as well.
If you want to alleviate wage disparity, target it directly, not just one tiny symptom.
This example is conflating the market for charity donations with parking. If I was going to donate $10k/month to charity anyway, I’d bid $5k a month on the parking (not sure how tax would work).
Every 3 month there is a report from company on what have been done for money from parking.
When I worked in SF, it took 45 minutes to drive there, and an hour and 15 minutes to get their by train+bus. Assuming I got on the express train.
On a bad day (missed the express train, had to wait up to an hour for a slow all-stops local train), transit could take over 2 hours.
Nope, parent poster said explicitly "Money from auction goes in pool and split between everyone who doesnt park."
I'd like to see the same kind of idea with moving violations. It's wronging the communities they're cited in; it should go back to us, directly. Not to some enforcement arm that buys MRAPS and shit.
It does.
There is a reasonable argument that such fees should go to the general fund for the locality, not to some specific department like law enforcement (because of incentives).
But I do not think there is a reasonable argument that the money should "go back to us, directly" rather than going to the local government. I mean, if you REALLY wanted your tax bill to come with two extra lines on it:
> Refund due to collections from legal enforcement: $ -54.36
> Additional charges for operating costs: $ 54.36
...but I HOPE you are bright enough to realize that the net difference between showing these lines on the tax bill and not showing them is meaningless and that there is little benefit to bothering to list it that way.
The problem is when government is opaque, we get things like "Govt services are horrible, blablabla". Whereas if funding wasn't in omnibus bills and covered up, we could see "Yes, their performance is low cause they are understaffed and working on a shoestring budget. They couldn't even afford office supplies."
I mean seriously, we value provenance in software with tools like Git. Why not Government and expenditure calculations? I certainly see a value there, regardless the party.
Pooling all revenue, from both taxes and fines, would make budgeting more complex as the tax rate would need to fluctuate with the expectation of fines, including the ones from new legislation. Any new fine legislation would thus be a tax bill by side-effect.
1cB Explain everyone that now the auction result (list of bidders and bids) is secret and people should just trust you.
Not all things are the same, especially not houses and parking lots.
Most likely, there would be legal issues with instituting this sort of structure, so it wouldn't make sense from a liability standpoint.
Maybe it smells too capitalistic?
By the way I'm not sure about the capitalistic label. The recipients would do nothing to earn the money, did they?
There's lots of auction theory describing good ways to sell things like parking spaces.