The problem with this one is you need to be sure wherever you park, you aren't going to get towed. Once I learned my school wouldn't tow, I parked in the staff lots fairly frequently. The ticket * citation rate was low enough that it only cost a little more than student parking; but there was a lot more of it so it was always easy to park (and closer to my destination). (And, at the time, my school had over-sold student parking, was renovating a major student lot, and had rented out another major lot to nearby businesses.)

Speaking of ethics, what’s the equilibrium here? Does it pass a Kantian categorical imperative?

I think if everyone did this, the rate each person was taxed at would fall below the current rough meter equivalent amount and the city (and LAZ Parking) would gather less revenue.

Up to you if you consider that positive or negative.

It seems to me that if everyone did this (didn't pay the meter and just eat the cost of the tickets from time to time), the city would eventually realize it and would just ramp up enforcement and make bank for a while until people started paying the meters again. So LAZ Parking would end up getting their cut again and the city would be making no less than they are now.

As a side note, I've always thought that the categorical imperative is as good of a rule to follow as any. But sometimes the 'if literally everyone behaved this way' thought experiment can get pretty silly, not to mention impossible to actually determine what would happen in such a case.

Not the OP, but there are some of us (I mean, I suppose I'm not the only one) who see paid street parking as unethical per se.

> who see paid street parking as unethical per se.

why?

One reason might be that it’s a lot of public space being dedicated to private purpose. Those who use public transport are paying tax to guard the private vehicles of the rich. Odd.

I read somewhere that half of the space in some downtown areas is dedicated to infrastructure for cars. Seems like a lot.

that would be reason to complain about use of public areas for free parking (and I do this)

but someone complained about paid public parking specifically

Why? Paid or unpaid the space downtown is used for cars. OP may believe that’s wrong.

I don’t think it’s the case that you can’t find a land use undesirable just because it generates income.

As long as you don't park in a tow zone. Chicago is/was notorious for predatory towing, and it will cost you hundreds of dollars and hours of your time to get your car back.

Great. Now I've got Steve Goodman's "Lincoln Park Pirates" stuck in my head again.

    The streetlamps are on in Chicago tonight
    And lovers are gazing at stars
    The stores are all closing
    And Daley is dosing 
    And the fatman's counting the cars
    And there's more cars than places to put 'em, he said
    But I've got room for them all
    ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF3q7o8Yjrg

If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class

Which is why punitive fines ought to scale with income and/or wealth. Finland is famous for this; millionaires have incurred speeding fines in the six figures: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

> Which is why punitive fines ought to scale with income and/or wealth

That really seems like it depends on what the damage a particular action causes.

Property destruction, for example, probably shouldn't scale. If I, accidentally, destroy your shoes, I need to buy you a new pair of shoes (and maybe a bit extra for your inconvenience). The goal is to make the victim whole again.

For things with the potential for loss of life, the goal is primarily deterrence, I think that's where things make more sense to start scaling.

That depends on what the cost is to operate legally. In the case of parking, you might find that eating the fines is less expensive than paying for parking; or that they are roughly equal, but the fines are more convenient or have other positive externalities that benefit you.

Uhm, just remember that there's usually a reason why it's illegal to park in some places, e.g. if it blocks an emergency access route.

I didn't park in illegal spaces, I just refused to pay the meter. So, no high horsing needed. :)

I don't think there was any high horsing that took place or was implied. I recommend you don't leave comments such as that one you just left since it comes across as rude.

Now that's some high horsing about high horsing.

Please don't degrade the quality of hack news in the way you are.

Or blocking a curb cut. This is endemic in my city, and can at times make intersections basically impassable in a wheelchair.

If you ever feel like parking outside of designated spaces, this is the test you should use. Walk around your car and ask yourself, "can a person in a wheelchair go from this side of my car to the other without being too inconvenienced?"

Be particularly attentive to rough ground (cobblestone), curbs, puddles, lamp-posts or other obstacles.

If your parking passes that test, it generally also accommodates the blind, bicyclists, children, etc.

It's not hard to find spaces that pass the test -- which is also why it upsets me so when people neglect to.

But be aware of the garage door that doesn't look like a garage door. Once in SF I left my car for about 20 minutes in Haight-Ashbury on a curb that didn't seem to have any particular reason to be yellow. I returned to find that what had seemed on first inspection to be a wall was in fact a very subtle gate that slid sideways, and a few people standing around were angry with me. (When I returned to the spot weeks later, there was a new sign.)

It is always unethical to decide that punitive fines are okay because you can afford them. It is a profound sense of personal entitlement.