quote: the city loses "countless thousands of dollars" due to people "piggybacking at the meter."

How do they know what they are losing?

I get the feeling that the writers in Wise Bread must all be city dwellers, because only in a large city would you be forced to park at a meter. In most smaller cities there might be meters in the core areas of downtown, but very often there is free on-street parking only two or three blocks away (and many of us could use the exercise). And small cities have often found (sometimes too late) that parking meters have contributed to killing their downtown - given a choice to drive to the downtown department store where you have to feed the meter (AND pay a ticket if you are inadvertently delayed in getting back to your vehicle) and going to the big box store on the outskirts of town - well, that would be a no-brainer for most people that were not born and raised in a big city.

I actually lived in a city that killed their downtown by refusing to remove the meters. They still had a thriving downtown when I first lived there, with a Woolwort's, a Kresge store, and a JC Penney's all on the same block. Then Kresge decided to build a K-Mart about a mile down the road, and of course it had free parking. The anal retentive city council, despite the pleas of local residents, some downtown merchants, and at least one of their own council members, not only refused to remove the downtown meters, but actually ordered new ones. The result is that today the downtown area is like a ghost town (even if you look at it on Google Earth, you see lots of open spaces where stores used to be) while the outlying areas of the city are going strong - there is even a large strip mall at the city limits that includes a Wal-Mart.

Anyone who is opposed to urban sprawl ought to see parking meters as the devil's own invention. It's not just that people are too cheap to feed the meters (and I will gladly admit to being in that category myself), but it's also the uncertainty of how long you may be inside a business. Run into an extra long line inside a store, or see a friend and have a chat, and suddenly you may find yourself with an expensive parking ticket. Why invite that hassle, when you can drive a bit further and often find better prices, and a bigger selection of merchandise?

And as for Chicago double billing for the same time, why would that surprise you? (Insert obligatory Chicago corruption joke here). Chicago really is one of the more corrupt American cities, in my personal opinion. My dad was raised there and it affected him deeply, to the point that he was afraid to speak out about any injustice or to get on anyone's bad side. You couldn't possibly pay me enough to live in Chicago, or any of the nearby suburbs.

It makes sense for the city, but I agree that technically, the city is not losing any money to piggybacking meter users. Imagine a sports team or concert venue trying to sell the same seat twice. There would be a lot of ticked off people!

In Portland Oregon they have already gone to the new machines. The nice part is you can take your time with you. The problem is they can track your car and even if you leave and come back later, tag it for parking too long on a block.

I'm really bummed to hear this and hope that the practice doesn't catch on in any more cities. In our small Pennsylvania city, I love to overpay the meter in hope that someone will be able to take advantage of the free parking after I vacate the spot. It's a small kindness, I know, but sometimes it's the little things that make a big difference in a person's day. Electronic meters would totally ruin that for me!

More money for city government, less hassle for consumers, and you get something to gripe about. Everyone wins!!

-danny