Impark parking tickets -- what's the sitch now?

[ken0042]

^^ You can tell who is a landlord in this thread.....

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So if they catch you without a parking ticket they should be able to collect the parking fee or tow you off their lot. That is it.

Would it be better to come and find you car gone, and then have to go to the impound lot to claim it? As opposed to a $40 ticket? (Or whatever the tickets are.) The tow alone would likely be around $100.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by photon

Why is it lucky that their government steps in to essentially allow people to steal from a business?

But hey, what's right is what we can get away with, right? (this last part is directed at the thread in general, not you)

Yep! I'll go with moral constructivism for $100 please Alex.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by photon

Why is that it? Why can't they levy a fine, at the very least proper compensation for the parking time used?

It's a private business on private property, can't they set whatever rules they want?

They certainly seem necessary since people seem to think that trespassing and parking for free is perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: Being able to collect owed monies is fair too, since if I walk into Wal-Mart and take a TV, they're entitled to damages even if I happen to make it out the store.

But with theft, the police are brought in. Walmart would need to sue for damages and an independent judge would decide if it they are applicable. There are processes in place to ensure justice can occur.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Would it be better to come and find you car gone, and then have to go to the impound lot to claim it? As opposed to a $40 ticket? (Or whatever the tickets are.) The tow alone would likely be around $100.

Absolutely a fine would be better than the towing hassle. But there are already laws in place to allow for towing.

By doing their own policing AND application of penalties it leads to more overzealous application.

I'm not saying people should be able to park at Impark lots for free. I'm saying I don't think it is right for Impark to be able to charge arbitrary penalty fees. If they want to try that, they can use small claims court and people can give their side to an impartial 3rd party.

[Rathji]

I know its not Impark but, as a student during the last half of my degree, I parked without paying over 80% of the time in the UofC lots, got caught 2 times for a grand total of about $90 in fines IIRC. Its not like I parked every day, but it saved me a ton of money over those 3 years.

I consider it enough of a grey area to park in a spot that would otherwise be unused (I know most Impark lots downtown this is not the case) that I am ok with doing it from time to time, but I would be paying the tickets that were given to me, as it is the risk I took parking there.

At the university, the risk to reward ratio given the parking cost and enforcement levels of the lots I used, meant that I was comfortable parking for an hour a lot more often than I would be at some place like Impark for 8 hours while I am at work, potentially burning a place that I can park.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

But with theft, the police are brought in. Walmart would need to sue for damages and an independent judge would decide if it they are applicable. There are processes in place to ensure justice can occur.

So why can't Impark do the same thing? (Or hey, if free men on the land can appoint their own police force, why not impark? )

Or do they just choose not to? Possibly because it would be too cumbersome?

Which I can appreciate if they don't; there's been a number of times when I could have taken a tenant to court but didn't because the cost to me would have not made it "worth my while".

Just because the nature of a business (i.e. many small transactions rather than few large ones) makes it more difficult (or impossible) to utilize the law to hold people to their commitments or make them responsible for their actions seems like the fault of the legal system, not the business.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

By doing their own policing AND application of penalties it leads to more overzealous application.

I see what you are saying there and I can get that.

So a more reasonable law might be to limit what Impark can charge.

For landlords in Alberta, it's illegal to charge fees or penalties. What we can charge though is damages.. so if a tenant is late I can't charge a $100/day late fee, but I can charge damages (i.e. time it takes me to move money to cover the mortgage, interest on the money not paid, etc).

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Yep! I'll go with moral constructivism for $100 please Alex.

Or just trying to treat other people the way I would want to be treated.

[krazycanuck]

I've received many tickets from Impark over the years. Never paid one. I was told once by a lawyer that an impark "enforcement" ticket, is essentially the same as someone parking in my driveway and me leaving them a note that they owe me $100 for doing so.

As far as I know, since you did not sign anything they can not screw with your credit rating.

Just be aware. If you have a number of tickets and continue to park in their lots. They will eventually catch you and you will get towed.

If impark wants me to pay, then staff someone for $12 an hour to sit at the entrance/exit.

[Bobblehead]

Now I think that is taking things too far.

Just because you CAN get away with something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I still don't think Impark has the right to impose their own fines, but people should pay for parking - if you don't like it, find free parking somewhere.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Now I think that is taking things too far.

Just because you CAN get away with something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I still don't think Impark has the right to impose their own fines, but people should pay for parking - if you don't like it, find free parking somewhere.

A few years ago, when the city was installing the park plus machines and getting rid of the meters there was about 2 blocks of free parking down by the Eau Claire YMCA...I would show up to work at 6:30 just to get free parking...I miss free parking.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

...I miss free parking.

Washington State allows all accessible parking placard user to park on any surface streets for free, I would like that in Alberta. I too miss free parking.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by photon

Or just trying to treat other people the way I would want to be treated.

You misunderstand me .. I was fully admitting to being a moral constructivist in that if I can get away with it, it's not necessarily wrong. Neither is it wrong necessarily to not pay an arbitrarily imposed fine / penalty. There's no congruence between rules and what is morally right. Often times not paying what is owed to someone would be considered morally bereft but in the case of the parking industry, I don't believe there's any moral ground to be had. City parking tickets are, at least to some extent, to encourage the efficient and organized use of our streets. For example, ticketing and towing during rush hour for parking on the side of busy roads has a utilitarian justification behind it.

But Impark bought some property, painted some lines, and conjured a number out of thin air for how much it costs me to park my vehicle there for a time. If I don't pay, you have to catch me. If I still don't pay, you have to enforce it. If you can't, tough luck.

