Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanistbot | Hacker News Reader

Before the outrage machine spins up, read to the end of the article:

> San Francisco ended up waiving the fines after the couple agreed to stop parking on the pavement. If the Craines build a cover for the paved property or a garage, officials said they can resume parking on it — in compliance with city code.

Edit: And just FYI, the kind of cover that sits in the driveway to make it compliant with code costs about $200 retail from a big box store.

View on HN

The point is that you shouldn't have to do that to park a drivable car on your own property.

Their car was not entirely on their own property, it was blocking the public right of way.

What right of way are you referring to? In this video, the car is clearly not blocking the sidewalk.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking...

It's a setback from the sidewalk they are violating and have been doing for close to 40 years.

> it was blocking the public right of way.

I don't know where their property line is precisely, but it simply isn't true that they're blocking the sidewalk. The back of their car is well clear of the sidewalk. It's not even close.

https://i.imgur.com/87lHdux.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4Ls9Upx.jpg

Furthermore, the city is waiving the fine if they build a roof over it. Would that make any sense if they were parking on the sidewalk? Building a roof over the sidewalk so they can continue to park on it? Obviously they're not on the sidewalk.

Seems the law was intended to stop people from parking several cars in their yard, like the ones who buy and refit cars for private resale. Maybe the law should be limited to one car per yard? Two? There's always the street.

Long term I would much rather see cars parked on property rather than on-street to the extent that it is reasonable and feasible. We don’t need laws that incentivize the opposite.

Me too. Unfortunately, most HOA's disallow this.

> decades-old city code to preserve neighborhood aesthetics

San Francisco disagrees with your criteria for what you "should have to do."

The rules literally predate the complainant's existence, why do you think they should be able to voluntarily move there and simply violate those rules?

I would still be outraged, and I'm not even in SF

Most HOAs have rules about parking cars on your property if they are visible from the street.

They're being fined by the city, not a HOA.

A City is a big HOA.

No, not even in an analogous way.

One is a monopoly corporation with State power and the other is an entity whose existence is owed to a private contract between neighbors.

City can have rules very similar to an HOA. I assume for the same reason around property values.

I don't think it's the "outrage machine" when to continue doing something you have done for thirty-some years you are suddenly required to spend thousands of dollars during a time when construction is at the height of inflated prices. That sounds pretty reasonable. The smallest amount of empathy would go a long way here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com