New LA Ordinance: > 72 Hours == Abandoned Auto

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> According to KTLA, a new law went into effect on Monday in Los
> Angeles: if you leave a vehicle parked in the same place for more than
> 72 hours, it will be ticketed and towed away.
>
> College kids with broken-down jalopies parked in front of friends'
> houses take note.
> --
> What the heck, I'll play too.
> - Dave

Add LA to the list of places I'll never live. Not that there was any
danger of that to begin with. Heck, my personal car hasn't moved in a
week and a half.

nate

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 06:18:29 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >Add LA to the list of places I'll never live. Not that there was any
> >danger of that to begin with.
>
> Yeah, housing here is even more expensive than it is in DC.
>
> >Heck, my personal car hasn't moved in a week and a half.
>
> Is it parked on a public street?

yes, in front of my house. Driveway is not suitable for parking (very
steep angle, real danger of parking brake slipping) and there's only a
single car carport.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 06:18:29 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >Add LA to the list of places I'll never live. Not that there was any
> >danger of that to begin with.
>
> Yeah, housing here is even more expensive than it is in DC.
>
> >Heck, my personal car hasn't moved in a week and a half.
>
> Is it parked on a public street?

yes, in front of my house. Driveway is not suitable for parking (very
steep angle, real danger of parking brake slipping) and there's only a
single car carport.


I guess your propery is only rated for one car !

Bernard

bernard farquart wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > On 6 Jul 2006 06:18:29 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
> >
> > >Add LA to the list of places I'll never live. Not that there was any
> > >danger of that to begin with.
> >
> > Yeah, housing here is even more expensive than it is in DC.
> >
> > >Heck, my personal car hasn't moved in a week and a half.
> >
> > Is it parked on a public street?
>
> yes, in front of my house. Driveway is not suitable for parking (very
> steep angle, real danger of parking brake slipping) and there's only a
> single car carport.
>
>
> I guess your propery is only rated for one car !
>
> Bernard

Hmm, I guess you'll have to have a little talk with the builder that
made the house with four bedrooms, then. Again, I don't see the big
deal with parking on the street. It's wide, it's a cul-de-sac (no
through traffic) and my neiighbors don't mind - they park on the street
too. The fact that some RAD posters object to it is irrelevant and
hopefully will remain so.

nate

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:33:35 -0700, "bernard farquart"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Heck, my personal car hasn't moved in a week and a half.
>>>
>>>Is it parked on a public street?
>>
>>yes, in front of my house.
>
>
> How would you like it if your neighbor parked his broken-down pickup
> truck in front of your house one day while you were at work?

Wouldn't care, although if it were broken down, I'd probably ask him if
he needed a hand getting it running again.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2006 05:15:30 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>>The fact that some RAD posters object to it is irrelevant and
>>hopefully will remain so.
>
>
> Of course it's irrelevant - too many people are enjoying the "free"
> parking to make it politically possible to pass such a law. Yet when I
> see an idyllic scene like this
>
> http://patsabin.com/illinois/michave_20th.htm
>
> I can't help but wonder what things might be like if I could wave a
> magic wand and get rid of all the eyesore parked vehicles.

It must be nice to be so much better than anyone else that all you have
to worry about is the "unsightliness" of street parking.

Myself, right now I am more worried about finding a place to live at the
moment (current residence is about 50 miles from my office) and at this
point I would be overjoyed with any sort of off street parking. The
fact that millions of people are limited to street parking for vehicles
on which they depend for their livelihood is apparently not a concern to
idealists like yourself.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Yet when I see an idyllic scene like this

> http://patsabin.com/illinois/michave_20th.htm

Too bad reality was more like this:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...icago-1893.jpg

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:59:58 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> Yet when I see an idyllic scene like this
>
>> http://patsabin.com/illinois/michave_20th.htm
>
>Too bad reality was more like this:
>
>http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...icago-1893.jpg
>

And that doesn't show the horse**** and **** that was an everpresent
natural environmental hazzard.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:59:58 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>> Yet when I see an idyllic scene like this
>>
>>> http://patsabin.com/illinois/michave_20th.htm
>>
>>Too bad reality was more like this:
>>
>>http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...icago-1893.jpg
>>
>
> And that doesn't show the horse**** and **** that was an everpresent
> natural environmental hazzard.

Yes, I neglected to mention that. When I was in college the library had
yet to secure century old magazines. They were just in a rarely traveled
corner of the library. I used to go back there and pull random bound
books of these off the shelves and flip through them and read anything
of interest. In the beginings of the automobile articles talked of the
great improvement in living conditions and reduction of pollution that
the automobile would bring. And end to the horse **** and **** as you
put it.

In those days the environmental issue of transportation was the amount
of horse**** contaminating everything and being a general health hazard.
The automobile was being praised for being much cleaner.

N8N > writes:

>> I guess your propery is only rated for one car !

> Hmm, I guess you'll have to have a little talk with the builder
> that made the house with four bedrooms, then.


Where is it written that the number of bedrooms in a house has any
bearing on how many cars it's "rated" for? Most houses are occupied
by nuclear families, and it follows that at if kids are living at
home, in all likelihood at least some of them aren't of driving age.
If the house's owners are empty-nesters, then obviously the house's
number of bedrooms bears even less of a relationship to the number
of licensed drivers living therein, no?

If anything relates to how many cars a house is rated for, it's the
number of available off-street parking spaces it has -- in the gar-
age, in the driveway, and on an RV pad, if any.

(Not that I agree with the idea of houses being "rated" for a certain
number of cars. It's just that I don't see that countering a bogus
argument with another bogus argument strengthens your position any.)


> Again, I don't see the big deal with parking on the street. It's
> wide, it's a cul-de-sac (no through traffic) and my neiighbors
> don't mind - they park on the street too.

I'm presently house-hunting, and a big turnoff to me is street with
lots of cars parked on the street. Such places are typically blue-
collar neighborhoods full of backwards-baseball-cap-wearing yahoos
who drive ridiculously lifted pickup trucks with exposed, chromed
coil springs -- the sort of guys who wear their hair in mullets and
have their wallets on chains. They tend to have lots of work trucks
around, too: pickups with lumber racks and built-in toolboxes on them.



Geoff

--
"Oh, come on. Geoff doesn't deserve allusions to the Third Reich.
Think 'Vlad the Impaler' instead." -- lid