Hacker News Reader

Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

> No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover

I don't get this argument. If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? Is the perpetrator required to 'retain' something for it to be theft? If I'm caught while stealing and drop the item, "I just moved it without the owners consent" probably isn't going to cover me.

> If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't.

Clearly I'm not especially acquainted with the law, but when the government exercises eminent domain doesn't it have to go through some legal process? And my understanding is that owners must be compensated for the property that is taken under eminent domain.

View on HN

As a followup on the "ostensibly being done for the public good" part, the article describes the courtesy towing practice in a way that sounds like it's sometimes for private uses: "moves vehicles from legal parking spots for special events, construction or emergencies". I have to assume that the organizers of those special events or the firms involved with that construction have paid for some permit which is meant to give them exclusive use of the street parking, in which case it sounds like the public good is only indirectly from the revenue from those permits. Apparently the ability of municipal governments to exercise eminent domain solely for the purpose of increasing its revenue was only established by a court case in 2005. So in 2004 would you have agreed that courtesy towing for a private special event or private construction project was possibly theft? Or at least possibly a 5th amendment violation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

> If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right?

No, not if you don’t intend to deprive the rightful owner of it (although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

> Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property

Thank you for highlighting the key distinction and referencing a source with more information.

> although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent

So it sounds like in the courtesy towing context, the city claims that it doesn't have any intent to deprive people of the use of their property, but it's behaving in a way which a reasonable person would totally anticipate would lead to people being unable to use their property (by dropping vehicles in locations which are never communicated to the owner).

Temporarily depriving somebody of their property counts, these towings are clearly theft.

The actually interesting legal question revolves around who (if anybody) is liable in this situation.

Do you have a source for that? My googling suggests the opposite.

Sorry, I should have been more clear: it often isn't "theft" (or "larceny"), legally speaking, but it usually is some lesser crime under a name like "unauthorized use/borrowing" or "misappropriation".

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have a law that covers unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, so I can practically guarantee it is illegal.

In Philadelphia I believe the relevant statue is https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... - although I'm actually unsure if towing would count as "operating" here? That's a question for their lawyer.

That's what I was thinking. I'm sure a good lawyer could argue that, if they have a reasonable way of informing the owner, but they don't do so, they are in fact intending to deprive them of the vehicle.

IANAL and haven't read the laws of Philly but it seems pretty obvious that moving your property off a public street is not considered theft.

But if a private individual did that, surely you would consider it theft? So where's the line, why's it OK for a private company but not a private individual? If I'm self employed and registered as my own company, can I do it then?

The private company versus individual has nothing to do with it. The private company / individual is acting on behalf of the state, and the state provides itself the authority to take your property without your consent.

I think a better example than eminent domain would be civil asset forfeiture (at least as practiced in the US). Although I guess a lot of people would say that is theft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com