XPost: nyc.general, nyc.transit, nyc.motorcycles 
 XPost: alt.autos 
 From: address.in.sig@nyc.rr.com 
  
 On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:12:50 -0400, Mike Romain  
 wrote: 
  
 >Whomever wrote: 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> This is a parking lot for public use, privately owned. 
 > 
 >There is where you are wrong.  It is 'not' a parking lot for 'public' 
 >use, it is a private lot for customers only. 
 > 
 >>Yes, the 
 >> owners have a right to set the rules, but such heavy-handed 
 >> dealing with an unintentional first offense is certainly unfair 
 >> if not illegal. It is obviously intended to extort large sums 
 >> for trivial offenses. 
 > 
 >So you have decided to fill up a private parking lot maybe causing a 
 >'real' customer to go shop somewhere else because they couldn't park. 
 > 
 >The owners certainly don't think that is a 'trivial' matter or you 
 >wouldn't have been towed... 
 > 
 >> 
 >> I do. That's why I advocate that everyone take responsibility 
 >> for combatting and eliminating these unscrupulous practices - 
 >> beginning with boycotting CVS and other such avaricious, 
 >> captious property owners. 
 > 
 >Well, don't ever come to Toronto Canada because you will find 'no' place 
 >free to park as you want.  Either you pay for parking or get towed if 
 >you trespass on a 'private' for customers only parking spot. 
 > 
 >Some malls even have sections posted 'for shopping at 'X store' only 
 >with a time limit even.  If you are seen going somewhere else, it's tow 
 >truck time. 
 > 
 >They are 'all' like this up here. 
 > 
 >I know, I found out the 'hard' way same as you, except I had to go to 
 >the impound lot via taxi to get mine back. 
  
 One issue down here is that here the policies are inconsistently 
 enforced.  Some places are more lenient, possibly because they 
 generally have fewer problems.   I have never seen a car towed from a 
 store parking lot (except a handicapped spot); not that it doesn't 
 happen, of course, just that it's not something very obvious. 
  
 Assuming that the incident happened as Whomever described and he was a 
 CVS customer (although he didn't say that he actually bought 
 something) and was gone only for 20 min, what CVS did was nasty and 
 stupid, even if legal. 
  
 Just because they *can* do something doesn't mean that they should, it 
 depends on their objectives and whether they view customers as assets 
 or enemies.  If the purpose of the rule is to maintain space for 
 customers and keep non-customers off the property, this can be 
 accomplished without fining a customer who made a mistake.  I doubt 
 they would fine someone $160 who got into the express lane with 30 
 items. 
  
 One easy and painless method would be to put another sign on the entry 
 door with wording that indicates that the policy is an active one. 
 Why should they do that?  Again, it depends on their objectives.  If 
 they want to save their customers grief, they would make an effort to 
 do so.  If the purpose of the rule is to raise funds and antagonize 
 people, then they are doing the right thing. 
  
 Sue(tm) 
 Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)