First, I can't help but notice the irony that ParkIndy said it would cost too much to install technology to sync the kiosks so they all reported the same time left for the same spot. ( As a result, people were getting tickets when they shouldn't have.) Yet they managed to have the money to install technology so they could make more money by double billing spots.
Yes, double billing. I don't know why ParkIndy, again, ACS, has the right to recover bill twice for the same time at the same spot. An article by legal scholar Jonathan Turley sums up my doubts about the practice.
Santa Monica, California is introducing new technology to end the practice of drivers using minutes remaining on parking meters from the prior cars. New meters use internet connections and sensors buried in the asphalt to wipe out remaining time once a car leaves the parking space. It seems a bit unfair. The city was paid to rent the space and I think I should be allowed to hand over my time to another citizen — after all I paid for the rental and could remain in the spot for the full duration.
I have often thought it bizarre that some cities threaten citizens with tickets if they add money to meters for cars of other citizens to prevent ticketing. I have heard such stories and I fail to understand the legal basis for such a citation.
This new technology is based on the premise that the rental space is specifically tied to the vehicle However, I view it as tied to the space. When I rent a hotel room, I do so for a period of time and can presumably allow another person to use it as long as I do not exceed occupancy rules. Likewise, if I buy a movie ticket, it is for one set for the duration of the movie. I can give the ticket to another person to take my seat. Why should a parking meter be different?
...I agree. Thank God we only have 48 more years left on this idiotic contract..