Unethical? Maybe. Uneconomical? No way

Tony Long of Wired can complain all he wants about how unethical selling your soon to be vacant anyway parking spot is, but the reality is that its exactly what cities want - the biggest buck for their parking spot. The only problem here is the money is going to the person who last used the spot, and not the city. If you think about it, they guy who just paid $20 to get a prime location downtown spot at rush hour might be real happy to sell it for anything close to $20 - heck maybe even more. The upshot is it doesn't cost him anything more than the difference, that could even be a profit.

So, there seems to be nothing to stop a spiraling private war of parking spot prices while Cities continue to get the parking meter average, if that. Its only natural to expect that cities around the government will soon consider if they too can make parking prices an auction based revenue center. After all, basic economics says that if there is demand and all parking spots are occupied then the price could be way higher than the nominal parking meter fee. Anything up to and beyond standard parking lot fees (after all, who the heck wants to turn down a conveniently located on-street spot for a parking structure spot and then have to walk blocks to their destination).

So Tony, no matter how unethical you think it is, trust me, its only a matter of time before cities start trying to tap into this potentially very lucrative market for auctioned on-street parking, vs. fixed rate limited availability spaces. But rest easy - the money will go back into city coffers unless they just sell off the rights to some private corporation for a fixed fee - hey nothing like ditching the responsibility for employing all those parking enforcement officers in exchange for revenue.