If You Want to See Inequality in the U.S. at Its Worst, Visit an Impound Lot
time.com
time.com
I can remember few times I was as angry as I was at a tow yard. My car was stolen, found by the police, and impounded at a tow yard. I went to the tow yard to get the car out, they wanted hundreds of dollars to store the car for the few hours it was there. I went to get some belongings out of the car (I foolishly left my wallet in the car when it was stolen, so I had no cash or credit cards to free the car at that moment), and was accused of stealing my own car by the tow yard employee (as if that somehow makes sense). Later, I returned to pick up the car the next day, these tow yard people had stolen my snow chains out of the car.
Your credit card company, that you have a written agreement with, would have to jump through such greater hoops to take back the TV you bought if you default (if they can at all).
Taking someone's car should be considered more like turning off their water, for many it's not a convenience but a necessary part of life.
In the city where I live, this is mainly because the towing people are given contracts saying they can do just that by the City Council. Of course, a couple of people on the City Council are pretty close to owners of said towing companies.
Seems like the way to reform this would be to expose these kinds of ties, and get normal people to recognize the viciously corrupt cycle that enables them. Unfortunately, politics like this is seen as the preserve of older, richer people, and most others just go about their jobs and accept it as an unfortunate "fact of life".
Banking is one of such businesses.
22651.07(3)(c)(2) states that: Prior to paying any towing, recovery, or storage related fees, a vehicle owner... shall have the right to... Retrieve his or her vehicle during the first 72 hours of storage and not pay a lien fee.
It seems that these tow yards may actually be violating the law by preventing people from retrieving their cars.
You never know what will happen, but you can be very sure that within a year you're going to encounter a variety of unforeseen financial hits. Not having the money to pay for them leads to stress and sometimes a vicious cycle.
For many Americans, an emergency fund can be an agonizing choice between feeding their family and planning for the future. But for most people reading this forum, an emergency fund it not a challenge once you decide to do it.
Yet for the first couple of years starting a business, I didn't prioritize this. It felt like I was putting more money into growth, but really I slowed myself down as I now and then had to hustle to meet relatively small unforeseen expenses.
After you get an emergency fund, you then ought to think about 3-6 months living expenses in a relatively liquid asset.
After that's done, you can sleep much more soundly.
Expenses is the keyword, I think. Most prototypical HNers live life well above what they could live at (e.g., less organically-grown gourmet coffee and more rice). A year or two of true, necessary expenses could be closer to 6 months of income for many here.
The prototypical HNer is a good developer. Good developers make a lot of money unless they're making terrible work decisions.
I think I've made an excellent work decision. It's extremely cheap to live here. I could easily survive on <$20K/yr, far less actually. You can have the high-expense/high-stress wage-slave life to get your $100K/yr. I'll pass.
Average student loan debt is $29,400. For what most developers make, that should be easy to pay off within a year or two.
For what it's worth, I did quit; partially because the pay was so low for the 55 hours of week they expected developers to put in.
I know this is only anecdotal, but shit does indeed happen.
Agreed. That's outrageously low, and you definitely made the right choice in quitting.
Nor does the prototypical HNer. Though I am helping my dad buy a house.
> Without a gold spoon it's not as easy as you make it seem.
What do you mean? I definitely don't have a golden/silver spoon, but have been able to save up a good amount despite ludicrous NYC living & taxes.
I myself work at an early stage startup which I'm very passionate about. I still expect to get paid competitively. If you're the prototypical HNer (read: good developer) and you're getting paid under $100k, then you're messing things up.
As for starting a business, by far the most viable path is to do it in your free time until it either: (a) generates revenue you could live off or (b) has enough traction for meaningful VC.
You can also be charged fees for being a defendant in criminal court, and for being in jail. And can be sent (back) to jail for not (being able to) pay(ing) those fees.
I found out about jail fees a while back from an election website for one of our local politicians... but I don't recall if they wanted to lower the fees because they're unjust and hard on the poor, or raise them to help pay for things.
.
