> and that the revenue accrues to the campers and not the city

Then the city should build their own version and get the money that it feels it is entitled to.

I really don't understand this mindset.

Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable.

Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear? Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?

Why do you want to live in that world?

Because that's what balances the supply and demand. Artificially low prices are precisely what cause shortages.

The kind of world you describe would far more efficiently allocate resource--even helping people to determine whether or not to drive versus bike versus walk versus other transportation. It also would help people determine the actual value of their property: should it be a house? A restaurant? A parking garage?

Shortages for who? You, that can afford to pay whatever you feel like? Or people on a lower incomes who would just be priced out entirely?

Your 'shortage' is only eased by making life difficult for others.

> Parking spaces are a public resource. The city sets tariffs at a level it feels reasonable.

Particularly, while the tariffs are intended to provide revenue they are mostly intended to supplement hard time limits in providing an incentive to limit how long you spend in the space, and largely are intended to be low given that purpose because they (and the hard limits) exist to enable commerce by encouraging turnover and thereby providing accessibility.

Maximizing fees by using an auction mechanism would not serve that purpose.

There is a market-clearing price. Call it $N. That's the level at which people willing to pay $N can always get a parking spot. For a smaller value of $N, someone wants to get a parking spot by paying $N can't. (That price might even be $0 if you have more supply than demand. Some economists will talk about "The High Price Of Free Parking," and there's something to that, but if the city decides to make the market-clearing price $0, then they should do it by always having enough supply available.)

If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system. Instead of paying money, people have to drive in circles, or queue, or wait to find out the results of a lottery. No one benefits by this. If you are trying to help the poor, just give them more money, and they will decide on their own how valuable parking is to them.

For the record, I fully support the city deciding that these other people don't get to extract the city's rents. The city should stop people from occupying a public space merely because they want to get paid to move on. It's the city's resource to sell. (And maybe the market clearing price becomes $0 once you kick out the people who are making a problem just to be paid to stop making it -- which is the definition of a racket.)

>> If you decide to distribute the limited resource in a fashion besides money, such as a lottery, you have an inefficient system.

why is efficiency always the best goal for common resources? Why should poorer people be priced out of an efficient market on public resources we have all paid for?

>Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear?

Because it's the only reasonable choice? Overly cheap parking is not just inherently stupid and wasteful, it also generates other problems:

"cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts"[0]

You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?

Cities that have started using the price mechanism have seen great results.[0][1]

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?ex=13...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-th...

Overly cheap parking is a problem for sure, but so is overly expensive parking. The articles you cite say that an 80-85% occupancy rate for parking spaces is most desirable, a figure I've seen before. Say the city determines that for every dollar parking is increased demand drops 10% and at $2 an hour demand is the optimal 80%. That means that the market is most profitable when parking spaces are actually $5 an hour and demand is 50%.

In the closed world of parking spaces $5 an hour is the optimal rate, but in reality this could be disastrous for traffic and business who are now dealing with increased congestion and reduced customers respectively. Taking the ability to set pricing out of the control of the city and placing it with independent/selfish actors might have unforeseen ripple effects on the wider community. Therefore it should well within the city's right as an actor who is responsible to the community to direct the use of its property as best suits the public good.

>> You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?

Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though.

I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.

If your concern is for poor people being priced out of the market, the best solution is (obviously) not to destroy the market, but to subsidize poor people. Proper pricing of parking would bring in significant revenues, some of them could be directed to pay for poor people's parking.

I disagree with this statement a lot. I will give you an example, based on trains. In the country where I come from, Poland, trains lines are owned by the government, which makes them incredibly cheap. I know a lot of people who commute long distances to work or study,because the ticket for a 2 hour long journey costs an equivalent of $2-3 USD.

However, now I live in the UK, and despite the standard of living being much higher, and people making a lot more money in general, I know very few people who regularly take trains to go anywhere, because prices are "as high as the market will bear",which makes commuting longer distances very expensive - due to the fact that all train lines are private and they charge whatever they see fit, with higher prices during rush hours, and so on.

And no, the solution is not to subsidize poor people. In fact, I would not describe myself poor, making $30k a year, and I still would not take a train every day, as it would be ruining financially. In Poland, even if I was making a third of what I make here I could afford to commute by train every day, as it is absurdly cheap.

I feel like the same thing applies here. Cheap, publicly owned parking spaces guarantee better opportunities for everyone, and that's how it should be like.

Why?

that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served).

It's nonsensical

>while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start

No it doesn't. Less traffic, less pollution, faster parking.

And that's just not true if you're giving money back to the poorer folks so they can afford to park again!!

This works if you price people out of the market, not if you price people out and then subsidise them back in, and it's the pricing out in the first place that is my problem with it.

Or are you saying not to give the poor some of the money so they can continue to park, but just as a bit of a bung as an apology for taking away their access to yet another public service?

>Why should this public resource be priced at the highest rate the market will bear?

I would have no problem if Edinburgh -- where I live -- adopted that policy for car parking.

> Why should everything in the world basically only be available to those who can pay the top possible price for something?

Car parking spaces are not "everything in the world".

But this mindset gets applied to everything, and people valiantly leap to defend it as applied to everything because apparently if it's a market it must be virtuous.

I live in Southampton I know a bunch of people who would have a problem with this becoming the norm there - poorer local people would be priced out of city-centre parking as we have a regional shopping-centre. A first-come first-served basis lets everyone have a chance at access rather than reserving for those who can pay most.

Parking is a service, provided by the city. The people who pay taxes have already paid for that parking spot. If you, or somebody else (Even the city!) try to profiteer in excess of that, it's predatory and against the rules.

If this was in a private parking lot; knock yourself out. Charge whatever you want. Charge a hundred dollars a minute. But it's public space, and you cannot hold public property hostage and expect me to pay. You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge for a "crossing toll". It's not yours to profit from!

>> "You would be no better than a group of highwaymen holding up a bridge"

That situation isn't analogous. If you'd paid via parking meter for a space, then reselling it is merely simple arbitrage. You've already paid for the right to use that spot.

But you have not paid for the right to sell that spot.

This is deifferent from land speculation ... how?