I have certainly experienced that. I tried to get a parking permit to park in front of my building, but it was denied for unclear reasons. I appealed to City Hall using the public hearing process intended for this type of thing. Somehow the entire adjacent neighbourhood two blocks over got wind of my agenda item and all showed up to protest. From two blocks over, they were mad that I should be allowed to park on my street. Their reasoning was that I might park over on their street someday and there wasn’t enough parking over there. Except that the area in front of my building was always empty after 6pm because it was a commercial area. NIMBY madness.
The originally linked (by BB) article says it was for “parking in front of a home” and doesn’t mention bocking the sidewalk OR having to be ‘in front of a garage’ at all.
Crap reporting leads to arguments about different problems than the actual problem.
That is some peak SF NIMBYism right there. What a treat!
Which is exactly why, for clarity, I included this part from the ABC7 reporting upthread:
Didn’t seem to stop people from arguing with each other about what the issue is here, though.
So, if I’m following here, not only is the city fining them, they’re also implying that this isn’t a driveway but that they’ve had a concrete front yard for years?
Since, if you cannot park on it, and it’s not going to a garage, it must not be a driveway, even if it has a curb cut.
Unless all of that is also true, the rule feels very poor.
If they don’t want people to concrete over the entire front yard, have zoning rules about driveways. Rules which have to account for what exists prior to the rule change and how and when other updates require it be brought into new compliance.
It certainly looks like a driveway in the pictures.
Yes, per the ABC reporting that’s correct.
I’ll also note for those unfamiliar with the city that the vast majority of homes there have long had concrete for their “front yards” whether or not they have a garage. In some areas people dye or paint the concrete green to kinda sorta imply that it is indeed a “yard”. But parking in those areas is very common, at least in the Sunset District where my wife’s family has had a home since the 1950’s.
Twice a month??? Sheesh…that sounds excessive. Around my parts we’re lucky if the streets get cleaned once or twice a year.
I had a friend that accidentally parked in front of one of these “could be” parking spots and got a ticket in SF. Was very hard to tell it really was one. At the end of the day, she ended up with $600 less in her pocket (4 hours after it was taken) after picking her car up from the tow company.
There’s quite a bit missing from this description of the story. Do the couple believe they own the parking space on the street in front of their home? Because that’s not usually the case.
Are we talking about one of those completely-block-the-sidewalk parking jobs that choke the city and substantially reduce accessibility? Because I’m looking at that picture and I’m not seeing any way you could park in that “driveway” without obstructing the sidewalk.
Have to say that I’m very interested in the fact that I find this of interest. Perhaps BB had to ‘drop the dead donkey’ story so we could get caught up in this travesty of justice.
If they don’t want people to concrete over the entire front yard, have zoning rules about driveways. they could just get over themselves and fuck off.
I live somewhere where parking has gotten noticeably awful over the course of the last 10 years. We’d make a driveway but it’s exorbitant for the permit fees and crap, like thousands of dollars to pour a flat slab that costs $800. What incenses me is that we’re willing to spend our own money to improve parking on the block, but that’s somehow a problem. And I don’t even know if it’s allowed at all, with rules about how close to the property line it can be even though we’re a neighborhood from the 20s in which all the existing driveways are right up against the line.
The enforcers in the OP should be embarrassed. The city has time and staff and money to enforce this but I had to step over someone’s diarrhea in the middle of the sidewalk multiple times when I was there a couple weeks ago. Take a guess whether shit or parking in front of a house ruins neighborhood aesthetics more.
Consider yourself lucky. Even the most consciencious get caught out once or twice a year, it’s basically a stealth tax. Though I count us lucky that, unlike a previous city I lived in, at least they don’t tow for sweeping.
The pictures in @Slide’s post clearly show two different cars fitting into the space without blocking the sidewalk. So it’s possible, and is not the issue, as commenters here have sussed out, terrible reporting be damned. It’s because of some ordinance not allowing people to park in front of something that isn’t a garage.
Is that a weirdly random number, or is anyone bored enough to do the math?
I’ll take that bullet. My reading comprehension earned zero points on this one. I also assumed it was a converted garage, but it appears it is not- the house never had one, but has had a driveway there since before the “no driveways without garages” ordinance so it should have been grandfathered in.
What a mess, and all so very San Francisco.
Thanks for clarifying!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.