3 ms·

A few thoughts... Video here shows the parking pad... https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking-driveway-86200223 https://abcnews.go.com/US/

A few thoughts... Video here shows the parking pad... https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking-driveway-86200223 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/sf-couple-fined-1500-parking... 1- City asked for photo proof to grand-father them in. They provided it and were denied. To me, that's (almost) worse than the initial ban. 2- Their entire front "yard" is concrete parking pad/walkway. I'm surprised this is allowed. But, it appears common on the street. 3- I'm amazed that parking in a driveway/parking pad is illegal. The rule should be something like "a home may have a 10' wide drive/parking pad made of concrete; this pad may be used for the storage a single (1) vehicle. The vehicle must remain licensed/registered and operable." It's super weird that the city said they can put up an awning and then park - that seems like a bigger eye-sore than just the car.

D13Fd 4y ago
They need to comply with the law, and the law needs to be enforced. Otherwise it’s chaos. You can’t just have someone unaccountably granting exceptions to compliance. It’s next to impossible to track and ripe for corruption. I agree the law sounds pretty stupid and it should be changed though.
- voisin 4y ago
  There needs to be sunset provisions in laws by default that force them to be re-examined on a regular (3 year? 5 year?) basis showing the impact. The onus should be on the government to show that their laws operated as intended or they should be removed by default.
  - D13Fd 4y ago
    It’s not “their” laws. It’s “our” laws if you live here and have a vote. The government doesn’t own us. We elect representatives and leaders who make laws (or appoint appointees who make regulations) following a prescribed process.
    - voisin 4y ago
      As much as I desperately want to agree with you, how often do you feel those who are elected share this sentiment? It certainly feels like an “us” versus “them” situation protected by boatloads of money ensuring “they” get to keep acting this way.
    - bb88 4y ago
      Well... it's "theirs" if the laws were made 50 years ago when you didn't exist. There's a lot of crazy laws on the books.
- Innominate 4y ago
  Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right. Where the law is wrong, we have a duty to fight it. This is some bullshit that reeks of government bureaucrats with an axe to grind.
  - D13Fd 4y ago
    Then change the law. If the law only counts when whoever is enforcing it happens to like it then we are all going to have a very bad time.
  - voisin 4y ago
    This kind of bullshit law or regulation doesn’t affect enough people to cause anyone to fight it, and I would venture to say that the vast majority of laws on the books fall into this category. Inch by inch we are divided and disempowered.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  I mostly agree, however, 4 decades of non-enforcement, then a sudden change to enforcement is just as chaotic and just as prone to selective enforcement and corruption. The house was sold with a parking pad and that pad was in use for 4 decades - this isn't a case of a new-comer trying to subvert the rule of law. And why would the city mention an exception if said exemption is never granted? This appears to be a poorly worded regulation that needs to be amended to something reasonable.
  - bb88 4y ago
    Further there's a bunch of old laws still on the books, but rarely enforced. These are the ones in my state of Idaho. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/21/did-you-know-that-these-odd-laws-existed-in-idaho/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/21/did-you-know-t...
- dekhn 4y ago
  The law wasn't enforced until somebody complained. That's selective enforcement.
morninglight 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    The problem is that comment is totally correct. It took a school board recall to undo hugely dumb (national news) decisions that were hurtful. Sf has a history of dysfunctional goverment, take a walk around civic center or any bart station. I see the point of trying to keep comment quality high but points like the parent are quite correct and not really starting flamewars.
    - dang 4y ago
      The GP comment was low-information, high-inflammation—that means flamebait, regardless of how correct it is or isn't. I wouldn't say it even contains enough information to count as correct or incorrect, but YMMV. A point being correct doesn't mean it isn't flamebait. Which correct points one makes, in which order, in what context, and with what extra baggage, all matter. People often act like "but it's correct" or "I'm just pointing out facts" is some sort of blank check, but this is far from the case. Sometimes the correctness of a point makes it worse. An example I've used in the past is middle school kids pointing out the acne on another kid's face. An example pg has used is telling an old person "you will die soon".

D13Fd 4y ago

They need to comply with the law, and the law needs to be enforced. Otherwise it’s chaos. You can’t just have someone unaccountably granting exceptions to compliance. It’s next to impossible to track and ripe for corruption. I agree the law sounds pretty stupid and it should be changed though.

voisin 4y ago
There needs to be sunset provisions in laws by default that force them to be re-examined on a regular (3 year? 5 year?) basis showing the impact. The onus should be on the government to show that their laws operated as intended or they should be removed by default.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  It’s not “their” laws. It’s “our” laws if you live here and have a vote. The government doesn’t own us. We elect representatives and leaders who make laws (or appoint appointees who make regulations) following a prescribed process.
  - voisin 4y ago
    As much as I desperately want to agree with you, how often do you feel those who are elected share this sentiment? It certainly feels like an “us” versus “them” situation protected by boatloads of money ensuring “they” get to keep acting this way.
  - bb88 4y ago
    Well... it's "theirs" if the laws were made 50 years ago when you didn't exist. There's a lot of crazy laws on the books.
Innominate 4y ago
Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right. Where the law is wrong, we have a duty to fight it. This is some bullshit that reeks of government bureaucrats with an axe to grind.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  Then change the law. If the law only counts when whoever is enforcing it happens to like it then we are all going to have a very bad time.
- voisin 4y ago
  This kind of bullshit law or regulation doesn’t affect enough people to cause anyone to fight it, and I would venture to say that the vast majority of laws on the books fall into this category. Inch by inch we are divided and disempowered.
alistairSH 4y ago
I mostly agree, however, 4 decades of non-enforcement, then a sudden change to enforcement is just as chaotic and just as prone to selective enforcement and corruption. The house was sold with a parking pad and that pad was in use for 4 decades - this isn't a case of a new-comer trying to subvert the rule of law. And why would the city mention an exception if said exemption is never granted? This appears to be a poorly worded regulation that needs to be amended to something reasonable.
- bb88 4y ago
  Further there's a bunch of old laws still on the books, but rarely enforced. These are the ones in my state of Idaho. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/21/did-you-know-that-these-odd-laws-existed-in-idaho/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/21/did-you-know-t...
dekhn 4y ago
The law wasn't enforced until somebody complained. That's selective enforcement.

morninglight 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- dekhn 4y ago
  The problem is that comment is totally correct. It took a school board recall to undo hugely dumb (national news) decisions that were hurtful. Sf has a history of dysfunctional goverment, take a walk around civic center or any bart station. I see the point of trying to keep comment quality high but points like the parent are quite correct and not really starting flamewars.
  - dang 4y ago
    The GP comment was low-information, high-inflammation—that means flamebait, regardless of how correct it is or isn't. I wouldn't say it even contains enough information to count as correct or incorrect, but YMMV. A point being correct doesn't mean it isn't flamebait. Which correct points one makes, in which order, in what context, and with what extra baggage, all matter. People often act like "but it's correct" or "I'm just pointing out facts" is some sort of blank check, but this is far from the case. Sometimes the correctness of a point makes it worse. An example I've used in the past is middle school kids pointing out the acne on another kid's face. An example pg has used is telling an old person "you will die soon".