Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Bureaucrats Don't "Think Different"
owlgorithm writes "Apple's new store in Montreal has three parking meters on the street in front of it. The city is in the middle of a campaign to reduce downtown parking. In Apple's ever-conscientious attempt to improve design, they offered to reimburse the city for the parking meters and their revenue if the city would remove them. Answer: Non — because 'We've never done it before, so we can't.'"
SlAshDot Guffaw Dept.
You know it's a Slow newsday when "We've never done it before, so we can't." by Montreal burros constitutes news because it includes Apple.
Certainly they can't be ... nooooo ... can't be ... they're suggesting they've never accepted money to
change the way something is done or not done? What next, Gérald Tremblay caught on camera
stating he's giving up his Treo?
Next up: Microsoft's Power bill - 10,000 PC's running at the same time, is Redmond driving global warming?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The meters are there to reduce the number of parked cars, not for revenue. Apple is offering money, not a solution to overcrowded streets.
And this is a story how? Why should a city remove meters because the business is Apple. If Apple doesn't want to deal with the meters they shouldn't have put the store there.
problem solved
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
he could also stand there looking all sullen and geek chic.
This is not news. This is not funny. This is not even mildly interesting. Check the Firehose again editors -- there must be a few tidbits in there that don't go against your personal beliefs and would make better stories to put up front than this lame pos.
The quote "We've never done it before, so we can't." isn't attributed to anyone in the article, I highly doubt it was ever said. Sounds to me like the writer injecting some op-ed in to this supposed news piece. Should it really be cited on /.'s front page in a way that makes it sound like that was an actual reason given?
Now that it's published, they had better hope they never get their way. Bill Gates will pay someone to park some nasty clunker right in front and do various offensive and repulsive things. If you don't believe me, just look at the posts around here.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
That "news" story isn't quoting Montreal bureaucrats. It's putting words in their mouths to make a (stupid) point. All the writer knows is that the city refused - they don't actually know why, and there's no sign they actually asked anyone.
Parking meters, as the writer did note, are designed not to collect a little revenue, but to keep parking turning over quickly so more people can share fewer parking spots. "No Parking" signs don't replace them where they're needed (like in front of stores like Apple's) because parking is appropriate there, just not unlimited.
This is a stupid story by a stupid writer. Published by a stupid Slashdot editor.
--
make install -not war
No, that's more cars on the roads, circling around in search for a parking spot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not sure you should judge Canadians by the actions of the Québécois. They are distinct, after all, and should be laughed at as a separate group.
I can hear it now:
:)
"When you join government, you get st00pid!"
"Bureaucrats can't see past their own red taped noses!"
It's not confined to just government, folks. Business has it's fair share of inefficiency and stupidity. My favorite example of this was when I had a long contract at a Fortune 500 company away from home. They paid for an apartment for me to live in, but I saw no reason why I should expense my meals, even though it was allowed. My reasoning was, "I'm going to eat whether I'm here or at home. Why should they pay for it." This saved the company a few thousand dollars over six months. At one point, though, I wanted to expense something odd: boarding my cat for the weekend while I traveled. My reasoning was, "I have no friends here who would take care of the cat, unlike at home, so the company should pay." The refused, saying it wasn't justifiable, even though it was only $50 or so. After that I expensed all of my meals.
To add insult to injury, the entire 3 year long project I was involved in was shelved and started over soon after that, wasting around $60 million. This wasn't the first (or last) time I saw a business waste millions of dollars. I think of these things any time a libertarian says, "Business can do things more efficiently!"
TFA is an editorial, not an article. It is the opinion of the Montreal Gazette. No bureaucrat ever said "We've never done if before, so we can't." The quote was made up to make a point in the editorial. It's not real.
If you want to read the real article, go to the source (sorry, it is en francais. Run it through the Babelfish if you are desperate.)
I don't disagree that the city is being a bit obstinate, but I can see why they wouldn't want to change streetfronts on Apple's request. If they do it for them, they'll have to do it for every other downtown storefront. Besides, and I am not exaggerating, the $35,000 Apple is promising probably wouldn't even cover the cost of tasking a union city crew to remove the meters, rebuild the sidewalk and put the meters someplace else.
