In Theory: Spotting the morality of a parking app
- Share via
The MonkeyParking smartphone app, which, in the words of a recent Los Angeles Times editorial, “allows drivers in parked cars to let others know when they are leaving parking spots — and to turn the space over to the next driver for a fee,” was recently condemned by the city of San Francisco and one Santa Monica official called the use of the program “immoral.”
Q: Does this modern-day situation raise for you an age-old ethical question? Is the practice of “selling” a parking space to the highest bidder immoral? Or is it a fair and square way to make a few extra dollars?
The word “immoral” doesn’t come to mind, but “tacky” certainly does! Also, isn’t selling one’s parking space, which one does not own, to another just a little bit illegal? I think it is. Of course, the effort required to take one to court over the issue would probably be more trouble than it’s worth. Still, what a low-class, money-grubbing practice. Now... if the one selling the parking space gave some of that ill-gotten gain to the church, then I might think differently! Not!
That’s a joke, and I think the idea is despicable. You won’t go to Hell for it, but it’s still despicable!
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
One can look at the issue of charging a person to get your parking place in a few ways. If you are charging money for the space itself, which the city owns and you don’t, and you keep the money, it is selling something you don’t own, without permission, so, it is illegal and therefore immoral. If you are charging people a finder’s fee to find them a spot to park — yours — then it is good business and neither moral or immoral. But if you believe you are helping to end gridlock, and help people get to work or shop on time, it is a mitzvah and therefore, moral. If you cannot decide which way to look at it, charge the person money and then donate the money to your favorite charity. Giving to charity is always moral.
Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank
--
“Immoral” seems harsh to describe this tiny entrepreneurial niche in a world of selling and buying where base and dishonest transactions are common.
It is certainly bold to promote selling something you don’t own. A competitor of MonkeyParking (yes, there’s more than one!) says only the fact that the seller is leaving the parking space is being sold, and it is not illegal to sell information. But payment isn’t finalized until the new parker is actually in the space, negating this claim.
MonkeyParking has the following statement on their website: “Limiting the number of daily transactions a single seller can make will avoid someone doing it for a job.” Both the notion of this as a job and the company disallowing it shows that our world is harsh indeed, with many people nowadays barely scraping by.
I agree with the city of San Francisco’s “cease and desist” letter, calling MonkeyParking’s business plan “predatory” and citing the distraction of the bidding process as a hazard while driving. I also picture conflicts between a driver who has paid for a space and another spotting someone leaving and immediately pulling over and putting on their turn signal in the accepted, old-school way of claiming a soon-to-be vacated space.
Apparently while the bidding service has been disabled in San Francisco, it is operating in Rome, but it seems unnecessary to me there. In Italy as throughout Europe there are comprehensive, workable public transportation systems and people don’t have to be as dependent as in the U.S. on their cars.
Maybe we should speculate on the ethics and competence of government here (and I’m looking mainly but not exclusively at the “shrink it till we can drown it in a bathtub” side of the aisle), which so inadequately meets the mobility needs of the people they serve that black markets like this one emerge. Is it immoral that the priorities of the world’s dominant country make it necessary to use questionable practices to cover life’s basics here at home?
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
This is like renters subletting their apartments. Hey, they already paid — if they can make it more affordable, more power to them. Yet how many landlords allow it even when they’d still get their monthly check?
Well, here’s an app that helps motorists better afford parking fees while providing the next parker an available slot. They can do likewise when they leave. How is this “morally” questionable? It’s immoral that we’re charged for parking when already overtaxed to create and maintain the same streets upon which we park. Note that it’s where we’ll spend and pay more taxes that parking spaces also have meters, and government milks us additionally for our limited coinage. Coinage? I must be having a moment, I meant charge cards, as that’s where it’s gone in our local commercial centers. Park, find kiosk, swipe card for many dollars, feel ripped. Just me? I’m seriously all for flabbergasting the governmental nickel-and-dimers.
I don’t like the idea of paying extra for public space, but something is better than nothing, and if I can recoup my loss by running the same app, I can live with that. Hey, it could wind up where we’re parking everywhere for free again! We pay to park, we charge to relinquish for an extra buck, and we get off with free parking (which is right anyway). How’s this immoral? What’s divine law got to do with money-grubbing parking meters anyway? The immorality here is that our representatives vote “yay” to bilk their constituents via massive incidental fees and meter-maid salaries.
The Bible advises we “be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16). I take that to mean we do nothing immoral, but if we can outsmart the snakes to our advantage, then divine thumbs up. Call me, I’m at spot No. 7.
The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose
--
I can certainly identify with the frustration of trying to find a place to park my car in a crowded area of town — particularly when I am late for a meeting or in a hurry to get all the things done that I have on my schedule. And I am pleased to take advantage of the technological benefits of various computer and phone apps that make life easier. But I am concerned with an app that commodifies and markets the space we have in order to facilitate our being even busier than we are now.
Further, we do not individually own the streets on which we travel and park. So how can we sell small portions of them to the other people for a period of time, giving us yet one more sense of entitlement and control over the lives of our fellow citizens? And in such a case, those who can afford or know how to use the app get to call the shots for others and keep them from participating fully in the use of our shared terrain. It seems to be just one more case of the “haves and the have nots.”
I am not a Luddite and greatly appreciate the many ways in which technology has made our lives easier. But I am concerned when it makes our lives less spiritually fulfilling, giving us an illusion of well-being instead of the real article. Why can’t we just slow down and discover what is beneath all our hustle and bustle? Maybe we could even walk to our destinations instead of constantly driving and parking everywhere. And we could share our space with others instead of wanting to control its use. We don’t need an app for that — just our desire to have more sane and compassion-filled lives. I say: “Let’s go for it!”
The Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta