5 ms·

Things currently occupying space on Manhattan sidewalks: 1. Garbage and recycling bags on trash day 2. Restaurant and bar advertising signs 3. LinkNYC WiFi t

Things currently occupying space on Manhattan sidewalks: 1. Garbage and recycling bags on trash day 2. Restaurant and bar advertising signs 3. LinkNYC WiFi towers 4. Restaurant and grocery store food deliveries, which are literal pallets of food just left out on the sidewalk for long periods of time in the morning. 5. Bikes 6. Outdoor restaurant seating I’ve seen one of these little doghouse things and they seem useful enough for the few square feet they occupy. At least as useful as any of the above given the number of dogs in the city.

coherentpony 8y ago
The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two cease-and-desist letters, the owner of the company ignored them and continued to expand the company. The article phrases it as 'being unfazed by the letters'. One could also phrase it as willful neglect.
- booleandilemma 8y ago
  Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.
- ryanworl 8y ago
  The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
    - ryanworl 8y ago
      Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
      - manicdee 8y ago
        There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
        makomk 8y ago
        If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
        Bjartr 8y ago
        That's untrue, they can petition the law be changed. It's a harder hoop than just getting an existing permit, but to say there's literally no avenue forward is disingenuous.
      - ori_b 8y ago
        > Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? In the country where I live, we have something called 'private property'. Conveniently, it is generally not located in outer space. You can pay to purchase it, and then you can put whatever you want on it (within reason).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.
- Buge 8y ago
  She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.
- tacostakohashi 8y ago
  The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.
- gumby 8y ago
  > The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
    - mrep 8y ago
      God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.
bunderbunder 8y ago
This feels tricky to me. Sidewalks are public right-of-way, and an important piece of transportation infrastructure, and there is a civic interest in ensuring that they can, first and foremost, be used for that purpose. In a city as dense as NYC, that is naturally going to lead to rules limiting what can use the space, and then those rules are naturally going to be given exceptions for things like sandwichboards and sidewalk cafes and newspaper stands, because everyone wants to have those things, too. But that's going to be done by creating specific exceptions, which may require a permit, in the interest of not throwing it to the wolves all over again. Which means, in turn, that there are always going to be uses that at least some people like, which don't fit cleanly into any of the official categories of exemption. I don't think there's any perfect answer here. Lean too far in one direction, and you get news articles like this complaining about entrepreneurship being obstructed. Lean too far in the other, and you've got people who use wheelchairs being unable to easily navigate their neighborhoods.
- lgregg 8y ago
  There is a reason why the city licenses exist though. In Chicago, if I recall sandwich boards can cost up to $30k per year. I'm not saying this dog house needs that license but perhaps there should be a fee if you want to put something in front of your store that blocks the sidewalk to pay for the additional inspections needed. NYC also fines for things out of code on the sidewalk. https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guide https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guid...
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I don't see a specific line item for sandwich boards on the publicly posted fee schedule[1]. But $30,000/year is a good 2 orders of mangnitude more than anything else on that list. [1]: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/businesslicenseforms/pwu/PWU_Fee_Structure-v.02.24.2014.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/bu... edit: Looks like they're just straight-up illegal. Some aldermen (including one who's pretty good at getting things done) are working on that: https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-board-signs-are-illegal-in-chicago-they-shouldnt-be-aldermen-say/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-boa...
dominotw 8y ago
I would say around 20% of sidewalks in chicago are not handicap accessible. Tons of sidewalks are built without on ramps. Poorer areas are way worse than others. Its shocking to see this is pass. I am planning to take pictures and report to the city, but i have no hope anyone would care.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Just hire disabled people and find their lawsuits in exchange for a cut. That’s already a thing in many places.
m-p-3 8y ago
One nice thing I've seen in my city were free curbside self-serve libraries. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonburg-complaint-1.3753290 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonb... Of course, they were taken down..

coherentpony 8y ago

The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two cease-and-desist letters, the owner of the company ignored them and continued to expand the company. The article phrases it as 'being unfazed by the letters'. One could also phrase it as willful neglect.

booleandilemma 8y ago
Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.
ryanworl 8y ago
The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
  - ryanworl 8y ago
    Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
    - manicdee 8y ago
      There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
      - makomk 8y ago
        If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
        Bjartr 8y ago
        That's untrue, they can petition the law be changed. It's a harder hoop than just getting an existing permit, but to say there's literally no avenue forward is disingenuous.
    - ori_b 8y ago
      > Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? In the country where I live, we have something called 'private property'. Conveniently, it is generally not located in outer space. You can pay to purchase it, and then you can put whatever you want on it (within reason).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Analemma_ 8y ago
After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.
Buge 8y ago
She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.
tacostakohashi 8y ago
The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.
gumby 8y ago
> The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
  - mrep 8y ago
    God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.

bunderbunder 8y ago

This feels tricky to me. Sidewalks are public right-of-way, and an important piece of transportation infrastructure, and there is a civic interest in ensuring that they can, first and foremost, be used for that purpose. In a city as dense as NYC, that is naturally going to lead to rules limiting what can use the space, and then those rules are naturally going to be given exceptions for things like sandwichboards and sidewalk cafes and newspaper stands, because everyone wants to have those things, too. But that's going to be done by creating specific exceptions, which may require a permit, in the interest of not throwing it to the wolves all over again. Which means, in turn, that there are always going to be uses that at least some people like, which don't fit cleanly into any of the official categories of exemption. I don't think there's any perfect answer here. Lean too far in one direction, and you get news articles like this complaining about entrepreneurship being obstructed. Lean too far in the other, and you've got people who use wheelchairs being unable to easily navigate their neighborhoods.

lgregg 8y ago
There is a reason why the city licenses exist though. In Chicago, if I recall sandwich boards can cost up to $30k per year. I'm not saying this dog house needs that license but perhaps there should be a fee if you want to put something in front of your store that blocks the sidewalk to pay for the additional inspections needed. NYC also fines for things out of code on the sidewalk. https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guide https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guid...
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I don't see a specific line item for sandwich boards on the publicly posted fee schedule[1]. But $30,000/year is a good 2 orders of mangnitude more than anything else on that list. [1]: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/businesslicenseforms/pwu/PWU_Fee_Structure-v.02.24.2014.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/bu... edit: Looks like they're just straight-up illegal. Some aldermen (including one who's pretty good at getting things done) are working on that: https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-board-signs-are-illegal-in-chicago-they-shouldnt-be-aldermen-say/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-boa...

dominotw 8y ago

I would say around 20% of sidewalks in chicago are not handicap accessible. Tons of sidewalks are built without on ramps. Poorer areas are way worse than others. Its shocking to see this is pass. I am planning to take pictures and report to the city, but i have no hope anyone would care.

Spooky23 8y ago
Just hire disabled people and find their lawsuits in exchange for a cut. That’s already a thing in many places.

m-p-3 8y ago

One nice thing I've seen in my city were free curbside self-serve libraries. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonburg-complaint-1.3753290 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonb... Of course, they were taken down..