no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

In a Free Market, Who Will Build the Parking Lots?

October 12th, 2010

Yesterday evening I caught a random comment from local news anchor Stephen Clark, lamenting (perhaps?) a proposal to increase parking meter fees in Royal Oak, Michigan.

A dollar an hour to park in royal oak..I bet businesses love that…not! (via Twitter)

If I had my druthers, the city would stop collecting property taxes and say to all the people and businesses: “You figure it out. The roads, the parking lots, the meters, they’re all yours now. Do with them (or not) as you wish.” So, this is not a defense per se of the proposed increase.

royal oak parking meter in front of Ed Retardy boutique

With that qualifier out of the way, I responded with a little Econ 101 knowledge: especially on a Thursday-Friday-Saturday evening, they could easily charge $3-4 per hour that much and there would be no shortage of people willing to pay. This is fundamental economics: when the price of a good or service is set lower than the market will bear, there will be a shortage of that good or service vis à vis the number of people who want to consume that good or service.

If parking were nominally “free”, it would be even more difficult to find a parking spot. Right now, parking is inexpensive, at fifty cents per hour during normal business hours and it’s still very difficult to find a parking spot. This is the number 2 reason why I don’t visit Royal Oak.

The number 1 reason is a preponderance of douchebags. I think the douchebags are attracted by low parking fees.

Stephen responded that, “As a rule, merchants resist parking price increases… they have a tendency to drive away business, but your point is well-taken.”

The notion that these customers (the same people who gladly pay $6 for a pint of beer and $190 for a pair of jeans) are going to be off-put by a 25-cent per hour increase in the meter fees is as retarded as a football bat, by the way.

Let me rephrase that: The business interests downtown oppose any change to this fee structure which would result in them bearing a greater amount (i.e., their fair share) of the burden for maintaining public parking lots in the city. The taxpayers in the City of Royal Oak are providing corporate welfare to the businesses in Royal Oak, predominately in the city’s downtown district. It is a direct transfer of wealth from the people who live and pay taxes in Royal Oak, to the people who only visit Royal Oak.

In a free market, there would be no taxpayer subsidized parking lots just like there would be no taxpayer subsidized bank bailouts, because there would be no taxpayers in the first place! How the parking situation might resolve itself, if I had my druthers (see above) is anyone’s guess. Here are a few options:

  • Parking lots could be strictly private: belonging to a person or group of people who may (or may not) choose to explicitly charge for their use.
  • An independent parking lot would probably charge daily or hourly fees to maintain the parking lot.
  • A restaurant might charge a daily or hourly fee for entry, and validate the charge (or a portion thereof) for any restaurant patrons, or a restaurant might keep the lot for patrons only, building the cost of maintenance/upkeep in to their menu prices, just like they do with the amortization costs of the establishment proper.
  • Or parking lots could be communally owned and operated — perhaps by a group of neighbors/citizens, but more likely by a group of commercial establishments with less absolute need for parking lots may pool resources together and establish shared lots, perhaps managed by the group or by a third party.

But instead, we have this pseudo-marketplace where the state or city zoning board sets (more-or-less arbitrarily) a uniform price for all places & times. The fact of the matter is that, although business interests may unanimously oppose fee increases, raising the parking fee is not necessarily “bad for business” or “bad for downtown Royal Oak”. The effects either way are probably de minimis, but I would argue that at least on principle of basic economic theory, subsidizing parking lots is a harmful distortion to market prices.

The results: parking is a clusterfuck during weekends and high-traffic events, and there are too many idiots wearing Ed Retardy jeans and fist-pumping all night long in sunglasses after dark.

My Take on the Pure Michigan Advertising Campaign

May 14th, 2010

In 2009, the State of Michigan spent approximately $12M for a national advertising campaign to promote tourism to Michigan, called Pure Michigan. Currently, the State legislature is considering reducing the funding for the program to only $5M for 2010. From a State budget perspective, this seems silly since the results of third-party research provided by Longwoods International suggest that the program was wildly successful. In sum, the findings suggest that the Pure Michigan campaign induced about two million incremental trips to Michigan, $600 million worth of revenue for Michigan businesses, and added $41M in tax revenue to the State’s coffers.

So, how can I possibly be opposed to such a program? Because it’s funded by taxes, silly (i.e., legalized theft, extortion). And I am fundamentally opposed to all taxes, except for maybe some sort of “asshole tax”. Yes, if they could find a way to levy taxes only on people who are total assholes, I could be OK with that.

