This is probably just my economist self having trouble understanding something obvious. But…why in the world is it “a thing” to harass parking officers?  As in Keene, NH, in this story. There is not enough parking, particularly not close to stuff where you want to be.  We have to ration it somehow.

We could sell parking spaces, permanently, and let folks rent them out.  But then they would be private property and parkers would have to pay “rent” if they wanted to park. Maybe it’s morally unacceptable for the state (or city, in this case) to own property.

But they do.  Given that, it just makes sense to charge for the right to use the property.  I assume that the Free State folks would not object to charging rent if the parking spaces were privately owned.  Given that these are subject to congestion (if I park in a space, you can’t), there is a shadow price or deadweight loss to my leaving my car there longer than I need to.

But if we force a “free” price then I will undervalue the space, and overuse it. So, the parking meter (1) rations access, (2) provides information about opportunity cost, and (3) attracts revenue, based on voluntary (you don’t have to park) user fees.  Of all the stuff the state does, this seems pretty innocuous.

As I have written before, it’s having “free” parking that’s wasteful, but of course I may just be saying that because I’m rich. What am I missing, folks?