In general, for most streets and conditions, I agree with you. There’s one situation that needs careful treatment in this regard, and that is on-street parking in front of shops. You want people to be able to use on-street parking as part of a “park-once” strategy, where they can leave their car in one place for several hours while they walk to various destinations in the neighborhood.

On the other hand, those parking spots in front of shops are valuable real estate. I’ve seen estimates that each one represents $2-3,000 in extra income for the store it’s in front of. At the least, store owners want to discourage commuters and employees from parking all day in those spots.

So maybe instead of “encouraging turnover,” a better way of describing the goal would be “discouraging all-day parking.” In Redwood City, that’s done by pricing parking in front of shops at the highest rate, and providing lower-cost alternatives elsewhere (and on other modes). In Redwood City, there is no time limit on parking spaces.

I’m not sure what sort of turnover is in mind here. One would think the last thing you’d want to do is force someone to pointlessly drive a few blocks to a “fresh” parking space because they’re in the city for a few hours but are only allowed to park in one place for 1 or 2. The last thing I’d want to do is park more than once. The rest should all be walking.