Other than the very vague description given in the press release, I know nothing about the study or its method. What I do know from years of experience in the field, is that “online consumer panels” pose many serious challenges to market researchers in terms of obtaining representative sample (they skew significantly younger), avoiding ‘professional survey takers’, etc. So, take it for what it’s worth.

Distributed Costs, Concentrated Benefits

One popular argument is simply the magnitude of the problem an. Spend $12M to generate $600M in revenues. I understand the difficulties in organizing competing businesses in some sort of consortium, but seriously this should be a no-brainer. “Difficulty” in organizing is simply not a valid justification for taxing people. It’s “difficult” to make a No.2 pencil — so difficult in fact that nobody really knows how its done — but we have them anyways. It’s “difficult” to raise money to build a factory to manufacture vehicles, but people do it all the time. Lots of things are “difficult” and require imagination, ingenuity, and the sacrifice of risk. But that doesn’t justify taxing people.

At the very least, it seems like an opportunity for dominant assurance contracts or real-life community-building. Less “competition” and more “cooperation”, if you will.

And it clearly fails the popular “public goods” test.

Macro explanations for the micro boon

Although it is not clear whether the authors are suggesting that the macro-economy had a positive or negative impact on these numbers, they do qualify the research, stating:

These results should also be considered in light of the economic conditions in the United States in 2009 which had a constraining effect on travel and traveler spending

In my grossly uninformed opinion, against the backdrop of a faltering economy, 2009 was probably a down year overall for vacations in the traditional sense, as families abandoned luxurious plans in favor of the “stay-cation.” It certainly seems plausible that the “stay-cation” phenomena could skew midwest travel, as people substitute Michigan vacations for the more extravagant vacation they might take under different economic circumstances.

Marginal consumption, and small margins

The hospitality industry operates on small margins. A fortunate restaurant might increase its sales by 10% but net profits increase maybe a fraction of a 1% (or less). This isn’t the sort of revenue that enables capital-intensive investments. It’s not creating long-term growth opportunities, it’s simply moving finished goods from one place to another.

Most of this spending is marginal, and purely consumption; i.e., it doesn’t really matter whether the gas station sells 1M gallons of gas in 2009, or 1.001 million gallons of gas. It doesn’t matter if a restaurant sells one extra steak dinner or one single extra beer. That is, it requires no additional labor, brings no unemployed people in to the labor force, and generally does not measurably improve the lot of anyone already in the labor force.

Seen and unseen

Every dollar funneled into, or otherwise diverted to the tourism industry is a dollar which can’t be used on other productive endeavors. So to some extent, tax-funded promotions like this encourage the mis-allocation of productive resources (labor and capital) in favor of the hospitality industry, and at the expense of every other sector of the economy.


The only palatable argument for such a program is if its used to offset resident’s taxes. So, if MI plans to reduce their property taxes by the net of $29M, or if they plan on refunding $29M worth of sales taxes paid by MI residents, I guess it’s not such a bad thing. But that’s not how it operates.

Instead, it is a direct transfer of wealth, corporate subsidies, if you will. Use $12M worth of money taken from taxpayers (an extremely distributed cost) in order to fund an Advertising/Marketing campaign to support business interests which, although still distributed, are significantly more concentrated than ‘taxpayers’. Hey, it’s better than spending their own money, and coming up with their own solutions to the problems they face.

Ad spending, and private business revenues/profits is not a public good which would arguably justify some sort of redistribution, and since it’s not a public good, we have to reject the Reagan-esque, trickle-down-economics argument which is mostly bullshit anyways.


I swear when I was walking the dog yesterday evning I had one more even better response, but I lost that train of thought and it hasn’t come back yet…

Michigan had $23B worth of tax revenue in FY2009 — in all honesty $41M is like pissing on a forest fire.

Styrofoam Cups

March 3rd, 2010

At my office, a few months ago they discontinued styro-foam cups, which means I have to remember to bring in a coffee mug each morning, even if I don’t prepare a cup of home brew. Kind of inconvenient.  What’s really inconvenient is after like 11am, when I don’t want coffee.

I want some water.

I can’t put water in my mug, because after you’ve tainted a stainless steel mug with coffee, everything tastes like coffee.

I could walk to the drinking fountain every few minutes, but that’s not terribly productive. Or I could walk to the vending machine and purchase a bottle of water. But that means I’m wasting money, and to be honest, a plastic bottle is about as recyclable as a styro-foam cup, isn’t it?

This was ushered in under an “environmentally friendly” memo. I suspect it’s really a “cost-cutting” policy.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics