COLUMN: Parking Services deceitful

Published: Thursday, January 30, 2003

Bill has a subscription to the local newspaper.

One morning he notices that his paper has not been delivered. "I'm terribly sorry," says the periodical representative, "but we only print so many papers, and, well, not everyone can get their paper all the time, right?"

Sally buys a movie ticket but before she can enter the theater, she is stopped by an employee. "I'm terribly sorry, ma'am, but the theater's full," he says. "When you bought a ticket for the five o'clock show, we didn't really expect you to show up until eight o'clock."

Do these instances sound absurd? Do they violate the contract entered upon by honest customer/business relations? Apparently UNM Parking and Transportation Services thinks that practices such as these are perfectly legitimate.

Tuesday's edition of the Daily Lobo (1/28/03) featured the article "Figures indicate student lots oversold." This article alluded to some very incriminating bits of information. Information that Parking Services would rather you didn't know.

Despite the balderdash the spin-doctors from Parking Services have come up with, the overselling of University parking lots spits in the face of ethical business relations.

Despite what Director Clovis Acosta says, overselling G Lot permits by 40 percent (2,650 permits for 1,899 spaces) doesn't qualify as increasing permit numbers "a little." And overselling South Lot by 119 percent (4,438 permits for 2,022 spaces) certainly is not "a little" either. (If 119 percent is now what passes for "a little" on campus, I'm going to ask the University to pay me "a little" bit more for my column this week.)

And despite what pseudo-scientific formulas and fuzzy logic Acosta and Associate Director Josh Kavanagh use to determine the conspicuously slanted statistics that determine the number of sellable permits, factoring "variations in class schedules, absenteeism, work and other factors" into the equation does not yield reliable results.

Think of how flaccid the aforementioned defense used by Parking Services sounds when all the fluff and sugar coating are stripped away. Parking Services claims to have actually devised a "formula" capable of predicting human behavior and effectively reducing potential parking conflicts. Sounds unbelievable? That's because it's poppycock.

(Spokespeople from Parking Services might say otherwise, but anyone who has had trouble finding a parking spot is familiar with the impotence of the current system.)

It's poppycock because humans are not robots; our actions are not deterministically paradigmatic. Our behavior is often random, spontaneous and sporadic. Parking Services does not have possession of a formula or methodology that can accurately predict human behavior nor will they ever attain a formula that will be able indicate, with certainty, that on March 15, at 12:30 p.m., Student X will pull out of G Lot, freeing up parking space for the other competitors in the parking jungle. Even if his class ends at 12:15 p.m., what's to say that Student X won't suddenly, for no apparent reason, walk across the street to R.B. Winnings and get a cup of coffee? And what's to say that after his cup of coffee, Student X won't go to Johnson Center of Zimmerman for a couple hours? And doesn't Student X have the right to do so while his vehicle waits in G Lot?

The bottom line is such: If a student pays nearly $100 for a parking permit, he should be guaranteed a parking spot regardless of how systematic his behavior is or whether he primarily attends night classes or day classes. If Student X buys a permit, he is entitled to leave his car in the parking lot as long as he sees fit.

But indicated by the casual attitude displayed by Acosta and Kavanagh, they apparently think that illicit and secretive dealings are not in bad faith. Rather, they're problems created and perpetuated by the students.

Paraphrased in the article is a statement from Kavanagh saying that causes of parking conflicts are illegal parking, atypical parking patterns and unpredictable surges of students to campus during peak times. Rather than confronting the real problems, it appears as though Parking Services would rather pass the buck and address superficialities.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to decipher the hackneyed circularity of Kavanagh's platitudes. Addressing the first issue, how many students are forced to park illegally because insufficient parking space prohibits them from parking in the designated area? If anything, Parking Services should sell less permits than spaces just in case anyone who doesn't have a South Lot permit decides to park there.

Second, the very fact that Kavanagh acknowledges the existence "atypical parking patterns" illustrates the frailty of Parking Service's current design. Atypical parking patterns are not a problem at all. Rather, they are symptomatic of the human condition; people are not as predictable as Acosta and Kavanagh would lead us to believe.

But despite invectives coming from numerous directions, chances are progress will be retarded. Parking Services will continue to cater to non-students (notice how the new parking structure being built in front of Johnson Center will only offer spots to faculty and visitors) while students continue to get shunned by the establishment that gladly takes their money.

In the meantime, if you've received a parking ticket because of lot congestion, petition it! A business, even a dishonest one, can only violate the customer so long as the customer doesn't complain.



Send graces and grunts to erichow@unm.edu.