3 ms·

Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage, I'd be surprised to find out if this didn't violate some law o

by bmelton 13y ago

Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage, I'd be surprised to find out if this didn't violate some law or another. I get that parking is bad there, whenever I'm silly enough to stay in the city, I get to enjoy $40 a day in overnight parking fees, but while this arguably obviates the pain in a way that probably wouldn't cause any pain, there's almost certainly some law that prohibits this, or something close enough to this that it probably applies. My real question is how you ensure that the person who bought the spot is the one who paid for the spot. What is currently stopping people from just jumping in open spots as they become available now?

michaelmior 13y ago
The obvious way to solve this problem is to have the person entering the space confirm that they found parking. Only then would the person leaving get paid. This gives them incentive to hold the space for a few minutes while the person who paid shows up.
- justizin 13y ago
  disclaimer: not that i fucking condone this _at all_ in response to your musings, the person leaving is supposed to wait for the person buying the spot. you can sort of say 'i am getting ready to leave', and then you get a buzz when someone wants your spot and you kind of arrange spending about 2-5min swapping out. the idea is novel, but while i enjoy uber, i worry that things like uber and this parking app that make it impossible to navigate street-level resources without an active, connected smartphone become a sort of mandatory augmented reality. some balance will need to be struck, but i suppose it might be better than circling a block ten or fifteen times to just pull off to the side [though probably in the _Fucking_ bike lane] real quick and see if anyone around is about to bail. i dunno, i've always said anyone who drives regularly in sf is kind of.. eh.. yanno.
quesera 13y ago
> Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage ... Have you double-negatived yourself into an inversion of not incorrectness there?
- quesera 13y ago
  That was an honest question. But I researched it myself, and the answer is: It is a law, but it only applies to buildings with three or more dwelling units, including residential condominiums and hotels. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but disregarding hotels and apartment complexes, where anything-other-than-vehicles would be weird, I'd guess that most people with private garages are in the clear. So, while it was not written in error as I wondered, it isn't completely correct either. Sorry if my question appeared snarky, it wasn't intended so.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I didn't interpret it as snarky, nor did I downvote it. I also (apparently) missed the email indicating I had a response until just now, to which you've already replied. Yes, raldi pointed out that the 'apartment houses' provision, which does render my claim incomplete, at best. That said, I thought it was more wide-spread than that, and it's possible that the portion of the code I cited is only applicable to those types of dwellings, and there may be another such provision elsewhere in the code that applies to other types of dwellings. I dunno, and honestly, I'm not going to search all of San Francisco building codes to find out, so let's assume I'm wrong there. The point I was making wasn't to insert some nefarious agenda into the workings of SF government as much to point out that San Francisco is crowded, and there have been at least some attempts to mitigate the problem of traffic through legislation, so it would surprise me if there wasn't some other law on the books that exist to mitigate the same problem.
    - quesera 13y ago
      I read through all of the code that looked pertinent, and it seems to be exclusive to the larger buildings previously described. I've had various garages in SF, and always kept vehicles (the 4-wheeled ones anyway) on the street, so I had a bit of a Richelieuian curiosity. Elsewhere in the code, it defines a garage as "A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its tank is stored, repaired or kept.". Electric vehicles would also appear to be exempt, then.
raldi 13y ago
I'm going to have to demand a citation for your claim that it's illegal to store non-cars in SF garages.
- bmelton 13y ago
  You had to demand it? You couldn't ask for it? Or request it? The word demand here is curious, and strikes me as though my claim somehow offends you. That aside, the citation is here[1]. In context, the most relevant bit is: > (a) No automobile or other motor vehicle shall > occupy any portion of an apartment house or hotel > except in a garage which meets the requirements of > the Building Code and other provisions of the > Municipal Code. > (b) Use. Private and public storage garages in > apartment houses and hotels shall be used only for > storage of automobiles. Summed up, that means that automobiles may only be stored in garages, and nothing else may be. Justifications for the law are numerous, I"m sure. If you have a garage, and are parking on the street instead, then surely you're contributing to curbside congestion. Beyond that, there are likely justifications from preventing hoarders, meth labs, etc. Still, as written, it seems a little onerous. [1] - http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/ http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/ [2] - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridiculous-S-F-laws-5119134.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridi...
  - raldi 13y ago
    Your claim was: "it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage". Your citation [1] says that it's only illegal to do that in an apartment house or hotel, which is a far cry from your original claim. And your citation [2] says even that is a little-known, completely unenforced law that appears to be on its way out.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Your response to claim 1 is of course valid, though I'm curious as to what percentage of homes in San Francisco would be categorized as apartment homes. Regardless, while it's a quibble over details for sure, I don't see that as a 'far cry' from the original claim, though I acknowledge that the original claim was incomplete. As for point 2, that it's little known and/or unenforced has, I think, no bearing on the discussion. Whether or not a law is enforced does not relate to whether or not the law is on the books. Clearly, it is. If you have evidence that it's "on the way out", that I'd be happy to hear. I'm not a California resident, so that's news to me, and I don't see that in the second citation (though I do see that they're attempting to have it repealed, but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful).

