4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoYour 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 agoYour 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).