Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vvea32$43va$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Judges discover constitutional rights to bike lanes and also
 drug use in homeless shelters
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:58 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vvea32$43va$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvde7f$30ifl$1@dont-email.me> <vvdgcg$3djp9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdmn5$30ifl$3@dont-email.me> <vvdnt9$3kqjl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vve687$265b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 02:39:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="55e9b0bc8b4caf699008f569eb55076e";
	logging-data="135146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bppdIN8yTSG63LlS/iTPhQ77LpBOqzm4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sRKYUYhBkLzTnpy4Jn6OAOJWYLk=
Content-Language: en-CA
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250506-6, 5/6/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vve687$265b$1@dont-email.me>

On 2025-05-06 7:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 6, 2025 at 12:28:41 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
>>> for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
>>> city banned overnight parking many years ago.
>>
>> Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
>> parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
>> short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
>> parking.
> 
> Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the
> sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
> pedestrians and cars.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQBGhwKVR0
> 
> "The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us,
> but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."
> 
The laws about snow removal are another variation on this issue. Our 
bylaw says that snow must be removed from the sidewalk by the property 
owner within 24 hours of the end of the snowfall. The full width of the 
sidewalk has to be shovelled down to bare pavement or you can get a 
ticket. And not a $5 ticket either! They send a city work crew around to 
do the shovelling.


[City work crews have been notorious for decades for being massively 
overstaffed and just as massively underworked. They are famous for 
sending a crew of a dozen people to do absolutely any job. When you 
watch the work actually being done, there is one guy working at any 
given time and the rest stand around and "supervise" until it's their 
turn to work. There is NEVER more than 1 working at a time. (I had a 
summer job 50 years ago where one of the other employees at that job 
told me about being on a city work crew the previous winter where a 
dozen guys would go into the woods to cut down some trees and the first 
thing they'd do is set out a dozen lawn chairs, get a campfire going, 
and then take turns working where 11 guys would be keeping warm around 
the fire while the guy whose turn it was to work would work on cutting 
down a tree. I don't know how long it had already been going on at that 
point but the pattern hasn't changed.]

Now picture what the bill would be for them sending out a dozen 
unionized guys to do the work of one man. So they have the power to 
force you to clean up THEIR sidewalk but no obligation whatever to 
shovel it themselves.

>>> I don't remember the
>>> rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
>>> being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years
>>> back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
>>> our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
>>> useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
>>> an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
>>> can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
>>> illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
>>> for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!
>>
>> That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
>> course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
>> dropped off or picked up.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Rhino