2 ms·

> I think this is a clear 14th amendment violation but thats just me. Care to expand a little? What exactly is a clear violation?

• ProcNetDev 3y ago
  Allowing access to city services (street parking) based on land ownership (or lack there of) seems (to me, a software engineer, not a lawyer) like a violation of the equal protection clause. I think the relevant case is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_County_Board_v._Richards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_County_Board_v._Rich... Where the SCOTUS said yeah this is bad but it's okay because we want to encourage non-homeowners to take the bus. This was decided before there was lots of clear research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand Allowing homeowners free and easily accessible on street parking encourages more car ownership.
  • pchristensen 3y ago
    From my understanding, there's nothing saying that Culdesac residents can't park on public street parking, it's just that the development doesn't have any street parking. So that case (which was about restricting access to existing street parking) doesn't seem relevant. Unless you're claiming that the 14th amendment would require the developer to include street parking? But that seems like quite a stretch.
    • ProcNetDev 3y ago
      The residents of culdesac have to sign a lease that states that they are not allowed to park on the streets. This was a condition of the city to allow the zoning variance for culdesac.