Edit: I should add that there may be an existing moral justification involved -- trespassing. By the same token, mechanisms exist to enforce the laws that exist to give expression to our moral intuition that trespassing is wrong. Impark can use those, but they don't, because it would be impractical, inefficient, or impossible with their business model. That's not my problem -- pick a different business model.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

That's not my problem -- pick a different business model.

As much as I agree with Fotze about how evil Impark is- this statement is what bothers me.

What you are saying is that because you refuse to pay, their paying customers should have to pay more so that the lot can be fenced off and have either an attendant or some other form metered entry/exit? All to prevent you from taking something that doesn't belong to you? Sure- it may be something less tangible than a TV; but it is something that has a value.

Where do you draw the line? Should you be allowed to stay in a hotel room for free if the hotel isn't full? What about flying on a plane that has seats leftover?

[Northendzone]

i am assuming that you guys who are trying to justify parking and not paying at an impark lot will be able to present an argument for walking into any store and grabbing whatever you want off the shelf because you feel it should be free or you don't like the price that was conjoured up.

[Five-hole]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My argument is not that "anything you can get away with is a-ok". What I'm saying is that there exist mechanisms to enforce moral and legal norms. Usually this is the law. Walking in and stealing a TV involves the police and the legal system. It comes with a criminal charge of theft. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean the business can invent whatever punishment it deems reasonable, plant a sign on the door that says "if you take our merchandise without paying, you agree to pay a much higher sum in the future than the sticker tag of the item you stole", and use some questionable tactics to recover that sum in the future.

Charge me with trespass if you want. They clearly don't want. Trespassing is as close to a morally neutral "crime" as you can find. In fact, if you trespass long enough on private property, voila, you've earned yourself an enforceable right to continue to do so.

It's really facile to say, well jeez, if you speed, you obviously think murder is ok, right? I mean, one crime is the same as the next.

[photon]

Ah ok, sorry yes I did read what you said the wrong way.

I don't agree with having to pick a different business model though, I think the laws and enforcement of those laws should be able to adapt to fit a reasonable business model or adapt to a reasonable situation (like trespassing, if I start parking on your driveway in such a way that you have to hire someone to watch your private property, well I don't think that's reasonable).

As a landlord I've been screwed over a number of times and that I decide not to do anything because the remedy would cost more than the initial problem tells me that the system is flawed; if you aren't dealing with large enough or serious enough crimes, then basically the system says "tough luck", which I don't think is right, but I understand why it is.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i am assuming that you guys who are trying to justify parking and not paying at an impark lot will be able to present an argument for walking into any store and grabbing whatever you want off the shelf because you feel it should be free or you don't like the price that was conjoured up.

I'm sure you've never downloaded a song or a movie, right?

[photon]

Originally Posted by fotze

I still think its funny that someone stole your fridge. Photons.

I hope they got trapped in it.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'm sure you've never downloaded a song or a movie, right?

Damn you....downloading music is different.

[GP_Matt]

I don't agree with any justification that says they can park for free. Especially about costs. The cost isn't based on what it costs to make the money. It has more to do with the opportunity costs of the property and the demand for their services. If the land is worth more as a building than people will pay for parking then it will be converted. If every spot fills up early then the price will go up. Your comment about their profit margins being too high is simply ridiculous. We live in a country that doesn't assign a reasonable profit margin.

On the other hand I don't like their arbitrary fines as it is bypassing the justice system. A much better option would be to tow the car. Although personally if I forgot to pay I would rather get a fine than have my car towed.

[Travis Munroe]

I only read the first page but you will notice the "collection agency" has the exact same address as impark so I wouldnt worry about the letters.

Ive always been curious as to which scenario would be more profitable:

A- no attendant, pay a guy to hand out tickets, X amount of people dont pay their tickets which forces you to go to your "collection" company and go through the motions

B- Hire a guy for min wage to attend the entrance. Pay before you come in. Exceed your time and another guy on min wage boots your car until you come pay the remaining amount. To me this seems much easier and cheaper.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I only read the first page but you will notice the "collection agency" has the exact same address as impark so I wouldnt worry about the letters.

Ive always been curious as to which scenario would be more profitable:

A- no attendant, pay a guy to hand out tickets, X amount of people dont pay their tickets which forces you to go to your "collection" company and go through the motions

B- Hire a guy for min wage to attend the entrance. Pay before you come in. Exceed your time and another guy on min wage boots your car until you come pay the remaining amount. To me this seems much easier and cheaper.

It's interesting, always wondered the same thing. With A if people pay the fines they could take in a ton more cash than they guy collecting parking fees. It might be that even if a percentage pay the fines (parents of kids who park in inpark without paying (because old people are foolish)) their business model isn't parking, it's fining people.

Between my friends and I we must have had a thousand of these tickets. All piled up from the ages 18-24 in the Inpark lots around Cowboys, Ceili's, the Palace, The Capital etc. Oddly someone usually had a parking pass at UofC so we never got the tickets for Den nights.

The legal discussion is interesting. We didn't pay because we could get away with it. No moral highground, we just knew we could.

That said, and interesting occurrence related to some of the prior posts. I once dropped of a pair of shoes at a shoe repair store at the mall to have the soles replaced and a leather jacket to have the buttons replaced. The guy called, said shoes would be $100 and the jacket would be $50. I said don't do the shoes, just the jacket and I'll pick up next week. So the following week I go in and he's done the shoes. I tell him I'm not paying for the shoes, he can keep them I said to not do them. His reply was "okay, I'm not giving you your jacket back". So I wandered to the cop station across the hallway and told them someone was stealing from me and explained the situation. Cops told me they couldn't do anything. But, if I walked back into his store and stole something they'd arrest me.

So I went back and verbally tricked the guy into giving me everything back and I paid for the jacket and $20 for the shoes, which is an amount I would have agreed with. Idiot.