Fake look alike tickets part of money grab scam?

[Joe]

I assume that these tickets are being written on Central Parking's "Honor Lots," where you drop money in a box, instead of pay an attendant?

I would agree with other comments that trying to issue a ticket with *inflated* damages on an honor lot has a clear element of bad faith. The logical presumption is that Central Parking finds it more lucrative to issue increased fines, rather than pay for towing services. I doubt that a court would enforce any fine greater than the value of that lot's one day parking fee.

However, if Central Parking is issuing $10 tickets on a $10 all-day lot, then the tickets are basically valid and enforceable (if they bothered to sue you).

[Mary M]

Yeah, I used to work in parking too, but I also got a better job flipping burgers.

[Jack of Jacksonville]

I guess that you will be the famous "average Joe"

[D Neal]

The bottom line is that if you are parking on private property and there is posted signage, you have to play by the property owner or operator's rules.  If you don't like those rules, go park somewhere else.  Is that so hard to comprehend Jack?

[JohnQ]

Breaking the law to enforce "rules" is probably not a good idea.

[rocket22]

If these are not citations, but merely "overdue bills", why are they created with the same equipment the city uses to issue parking citations? No other company puts overdue bills on cars that are printed from a machine designed to issue citations. Central Parking needs to stop this deceitful and probably illegal practice.

Maybe if they invested in a gate they wouldn't have this issue... wait a minute... then they couldn't issue overdue parking ticket bills. hmm... what a bunch of crooks.

[Jack of Jacksonville]

With regard to posted signage and the like, if the business is closed, but access to the lot is unimpeded,  the legal conclusion is that because of the absence of gates or barriers, parking on the property at that time has no commercial value. In fact if there were commercial value and there were a supply of customers then there is no reason for the business to be closed. If, in fact there is some overarching reason that automobiles should be kept off of the property while the business is not in operation, then barriers should be erected. Using your logic, this surface parking lot could be declared an attractive nuisance, and as such could be ordered demolished. Oops, I'm sorry, there's nothing to demolish, its just a paved over vacant lot. Well then, so much for just waltzing in and stealing the pavement from the ground. Please explain to me how you could make a case for financial loss from taking up a parking space that nobody else wants in an unprotected vacant lot while the business is closed.  If you don't want people in your lot THEN PUT UP A FENCE!  I think that this issue would be a good basis for a class action lawsuit. The parking companies are really extremely foolish to deliberately wander into this minefield. The only reason that they have gotten away with this BS for so long is that everyone who is supposed to be looking out for the public's interests has been in a 40 year sleep.

[DNeal]

Congrats on posting a comment without the basis of your argument being insults and insulting the mentally handicapped.  What a display of class on your part.

[DNeal]

In parking the privilege of leaving your car on a specific property is the product.  Just because demand isn't high at specific times does not mean it should then be had for free.  Parking is a business!  To operate a parking lot you pay rent to the owner, carry insurance, maintain the surface and equipment, etc.  Most times the profit margin on a parking lot is less than 5-10%.  To pay the bills each customer needs to be a paying customer.  It's not that they don't want people on the lot, the lot is a product and customers are only welcome if they purchase the parking as the signage instructs.  The business never closes unless the signage states otherwise.  Large publicly traded companies like CPS, Standard Parking, Republic Parking have been operating like this for years.  It is extremely myopic for you to not think that every legal issue regarding this has not been settled in the courts yet.  Again, I must mention that if you do not wish to follow the rules posted you are welcome to find an alternative place to leave your car.  You have a choice to not frequent the business and to possibly park for free if you wish.  Don't blame them for operating a business just because you don't understand it.

[jack of jacksonvile]

Well, then, thank you for instructing me on the logistics of the parking industry. Now allow me to explain to you what the surface parking business is really about.

When there is an unadorned surface parking lot in a metropolitan area, it exists for one reason and one reason only. As a land bank. The owner of the property deliberately has no permanent structures upon the property so that it can be taxed as a piece of unimproved property. to say that a 5% margin of profit is realized is totally beside the point . the point is that the land is held fallow as the property values increase around it. the parking fees are only meant to pay the taxes on the land. Anything over and above that is pure gravy and not a part of the original business equation. In its most perfect iteration this strategy is a part of a larger plan called an assemblage, wherein a more or less contiguous property is dotted with these innocuous parking establishments, each one seemingly a separate corporate entity. At some point, an interceding building becomes available, at which time the parking operators purchase it, and then, having enough land footprint for a large building, proceed to construct that large building. these plans can typically take 20-30 years in a dense metropolitan area, but holding onto the land in the form of a surface parking lot costs nothing. Even insurance costs are minimal because there is no structure to insure, and land won't catch fire. I think that you are trying to imply that multi story parking structure and surface parking lots have the same business model, which is incorrect.

Taking your argument that parking is a product with value, then a reasonable person would take precautions to insure that that valuable product would not be stolen. For instance, if a person were to operate a jewelry store, that person would have his merchandise stored in a safe after business hours, that person would have a locked door at the entrance to the establishment, and that person would in all likelihood have a security system installed on the premises to alert the authorities in the event of criminal activity. All of these precautions would be rational and reasonable because of the presence of something of value that could be taken by thieves.

