Source: Beijing News
Author: Yang Mo
In recent days, Nanning City, Guangxi, has argued that the parking fee is too expensive.Many netizens report that they need to pay hundreds of yuan (RMB, the same below) for temporary parking in Nanning, and there are not reasonable fees for parking standards for road parking in Nanning.Underly such problems.
In response to this, the relevant local leaders recently went to some sections of Nanning to investigate the parking space management work in the road. It is required to continue to optimize and improve the management of parking fees to always put social benefits first; Nanning City Audit BureauThe audit team has been sent to the parking fee charging Fang Huiting Company for a special audit investigation; the Nanning Development and Reform Department stated that it will hold a road parking space for parking space parking service charging standard hearing.
On the evening of May 22, the Nanning People's Government studied and decided that Nanning Hui Parking Lotary Service Co., Ltd. stopped operations, stopped business, and accepted audit.Essence
As the attention is heating up, more doubts around the matter surface have surfaced.For example, the interface news survey found that although the roadside parking is hundreds of yuan a day, the net profit of the toll company in 2022 lost 12.08 million yuan.In addition, the toll company has signed a memorandum of cooperation with the local court, which is questioned by the outside world as a collection of parking fees in cooperation between the two parties.
Obviously, the incident has reached the current step, which is not just a problem of too expensive parking costs. There are many questions behind it to clarify.In this case, a series of official actions such as investigating the grass -roots research, the development and reform department organized hearing, and the audit department entered the toll company, which reflected the positive response attitude towards citizens' concerns and public opinion.Trustworthy guarantee.In particular, the cooperation between the toll -up company and the local court was urgently suspended, and the five relevant responsible persons were suspended, which also showed a serious attitude of the incident.
In fact, whether the parking fee is reasonable, whether the parking space is scientific, etc., which is closely related to the people's livelihood.For the questions in this area, you should take out the attitude of "doubtful and wrong, there are faults to change", and give the society and citizens a satisfactory explanation in a timely manner.
For example, the local temporary parking fee charging standard has been implemented continuously since March 2017, and the relevant local departments have emphasized that "compared with similar cities, the parking charges of mobile vehicles in Nanning are at a moderate level."The actual feelings of citizens are very different, so that they can cause collective spitting?This time, the local charging standard hearing will be held, and the real opinions of the citizens should be strived to salvage the citizens to provide accurate public opinion for subsequent price optimization adjustments.
In addition, the toll companies involved were complained that the charges were too high on the one hand, but on the other hand, they fell into huge losses. This phenomenon that seemed to be obviously contradictory also needed a reasonable explanation through a comprehensive audit.
You know, parking fees are only reasonable compensation for individuals to occupy public resources. The main purpose should also be used to better optimize the allocation of parking resources, promote parking lot construction, and further alleviate the difficulty of parking.In other words, parking fees should always be "always putting social benefits first."Then, between high charges and huge losses, where the money has gone, whether there is any illegal use or even the "medium -sized private sac", it has become a question of answering.
At the same time, the cooperation between local courts and toll companies is currently only characterized as "the principle of not in accordance with fairness and fairness". Whether there is still improper interests should also have a more detailed survey result explanation.Because this may directly involve the flow of funds of toll companies.In other words, the suspension inspection of relevant responsible persons should not be the end of the incident.
With the increase of urban private car ownership, whether the supply of parking resources is sufficient, and whether the collection of parking fees is reasonable is a matter of people's livelihood that is increasingly attracted to the people.This incident publicized a series of local citizens related to parking expenses, and relevant local departments also "received enrollment" in time. In fact, the systematic optimization and resolution of related issues provided a good opportunity.
As long as it can be promoted on the basis of checking problems, verifying responsibilities, and listening to public opinion, I believe that there can be a satisfactory process of handling, and also provides a positive reference standard for parking fees and management in other cities.
It is worth noting that after the incident, it also triggered the feedback from "ride" of netizens in other places.This may show that the parking space planning is unreasonable, the parking fee is expensive, and even the opaque view of the citizen may not be alone.Other places may wish to do it, to fully listen to the citizens' voices, and provide more cost -effective parking services for society.