It is ironic that they very objectives that municipalities set for programs of Smart Growth very often result in precisely the opposite effects, increasing or exacerbating the undesirable elements that they seek to control. For example, in Portland Oregon they have filled in left turn pockets with planter boxes, installed "speed tables" and other "traffic calming" obstacle courses (if you were in a hurry would you be happy about having to slow down to navigate an obstacle course in your vehicle? Would that make you calmer once you exited the course or would you romp on the gas in anger and frustration to make up for lost time as you entered the freeway or the main traffic corridor?), removed parking spaces, provided too few parking spaces, and done many other misguided things in pursuit of the goal of "getting people out of their cars". After 15+ years what has been the result of these policies? Snarled traffic, increased traffic, traffic idling in slow speed stop and go driving, increased smog from more vehicles operating in the most inefficient speed and rpm range for the internal combustion engine. Basically every problem that they hopped to solve with their "Smart Growth" has in fact been made worse or even created new problems (i.e. dramatically increased smog) on top of the old ones. Portland is *worse* off because of Smart Growth and it would have been better off if they simply done nothing or at least abstained from some of the more no sense recommendations of the "Smart Growth" activists and consultants.
It all boils down to basic economics. People will do what they want and live how they want and you cannot tell them, "The elite smart growth planners are going to tell you what it is that you *really* want (i.e. less parking) and then enforce it upon you against your will." That type of centrally planned, command and control economic or social policy has not worked and will never work. It is the height of hubris and arrogance to presume that you can change other people's lives and preferences through mandates, laws, and enforcement actions. If people cannot work within the system then they find ways around it and the economic results of the workarounds are often *highly* suboptimal resulting in a Dead Weight Loss to the economy.
from TFA: he idea of parking meters, besides revenue, is to keep people from parking on the street all day. The borough could do that simply by making the three-car stretch into a No Parking zone. The city is, after all, trying to reduce the number of parking spots downtown.
That is, the author of the article is making some wild-ass guess about it. The Montreal Gazette is hardly a bastion of responsible journalism. Plus, he's obviously wrong - the city of Montreal never puts up one no-parking sign when 3 or 4 will suffice.
Besides all that, I fail to see how it would make much difference either way, given that the rue Sainte Catherine is already a parking lot most of the time.
"We've never done it before, so we can't."
There is no source for the quote in TFA, and TFA is the only article I can find on the subject with the quote. I believe this is what we call "hyperbole."
Now why wouldn't the city want to play ball? As TFA and the summary say, the entire point of the parking meters is to reduce downtown parking to begin with; it's not about the revenue, it's about the traffic (always a problem in major metropolitan centers built well before the invention of the automobile). If anything, we should be applauding the local government here for not taking the money and instead sticking by their original intent. All too many such governments would have taken the money and turned the other way.
If anybody is failing to "think different," it's Apple themselves, who are trying to take the tried-and-true easy way out of essentially bribing a government to get their way. Something different would be to find a way to encourage all those hipster Apple fans to come to their store by, say, public transportation (save gas, ease traffic congestion, etc.).
Would the story have the same "Boo government, yay capitalists!" slant if we were talking about a Sony store?
If the city officials allow Apple to do this, then they must allow other companies to do this as well. So, imagine if a significant number of companies pay for this "privilege", and the number of street-parking slots is reduced by 50% (or whatever fraction you deem to be significant), can you see the problem this would cause?
Stupid article and stupid writer.
It would be nice if they could demonstrate that other cities have accepted such an offer - keep in mind that the Gazette is Montréal's leading English language, right-leaning paper. The sense that they are also delivering a slight poke to the French spoken city officials is unmistakable.
After 15+ years what has been the result of these policies? Snarled traffic, increased traffic, traffic idling in slow speed stop and go driving, increased smog from more vehicles operating in the most inefficient speed and rpm range for the internal combustion engine.
Frankly, my friend, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you're so pampered as to think that Portland traffic is ever "snarled."
Try driving in Atlanta for a couple of years before complaining about traffic. Portland is paradise in comparison; I tell you this from experience. You don't know what snarled or stop and go driving are like until it takes you 45 minutes to go 10 miles on a 8- to 10-lane interstate every damned day.
I've been shocked by the total lack of aggression in drivers here. They usually drive at or below the speed limit (like the law requires) instead of tailgating and trying to run off the road anyone doing less than 10-15 over the speed limit like they do in Atlanta. People here are also a LOT friendlier about letting people over to merge. As much pooh-poohing as you do of traffic calming devices, I seriously suggest that you live in an area that doesn't have them before dismissing the idea that traffic engineering can modify the behaviors of drivers.
There is a VERY marked difference in aggression between Portland and Atlanta, and I suspect that difference in how traffic is engineered here has something to do with it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
> Not bad for Babelfish.
Pretty good, exactly. Sounds just like a Quebecker trying to speak english!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?