2 ms·

> 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

by 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.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      That's an interesting definition of automobile, which evaluates upstream to an interesting definition of garage. I know that the original person attempting to fight the law doesn't own a car, and presumably, is upset that the law would prohibit them from being able to store their bike. I know that legal definitions, by their very nature, can end up being confusing, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the reading of that bill and its discussion.

by 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.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    That's an interesting definition of automobile, which evaluates upstream to an interesting definition of garage. I know that the original person attempting to fight the law doesn't own a car, and presumably, is upset that the law would prohibit them from being able to store their bike. I know that legal definitions, by their very nature, can end up being confusing, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the reading of that bill and its discussion.