Rectifying Inefficiencies Caused By "Fairness" #1

[David Sklansky]

One of the thoughts that flits through my mind a lot concerns laws or rules that that are designed to prevent a person from being subjected to an unfair situation. Many of these rules force many other people to bear a burden that in the aggregate, adds up to a lot more than the total amount of burdens they prevent. When this situations occurs, I believe there are opportunities to be creative in such a way that more people could be satisfied.

I'll use as example #1 "Handicapped Parking". Although some would disagree, I have no trouble with society going out of its way to insure that handicapped people are given a bit of extra help to get them through their daily lives. So the idea of setting aside the closest parking spaces for them is OK with me. What bothers me though, is the fact that the vast majority of these spaces go unused. Just in case a handicapped person comes along.

One solution would be to reduce the number of such spaces. But this seems wrong since it will sometimes force handicapped people to be burdened just so that a few able bodied people can save a few steps. A better solution, I think, would be to designate about half of these spots as available to patrons who are willing to pay a lot of money to use them. Perhaps a dollar a minute with a five dollar minimum. Where much of this money is used to help handicapped people in other ways. Ways that for most, would be a lot more important than having 100% certainty that a parking space is close.

The details of my idea would of course have to be worked out. But the bottom line would be that a lot of money would be contributed to handicapped causes by rich, lazy, or generous people; while the average person would remain unaffected. The price for these spots would be set in such a way that the demand for them would not be too high or too low, perhaps changing due to circumstances. I'm guessing some type of parking meter would be used. The downside of course, is that every once in a while a handicapped person would be inconvenienced for a few minutes. But if my idea was implemented well, I think few would mind.

[augie_]

What amount would you fine those who park in the spot without feeding the meter?

[fraac]

here

[ALawPoker]

Haha. That's pretty good. The problem though is that most people don't necessarily care about actually helping handicapped people. The current policy is more a reflection of how many spaces it takes for us to feel good about ourselves, and not necessarily how many spaces are actually an optimal solution.

Please don't sacrifice my righteousness in an attempt to actually make things better. This is unacceptable.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
A better solution, I think, would be to designate about half of these spots as available to patrons who are willing to pay a lot of money to use them. Perhaps a dollar a minute with a five dollar minimum. Where much of this money is used to help handicapped people in other ways. Ways that for most, would be a lot more important than having 100% certainty that a parking space is close.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize, I suspect, that the government would start reducing funding from other sources and replace it with the funds raised by the parking fees. So the funding to help the handicapped would eventually be the same as before the parking fees started. So people would be, in effect, just paying higher taxes.

Also, they would eventually increase the number of "handicapped" spaces to increase revenue. And they would also increase the fees for the same reason. And so on. Remember the original purpose for state lotteries. Not only is the money not all used for education, its one of the motivations why poker isn't legal in more places.

How about they first do away with all those supposed temporary tolls they erected for construction projects. Then maybe we can think about trusting them after they make good on old promises.

Since you brought up handicapped spaces, I would like to make an observation. There are two types of people who have the permits that shouldn't. The first is obvious. It's those who finagled the permit who don't really deserve one. The second is many who technically qualify for one but would be better off not using it. By that I mean they should park on the far side of the parking lot and get some exercise walking. That exercise will do many of them more good than parking closer will make their life more easy. In fact, after a while they may find they are less handicapped, and their quality of life might improve.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

You should ask some questions about rectifying unfairness caused by efficiencies.

I would compare it the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't believe that it is possible to be totally "efficient" and totally "fair" (unless you adopt the axiomatic belief that the most efficient arrangement is inherently the most fair).

I suspect that the proper allocation of handicapped parking spots should be based on the expected demand for parking at peak times, with the tradeoff of being "fairer" during peak hours and being less "efficient" during non-peak hours. If this is true, then during non-peak times, you should see more handicapped spots go unused.

One possible "creative" arrangement is to have some spots that are reserved for the handicapped only during certain hours.

[chezlaw]

How about the parking charge for all spaces being a function of ease of access, and everyone getting a payment threshold allocated to them depending on how handicapped they are.

chez

[pismeyer]

David,

I agree with your analysis of the HC parking spaces not being used the majority of the time. Alot of the larger and newer parking lots actually take up to two times the normal amount of space for one HC spot and essentially they become the "lazy" drop-off area for shopping carts (that's anoher discussion).

Now, let's say it's the busy holiday shopping season and the patrons that are willing to pay a premium have occupied all of the HC spots in the parking lot. Along comes someone that requires the use of one of the spaces because of a legitimate disability. This person will be very upset for the entire duration they are waiting when a parking space finally opens. Not to mention the field day the ADA Council will have on this particular store if a lawsuit is filed.

Most of the time HC parking spots are located nearest the entrances to the stores. Newer planing and design changes to parking lots have seen timed (30 minute or less) spaces provided to patrons that are directly adjacent to HC spots thus eliminating the need for capable person to occupy a space designated for the handicapped.

These are the spaces that should have a price on them not the handicapped spaces. The handicapped people already have paid with their own limitations they deal with daily.

P

[andyfox]

"There are two types of people who have the permits that shouldn't. The first is obvious. It's those who finagled the permit who don't really deserve one. The second is many who technically qualify for one but would be better off not using it. By that I mean they should park on the far side of the parking lot and get some exercise walking. That exercise will do many of them more good than parking closer will make their life more easy. In fact, after a while they may find they are less handicapped, and their quality of life might improve."

One thing we might do, then, is have two types of handicapped spaces and permits. A small amount of "A" types for the "truly" handicapped. And a second for those who are not as bad off. When I had back surgery, my doctor asked me if I wanted a handicapped sticker. I declined, because I could get around, albeit with some degree of difficulty, and the walking was indeed therapeutic, both physically and emotionally. I know far too many people here in L.A. who have handicapped stickers who really don't need them. This "B" class of handicapped parking spaces would be ideal for David's proposal.

[Zeno]

I like the title; it almost has a Confucian tone (except the use of a numeral). In that vein, the use of additional rules, regulations, or added layers of complexity under enforceable laws to “rectifying inefficiencies caused by fairness”, is ultimately self-defeating. The use of monetary utility to justify the existence of partial unfairness and to, I suppose, assuage misplaced guilt, is of practical interest but completely unnecessary. There should not be any handicapped parking set-asides at all. In a properly ritualized society they would be a complete oddity and thought silly and uncivilized.

Le Misanthrope