[russell_h]

Selling access to public property wouldn't be profitable if taxpayers weren't subsidizing below-market access to the property in the first place.

Edit: which isn't to say I endorse what these companies are doing. It just seems like another example of how governments (and SF is worse than most) try to fix perceived problems by creating one-off rules, but in doing so create broken incentive structures which lead to new and very real problems. Then they layer on more rules to fix those problems, and the cycle continues.

[wavefunction]

Do you believe in "public good?" I'm just curious.

For example, is there any value to society in allowing a licensed individual to drive to some part of a city and park for a modest fee collected by the municipality so that the driver and any passengers can patronize a business that is not within walking distance of wherever their origin was? Or perhaps visit friends or family that reside further than walking allows?

[_delirium]

SF is actually rolling out market-rate variable parking pricing: http://sfpark.org/