3 ms·

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

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.

cinbun8 4y ago
I would still be outraged, and I'm not even in SF
- adrr 4y ago
  Most HOAs have rules about parking cars on your property if they are visible from the street.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    They're being fined by the city, not a HOA.
    - djbusby 4y ago
      A City is a big HOA.
      - SllX 4y ago
        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.
    - adrr 4y ago
      City can have rules very similar to an HOA. I assume for the same reason around property values.
josephcsible 4y ago
The point is that you shouldn't have to do that to park a drivable car on your own property.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  Their car was not entirely on their own property, it was blocking the public right of way.
  - usefulcat 4y ago
    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-driveway-86200223 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking...
    - duncan_idaho 4y ago
      It's a setback from the sidewalk they are violating and have been doing for close to 40 years.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > 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/87lHdux.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4Ls9Upx.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.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  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.
kodah 4y ago
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.

cinbun8 4y ago

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

adrr 4y ago
Most HOAs have rules about parking cars on your property if they are visible from the street.
- robonerd 4y ago
  They're being fined by the city, not a HOA.
  - djbusby 4y ago
    A City is a big HOA.
    - SllX 4y ago
      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.
  - adrr 4y ago
    City can have rules very similar to an HOA. I assume for the same reason around property values.

josephcsible 4y ago

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

thescriptkiddie 4y ago
Their car was not entirely on their own property, it was blocking the public right of way.
- usefulcat 4y ago
  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-driveway-86200223 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking...
  - duncan_idaho 4y ago
    It's a setback from the sidewalk they are violating and have been doing for close to 40 years.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > 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/87lHdux.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4Ls9Upx.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.
ASalazarMX 4y ago
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.

kodah 4y ago

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.