by bmelton 13y ago

michaelmior 13y ago

The obvious way to solve this problem is to have the person entering the space confirm that they found parking. Only then would the person leaving get paid. This gives them incentive to hold the space for a few minutes while the person who paid shows up.

justizin 13y ago
disclaimer: not that i fucking condone this _at all_ in response to your musings, the person leaving is supposed to wait for the person buying the spot. you can sort of say 'i am getting ready to leave', and then you get a buzz when someone wants your spot and you kind of arrange spending about 2-5min swapping out. the idea is novel, but while i enjoy uber, i worry that things like uber and this parking app that make it impossible to navigate street-level resources without an active, connected smartphone become a sort of mandatory augmented reality. some balance will need to be struck, but i suppose it might be better than circling a block ten or fifteen times to just pull off to the side [though probably in the _Fucking_ bike lane] real quick and see if anyone around is about to bail. i dunno, i've always said anyone who drives regularly in sf is kind of.. eh.. yanno.

quesera 13y ago

> Considering that it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage ... Have you double-negatived yourself into an inversion of not incorrectness there?

quesera 13y ago
That was an honest question. But I researched it myself, and the answer is: It is a law, but it only applies to buildings with three or more dwelling units, including residential condominiums and hotels. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but disregarding hotels and apartment complexes, where anything-other-than-vehicles would be weird, I'd guess that most people with private garages are in the clear. So, while it was not written in error as I wondered, it isn't completely correct either. Sorry if my question appeared snarky, it wasn't intended so.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I didn't interpret it as snarky, nor did I downvote it. I also (apparently) missed the email indicating I had a response until just now, to which you've already replied. Yes, raldi pointed out that the 'apartment houses' provision, which does render my claim incomplete, at best. That said, I thought it was more wide-spread than that, and it's possible that the portion of the code I cited is only applicable to those types of dwellings, and there may be another such provision elsewhere in the code that applies to other types of dwellings. I dunno, and honestly, I'm not going to search all of San Francisco building codes to find out, so let's assume I'm wrong there. The point I was making wasn't to insert some nefarious agenda into the workings of SF government as much to point out that San Francisco is crowded, and there have been at least some attempts to mitigate the problem of traffic through legislation, so it would surprise me if there wasn't some other law on the books that exist to mitigate the same problem.
  - quesera 13y ago
    I read through all of the code that looked pertinent, and it seems to be exclusive to the larger buildings previously described. I've had various garages in SF, and always kept vehicles (the 4-wheeled ones anyway) on the street, so I had a bit of a Richelieuian curiosity. Elsewhere in the code, it defines a garage as "A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its tank is stored, repaired or kept.". Electric vehicles would also appear to be exempt, then.

raldi 13y ago

I'm going to have to demand a citation for your claim that it's illegal to store non-cars in SF garages.

bmelton 13y ago
You had to demand it? You couldn't ask for it? Or request it? The word demand here is curious, and strikes me as though my claim somehow offends you. That aside, the citation is here[1]. In context, the most relevant bit is: > (a) No automobile or other motor vehicle shall > occupy any portion of an apartment house or hotel > except in a garage which meets the requirements of > the Building Code and other provisions of the > Municipal Code. > (b) Use. Private and public storage garages in > apartment houses and hotels shall be used only for > storage of automobiles. Summed up, that means that automobiles may only be stored in garages, and nothing else may be. Justifications for the law are numerous, I"m sure. If you have a garage, and are parking on the street instead, then surely you're contributing to curbside congestion. Beyond that, there are likely justifications from preventing hoarders, meth labs, etc. Still, as written, it seems a little onerous. [1] - http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/ http://housing.sanfranciscocode.org/6_603/ [2] - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridiculous-S-F-laws-5119134.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-push-to-abolish-ridi...
- raldi 13y ago
  Your claim was: "it's not legal in San Francisco to store things that aren't cars in your garage". Your citation [1] says that it's only illegal to do that in an apartment house or hotel, which is a far cry from your original claim. And your citation [2] says even that is a little-known, completely unenforced law that appears to be on its way out.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Your response to claim 1 is of course valid, though I'm curious as to what percentage of homes in San Francisco would be categorized as apartment homes. Regardless, while it's a quibble over details for sure, I don't see that as a 'far cry' from the original claim, though I acknowledge that the original claim was incomplete. As for point 2, that it's little known and/or unenforced has, I think, no bearing on the discussion. Whether or not a law is enforced does not relate to whether or not the law is on the books. Clearly, it is. If you have evidence that it's "on the way out", that I'd be happy to hear. I'm not a California resident, so that's news to me, and I don't see that in the second citation (though I do see that they're attempting to have it repealed, but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful).