Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrub | Hacker News Reader

The poor design of these parking signs is actually "a feature, not a bug."

Parking tickets in the cities which have these sorts of sign issues (DC, NYC, Chicago, ATL, etc) make up a significant amount of income for the city. Paid parking certainly adds up but if a single space nets the city $10-$20 per day, a single parking ticket could cover a weeks worth of revenue for that single spot while still allowing the space to earn $10-$20 a day for the rest of the week.

I agree it sucks, and I was burned by this exact problem when I traveled to DC with my family last winter. However it's unlikely to change, because not only would the change actually cost money to implement, it would (significantly) reduce the income to the city from parking tickets.

View on HN

As a DC resident, I agree. My wife got a ticket for parking illegally, but could not find a sign (among many) that prohibited it. She took pictures of everything and went to court. They upheld the ticket under the argument, "the sign must have been there somewhere".

There is also a disconnect between intent and enforcement. For example, I live by a school. No parking M-F, 8am-3pm because busses have to get through. Makes sense. But neighbors have been ticketed on the Friday after Thanksgiving: they're violating the sign, but not the intent of the sign.

I'm always baffled at how the burden of proof can be so low for traffic infractions. Why doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply? Just because the stakes are so low doesn't mean we can toss that out.

Probably one of those situations where the city can't afford to have people fighting smaller fines regularly, so they try to discourage people from doing so.

Do you have any evidence to support this theory other than the fact that there's motive?

I think that tax-payers should be the ones to pay for enforcement of regulations that are claimed to benefit them. Governments, local and otherwise, should be barred from using fine money for the 'general welfare'. To do so sets up a conflict of interest and condones extortion.

Instead, fine moneys should be ear-marked towards remediation and reparation of the 'crime' committed. E.g., in this case, all parking fine money could be put into a fund towards building parking ramps. In the case of speeding tickets fine money should go towards rumble-strips, guard rails, additional lanes and other features that make it safe to drive at higher speeds. Etc. Etc.

Exactly. Why would a city change something that would make them bring in less profit?

  In October 2014, she got an email from Los Angeles city 
  council person Paul Krekorkian. He wasn’t writing to ask 
  her to stop producing LA signs. On the contrary: he wanted
  her permission to propose her design at the next council
  meeting.

I don't know. But it seems they want to.

The idea that parking fines are a source of significant revenue is pretty bogus. NYC for example collects around $500m in fines while spending about $200m for the NYPD division of traffic control and another $270m for the Department of Finance (which collects the fines) and while these costs are not entirely dedicated to the purpose of issuing tickets, it gives you a sense of the scale of net revenues from parking tickets (low hundreds of millions at most) compared to a city budget of over $75 billion.

Parking tickets exist because public property in urban areas is extremely valuable and the opportunity cost of letting some scofflaw waste the space is enormous.

It depends on the city. After Chicago 'sold' the right to collect parking fees, fees increased and allegations of wrongful ticketing skyrocketed.

Google 'chicago parking meter privatization' for more info (some of it likely to be biased).

Which pretty well proves that the city wasn't in it for the money before they sold the rights.

Logic does not compute. If they weren't in it for the money, why would they sell it for money?

I think the better argument is that they were incompetent.

That's really, really lazy logic you're (not) trying to compute. If the send-your-enemies-glitter guy wasn't in it for the money, why'd he sell his site for money?

Also Chicago sold the rights in a fire sale due to some combination of budget shortfall, corruption, and incompetence. After the fact, independent appraisers found the contract should have been worth more than $2B, but was sold for just over $1B.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com