In the town I used to live, in Ontario, Canada, we had this law as well. Got a ticket Christmas day one year.

I hate to tell you, Willian, but if the government tells you that you will maintain that land, you will maintain it. If they tell you not to park on it, you will not park on it. They got the laws, the lawyers and the guns.

This is why a powerful government is so dangerous. Their laws don't have to make sense, but you better believe you WILL obey them.

In keeping with yesterday's video of George Carlin I ask;

Why do we park in driveways and drive on parkways?

Public space....does this mean the owner's front yard has to be ADA-compliant? If the owner decides to alter the landscape plant to make it ADA-compliant, will an environmental impact statement be required as it is for typical publicly owned lands?

I believe it. I work for the local municipality. And I'm a conservative. It's sickening.

This is a simple easement. There are sections of your property that can be used by the public. Most of the time utilities use this space to run lines and such. In some cases the sidewalk can be considered part of the easement. If you were to prevent the public use of this easement, you can get a ticket.

After the official told her that she can avoid futue tickets by leasing her own property from the government for a thousand or more a year, I would have said, "No, you can start leasing it from me!" If the car was "too close to the sidewalk", they need to codify exactly HOW CLOSE is too close, not just past the front wall of the house. Putting a big "Posted- Private Property - No Tresspassing" sign at the end of the driveway would be futile, I guess, or "Private Parking Only".

I've wondered about this for a while: If I own the property, but cannot have full use and enjoyment of said property, then why the hill am I paying property taxes on that property? Withold the taxes and starve the b*stards out.

Yeah, this is also the case in South Bend, IN. We were responsible for shoveling the snow off the sidewalk. And for a city that averages six feet a year, that came often. We also had to keep it clear of cars. Living in the country is much better.

This is also true in Ohio and other places. You are not allowed to block the sidewalk while parked in the driveway. Doing so will earn you a ticket. The grass between the curb and the sidewalk is your responsibility. Making sure there is no ice on the sidewalk or anything to harm a person is your responsibility, but you do NOT own the sidewalk.

of "quiet enjoyment"?

Sounds like an ideal "Takings" case. I wonder if a property owner could have a claim here as the effective use (as parking, in this case) of the property has been diminished.

For example, several years ago there was a landmark decision by the Supremes over an oceanfront property setback regulation here in coastal South Carolina.

After Hurricane Hugo, the state changed their setback laws to effectively disallow development on beach front homesites. Before the hurricane, a developer had purchased two such vacant homesites for $1 million each and had plans to build single family homes on each lot. He speculated that if he waited a few years, he could fetch around $5 million for each of the ‘spec-built’ homes once completed.

In the meantime, the state legislature changed the ‘set-back’ regulations to a point where this developer could no longer build houses on his sites. The new law effectively changed the ‘highest and best use’ of the developer’s homesites, imposing a substantial diminution in the value of each site. The developer sued claiming that the state had effectively preformed an illegal taking of his property since the loss of value of the assets was directly linked to what legally could be done with the sites. After many years of expensive litigation, the federal Supreme Court sided with the developer and ordered the state to pay him $5 million plus his litigation expenses.

So after trying to steal this guy’s property, the state then stole $5 million from the taxpayers to cover for their mistake. I’ll bet that if someone bought a home in DC because it offered “off-street” parking, they may have a case against the district using the above case as precedent.