A few relevant search results:
http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fee...
http://nation.time.com/2013/08/21/welcome-to-prison-will-you...
After seeing Europe's transit system first-hand all summer, it makes little sense to me why the investment has not been made in the USA—especially in larger metropolitan areas like SF.
Of course, but most work for the poor (to put it bluntly), does not include carrying things through the subway. It includes showing up on work on-time and working hard—whether that's laying bricks or washing dishes. If your car breaks down, you're out a job. If the subway breaks down (much less likely), your employer or four other employees just might have been on that subway, too.
> And SF has BART, caltrain, and MUNI, and while they all smell like urine, they do pretty much get you exactly where you want to go.
If usage increased, I dare say they would get cleaned up (public trains in former Eastern European countries are even non-smelly). I don't live in SF, though, so I have no experience to back up my hunch.
The investments were made, and then the fruits of those investments were systematically destroyed over about a decade, sixty years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
As for why nothing is happening now: the only thing the public can seem to agree on is putting people in prison and defense spending. So that's why.
A friend shared that article with me after seeing my comment—purely capitalistic entities operate both idiotically (in terms of good for the whole) and predictably.
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book III, Chapter IV, p. 448
I spoke to a professional in a pretty powerful job who almost died because for various reasons he didn't have the money to go to the emergency room. This person works for a Fortune 500 company, and a visit to the ER could easily cost $3k out of pocket.
He ended up having an emergency, which required an ambulance... The total bill was $8,000 after insurance!
Just another reason why it actually kinda sucks that most of America is impossible to get around without a car.
As the article mentions, a poor family getting their only vehicle towed could devastate them, while it's only a mild inconvenience for someone that can afford a limo to pick their towed Ferrari up. That doesn't seem like the optimal system.
If it's a percent of your $30g salary and you're living paycheck to paycheck while trying to feed 3 kids, the effect is going to be substantially worse. I'm not saying we can just waive penalty fees situationally but the inequality is definitely going to be there regardless.
Towing the Civic is a safer bet for the towing company.
My perception is that when towing cars unnecessarily (ie: in places where a fine is more than sufficient and a main thoroughfare isn't being blocked), the mid-range cars are preferentially towed, they can pay and they're not hard to rig up.
If towed in the wrong way, it can severely damage an expensive car, and considering Ferrari owners can also afford lawyers, it's safer to tow the Civic, especially the towing fee is the same either way.
You're familiar with the expression "let the punishment fit the crime"? For a poor person, the fine should reflect an awareness of how much he has, just as it does for the rich person.
> I just don't think they should be scaled based on income.
In a world where everything else is? What incentive would a judge have to levy a single fine that would annoy a rich person but bankrupt a poor one?
Taken to its logical conclusion, the same crime committed by a 15-year-old should be prosecuted the same way as though the offender were 40. But the world isn't arranged that way, for excellent reasons.
Once a girlfriend got ticketed for not wearing her seat belt, the fine was $250. She absolutely couldn't afford it, it would undermine everything she was trying to accomplish. She was in anguish. It never occurred to her that the judge didn't understand her position. I told her to write the judge, acknowledge that she was in the wrong, then explain that the fine was way too high, given her circumstances. The judge immediately lowered the fine to $25.
I am. For the "crime" of parking your car in a spot that it gets towed, the "punishment" is (according to the article) $472. Was the "crime" less for a poor person? no. Same crime. Same punishment.
Taken to its (inverse) logical conclusion, a person that steals $100 from a poor person should do a lot more time than a person that steals $100 from a rich person. But the world isn't arranged that way either, for excellent reasons.
We can both find examples that support our outlooks, but the fact is that, absent unintended injustices, punishments are tuned to fit the crimes and the criminals as well.
Of course, if fines were lowered self entitled assholes would do whatever they please and laugh off the fines. I think the solution is this... first offenses should be a very very small fine and the amounts should double on each subsequent offense. That should stop the self entitlement fairly quickly. Of course, this is assuming the intent is promote proper parking, not to strong-arm money out of people's pockets in order to finance an army of bureaucrats and general wasteful spending. That is the intent...proper parking behavior, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlLC1Iy1UkE Or after you win a tug of war with the tow truck...
http://www.calgaryparking.com/web/guest/impoundlot/requiredf...
such a beautiful city, too. it really kind of broke the illusion for me. still wonderful to visit though, because you live in a fantasy-travel bubble instead of having to deal with day to day life.
