For many car owners, booting ranks with towing, parking tickets and snow emergencies as major annoyances. That could soon change for residents of Minneapolis if the City Council decides to ban parking boots.

An outright ban would end many of the problems that irritate car owners. No longer would car owners question the legitimacy of shifty-eyed booters in jeans and T-shirts. Car owners would also no longer need to worry about their cars being unfairly immobilized.

However, before implementing an all-out ban, other alternatives should be considered.

One of the most common complaints surrounding booting is confusion. People think they are parking legally when in fact an obscure sign in the shadows tells them otherwise. Spots should be more clearly marked.

Another common complaint is that the parking violators were only parked for a few minutes to run a quick errand and then were booted. The alternative to booting is towing, which is in some ways worse. It costs more, takes longer to get a car back and tow trucks can often damage parking lots.

Another advantage booting has over towing is that it deals much better with short-term illegal parkers. But, while these people did park illegally, do they really cause enough trouble to justify the problems and risks that allowing booting brings?

Most complaints stem from the potential booting abuse. Booters have little connection to the businesses they work for and rarely wear uniforms. As such, car owners are left with little, if any, recourse for illegitimate bootings of their cars.

There should be some compromise between parkers and the small businesses that benefit from the effectiveness of booting. In the very least, booting companies should be distinguishable from the creep down the street.

However, an outright ban should be considered if regulation of booting does not work.