Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by josephcsible | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

josephcsible·

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

View on HN

> 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?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com