In my city, in addition to paying an usurious fee, you need to get a form at the police traffic division HQ, pay at city hall (30 minute walk through the hood), then bring some slip to one of three scum hole tow yards.
Even still, tens of thousands of people were charged these fees and many of them will probably never see their money back. Not to mention the fact that having to pay these fees invariably screwed over some fraction of the victims and led to them losing their jobs. Just getting their money back won't fix that.
Luckily the towing fees here in Ohio seem pretty cheap compared to the Bay Area. I had my car towed once (illegally) and it came out to around $130. But towing companies here aren't required to accept credit cards or checks, so they don't. It is cash only and they don't make change, which is especially aggravating given that the total always works out to some odd amount like $134.72. That's perhaps the sleaziest part of that sleazy business.
Fortunately a bill was recently passed aiming to reduce predatory towing practices. [2] Among the changes it's going to bring is to provide a streamlined process to dispute towing charges; victims of illegal towing can collect double the towing fees. Victims of towing will now also be able to retrieve items from there car without needing to pay a fee. And the bill will now (at last) require that towing companies accept credit cards.
[1] http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/04/10/two...
[2] http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/20/hou...
I hear many anaecdotes of Cars being towed in SF for the flimsiest of reasons.
These incidents are often the beginning of the death spiral for people who are living on the edge...
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Beware-illegal-towing-...
We went to load the car with supplies for a big annual event we put on, and...no car. Had been towed almost a week previously. Figured it out a day after the event during biggest snowstorm in several years. Towing, ticket, storage, incredible hassle for no discernible reason whatsoever.
I paid less than fifty bucks to get my car out of the impound. My insurance company cut me a check for $800 to fix the cosmetic damage, which I pocketed.
My story may not be typical.
Fact is that authentically poor people do not drive. The population of people who drive and park cars in cities skews hugely toward higher incomes.
What do you know about "authentically poor people"? You think everyone drives BMWs and Teslas in SF and our amazing public transportation (note: sarcasm) manages to service everyone with a low-income job in the city but don't live there?
Also, I have data and you don't. Mode share to work, by income:
< $30k: 10% by car > $100k: 26% by car
Mode share, other than work, by income:
< $30k: 15% > $100k: 33%
Parking and towing fines are practically irrelevant for the lower income people because they are highly reliant on transit and walking. Lets see an article that complains about injustice in transit fares.
http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/documents/SFMTA-ModeSha...
And did you just compare horrible car towing companies to natural disasters? One is OBVIOUSLY WORSE than the other since last time I checked, tornadoes and earthquakes are not caused by greedy men working with corrupt government officially trying to squeeze money out of everyone.
"The survey was conducted as a telephone study among 520 San Francisco residents aged 18 and older during June 2011."
What if I tell you a huge portion of low income workers in SF are NOT San Francisco residents but live in other places such as the South and East Bay?
What's your suggestion? Tell them to walk from Fremont to San Francisco or build their own public transportation?
Your data is about as irrelevant as it gets for this discussion.
OH SHIT WAIT. They totally have data on that too.
Of people who live in Fremont and work in San Francisco, public transit is BY FAR the predominant mode. Surprise!
And even if 10% of low incomers drive vs 50% of high incomers drive, that's still more low income drivers since there are a lot more people with low income.
So what about the large number of people who drive to the city but do not make six-figures? (you can argue for the low percentage as much as you want, but the absolute number is still significant) Fuck them right?
They drive over an hour and a half a day to their jobs, praying that their car doesn't break down that day. Because it has before, and they're still paying off the payday loan.
Some are commuting daily from as far as Tracy. There are places there you can rent for as low as 800. With a roommate or three you can afford the car to get in to the city or the east bay to work.