3 ms·

When you move into a city you have to assume you are voluntarily giving up your rights to behave as you wish with your self and your property. You lose the righ

When you move into a city you have to assume you are voluntarily giving up your rights to behave as you wish with your self and your property. You lose the right to do what you want on your property in order to significantly reduce friction (or potential damage) with all the other close people. For example, almost all cities make it illegal to fire firearms within the city limits. Whereas if you lived in the country there'd be no such law and more importantly in terms of causation, no people likely to be impacted by it. Cities are tradeoffs. This particular municipal code may be a bit honerous but it's not exceptional in it's reasoning.

nerdponx 4y ago
The reasoning is to prevent "amassing cars", not to prevent "having a car". Moving to a city involves some tradeoffs and concessions to public safety & general decorum, but generally giving up arbitrary rights shouldn't be one of those. Having one car in what is effectively a driveway should not be an offense. In this case, it looks like you wouldn't be able to park on the street there anyway, so if you prevent them from keeping their car there, then there isn't really a better place to keep it. I am a big advocate of mass transit and cycling, but randomly taking people's cars away isn't a good idea. Besides, even "amassing cars" probably isn't that bad as long as they aren't derelict and you're not setting up a commercial parking lot. One person in my neighborhood has at least 4 interesting ("classic"?) cars in their driveway that they keep covered and/or sparkling clean. I think it's silly to own so many cars, but it's hardly an eyesore or damaging to the local character. Also don't forget to blame whatever jerk reported the family for this violation. Did they piss off a neighbor?
autosharp 4y ago
> When you move into a city you have to assume you are voluntarily giving up your rights This would be a valid argument if all people were born outside of the city and have plenty of economic and social opportunities outside of cities.
robonerd 4y ago
The city said they would grandfather it if they could prove they'd been doing it for decades. Rightfully so. They provided such proof, and the city went back on their word and said that wasn't good enough. This damns the city's position on the matter, the couple are in the right and the city plainly in the wrong.

nerdponx 4y ago

The reasoning is to prevent "amassing cars", not to prevent "having a car". Moving to a city involves some tradeoffs and concessions to public safety & general decorum, but generally giving up arbitrary rights shouldn't be one of those. Having one car in what is effectively a driveway should not be an offense. In this case, it looks like you wouldn't be able to park on the street there anyway, so if you prevent them from keeping their car there, then there isn't really a better place to keep it. I am a big advocate of mass transit and cycling, but randomly taking people's cars away isn't a good idea. Besides, even "amassing cars" probably isn't that bad as long as they aren't derelict and you're not setting up a commercial parking lot. One person in my neighborhood has at least 4 interesting ("classic"?) cars in their driveway that they keep covered and/or sparkling clean. I think it's silly to own so many cars, but it's hardly an eyesore or damaging to the local character. Also don't forget to blame whatever jerk reported the family for this violation. Did they piss off a neighbor?

autosharp 4y ago

> When you move into a city you have to assume you are voluntarily giving up your rights This would be a valid argument if all people were born outside of the city and have plenty of economic and social opportunities outside of cities.

robonerd 4y ago

The city said they would grandfather it if they could prove they'd been doing it for decades. Rightfully so. They provided such proof, and the city went back on their word and said that wasn't good enough. This damns the city's position on the matter, the couple are in the right and the city plainly in the wrong.