My answer response (what I wrote) to the audience:

The invisible hand can park your car" is an intriguing solution for congested areas. Parking spaces will be minimal if your workplace is located in the center of the state's largest city. When you decide to look for a parking spot, you will make several rounds hoping that one will become available. Would you still make the same rounds if you knew the spaces would be significantly more expensive upfront? The supply and demand for parking spaces allow producers to raise parking meter prices. This will also discourage some of the people who would normally look for these parking spaces, as they are unwilling to meet the demands of this economic surplus.

As a result of raising meter prices, more parking spaces are available in densely populated areas. This will also help to reduce the amount of traffic caused by people looking for a parking spot. Technology is critical to the success of raising meter prices. With parking meters on every parking spot, cities can assess the opportunity cost of making this change. Even though there are more open parking spaces, they bring in more money per parking spot, making up for the difference in vacant lots. There would be no other way to accurately measure the amount of time and money people spend on parked cars if parking meters did not use technology.

The question in case they ask me "what and how do I respond?"

Do you think there should be an upper limit, like $6 per hour, or should be let the price be dictated by the market forces of demand and supply? What is happening to producer surplus as the price is manipulated up or down? Which of the ten principles apply to this article?