In the case of a vacant  and closed surface parking lot in the middle of a deserted downtown after normal business hours, there is nothing of value to be taken. There is practically zero demand for these spaces. the very reason that the establishment is closed is precisely because there is no demand for the service. it would be foolish to remain open, because the parking fees would not even cover the attendants salary.

in point of fact the parking resource existent in that surface lot is of such low value during non business hours that the property owner has chosen not to erect even the most perfunctory barrier to entry to the property, which would not be very costly at all. The conclusion to be drawn form this is that the property owner has come to the realization that paying to erect a barrier to protect something of zero value would be foolish and counterproductive.

As to your assertion that a service is being stolen, the problem with that thought process is that in order to steal something, it must first have value. The property owner has come to the conclusion that there is no value, otherwise he would be controlling access to the property.

So in summation, I think that you will need to enroll in Parking University for a brush up course in parking lot business model management 101.

[jack of jacksonvile]

Sorry that you feel insulted. But on the other hand, do you think it wise that anyone should put any credence in the opinions of a mentally challenged person with regard to the complex issues of property rights/civil law/adverse possession/theft of services/real estate development/taxation issues/etc? While i recognize that every person, including the mentally challenged is entitled to personal dignity, there are some matters that are just too complex for a person who is developmentally disabled to deal with, although you seem to be functioning on a very high level indeed.

[Jack of Jacksonville]

Isn't it marvelous that All matters relating to the parking industry and every aspect of their behavior has been previously litigated (in their favor I'm sure) as stated in a prior post. Perhaps we could employ the far ranging wisdom of the Jacksonville parking industry leaders to solve the remaining judicial and constitutional dilemmas facing our country, and perhaps extend that intuitiveness and brilliance to world political and diplomatic matters as well. While they are at it, how about looking into those 20,000 or so small asteroid size objects in space that are headed towards earth? Maybe we could tow them away?

[DNeal]

As usual your logic isn't too shoddy but you completely miss the point.  A parking lot is private property, operated by an entity for monetary gain.  Whether you assign value to the parking space at any given time during the day is immaterial, if you decide to park YOUR car on THEIR property you have chosen to play by their rules...so nonpayment will result in a parking notice, towing or whatever the sign says will happen.

The shrill nature of your commentary and your insistence on labeling anybody with a different view as "developmentally disabled" reveals you to be a complete rube and largely unfit for polite society. Odds are you are a starving artist slash intellectual with an inability to pony up the requisite parking fee and have ended up on the wrong side of a parking notice or two.

So, as the comic once said "here's your sign".  Go park free somewhere else.

[rocket22]

The real issue here is whether it is deceitful and/or legal for a company to issue a bill that masquerades as an official parking ticket. A slight change in the color of the envelope is clearly not a big enough distinction.

[Jack of Jacksonville]

Oh OK . So thats the real issue now.  What happened to all of the other red herring real issues that you previously raised? I guess that they have fallen by the wayside then.

The real issues are as follows:

1. You are incapable of comprehending how the legal system in this country operates.

2. The company that is issuing these phony tickets is doing so using deceptive and misleading practices. Why don't they clearly identify the fact that the citation is just a normal bill?

3. Your protestations to the contrary, your vociferous defense of these practices belies a deeper connection to the perpetrators of this sham than you admit to.

4. How can a commodity with zero demand be worth 4-5 X what it is worth when there is demand.

While you are at it, since you are a taxpayer, and therefore by extension a part owner of city land, why don't you go to the city parks and start issuing overdue rent bills to the vagrants that have taken up residence there?

If you check your previous post, you will see that I did not label you developmentally disabled. You labeled yourself as such, here is the quote:
**************************************************************************************************
"Jack
written by DNeal, Friday, March 09, 2007 at 06:24:52 PM

Congrats on posting a comment without the basis of your argument being insults and insulting the mentally handicapped. What a display of class on your part."

************************************************************************************************

I think that your assiduous refusal to address the core issues and reliance on repeating the mantra about parking being a business and private property and the like just serves to disguise the above core issues.

There are legal and legitimate ways to accomplish the same result, but the operators of these establishments have chosen to utilize deceptive means instead. Your assertion that all of these techniques have been tested in the courts, I'm sure that Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay said the same thing.

All they need to do is insert the following statement (or something like it): on their phony ticket:

"You are trespassing on private property. We have determined that the value of that theft of our private resource is 5X the normal going rate. Here is your bill for that amount. We have no legal authority to compel you to pay this bill other than going through the normal civil law procedures, such as small claims court. Just because we don't have a fence around our property and for all practical purposes it looks like an abandoned field, it is not. You are wearing off the lines on the pavement. This is an attempt to collect a consumer debt, and you have certain rights under state and federal law with regard to this debt"

There, something lie that. I am sure that once they read that, they will understand and pay right up.