Actually, the cops can arrest someone for a crime somebody says happened. The law calls that a Citizen's Arrest. The girlfriend should have let the Lexus hit her so there was a crime, as the cops poo-poo threats when you boo-hoo to them over one. I was with my brother at a local L.A. restaurant in the parking lot when he was attacked by a weirdo. I jumped into the scuffle and we stopped the attacker who then left the scene. My brother called the cops to report it and eventually a prowl-car arrived to take the report. While the police were talking to my brother outside, the attacker returned to try and finish the job. The cops told my brother to go back into the restaurant while they would talk to the attacker to see what his problem was. We watched as the attacker got huffy with the cops, who then cuffed him. One of the cops came inside and asked if my brother would like to perform a Citizen's Arrest on the guy, so my brother went outside, said the CA magic words and the cops took the guy away. Luckily for my brother he found a good City Attorney who prosecuted the guy. There was a trial and the attacker was convicted of battery and sent to jail. The attacker said at the trial he didn't like the way my brother spoke to the waitresses at the restaurant. He had confronted us twice in the parking lot before the attack and we had complained to management about him harrassing customers (us) in the lot. We should have sued the restaurant.

I should clarify my post. The cops actually aren't arresting the bad guy -- you are. They have to perform the detention if you make the arrest. You better be able to provide the evidence yourself that will lead to a conviction, and be prepared to push the system to prosecute. The attacker violated a restraining order we had gotten before the trial and my brother went to court and the judge poo-poo'd the violation. My brother then dressed the judge down in his own courtroom telling the judge that he was in effect saying the word of the court meant nothing and could be violated at will. My brother demanded a hearing on the violation of the restraining order immediately, and the judge complied and put a much stricter restraining order on the guy. Of course, there are plenty of people who no longer walk among us who can't testify about the value of restraining orders. The best restraining order is Model 1911.

"The best restraining order is Model 1911."

Get 'em while you can...

Somebody is "saving" a parking place on a public street by standing in it?

Sorry, this is outside my ken. There are a few days near Christmas when parking spots are tight at the mall. When there are home games, parking is tight around the university. Otherwise, it never happens. It's like those traffic jams and unaffordable housing you write about.

I'll take my sterile suburban existence anytime.

Saving a spot for a car that is not there yet is ridiculous. Saving a spot with a lawn chair is only different in the amount of time the spot is saved. It's still wrong.

Having a parking spot in front of your house is not a right. You complain about a restaurant without sufficient parking and thik that the on street spaces should be reserved for residents without sufficient parking.

I was about to park in an empty spot in a lot when a woman jumped out of a car cruising the next row and stood in the spot. I pulled up to her and turned off my car. She eventually left yelling obscenities at me.

Take a look at this from the perspective of a driver who finally finds a spot only to find someone standing there saving it.

I don't know anything about California law, of course, but independent of the technical-legal situation the only asshole I see here is the girl "reserving" the parking space.

An empty parking space, unless reserved for special uses, is there for anyone to take. No privileges for residents. No reserving.

What should the woman in the Lexus have done? Call the police? Or simply surrender to impertinence?

Theodor, whether it was right or wrong on the girl's part, you don't get to run people down.

"the woman can't legally just run people down to get a space."

I'm trying to picture someone being "run down" by a car backing into an on street parking space.

The car hurtles toward you at 1-2 mph as you frantically stand there with your arms crossed over your chest, your mind struggling to comprehend that this driver doesn't understand that this is MY SPACE.

Sorry, AG, but I think you're wrong too. Who says the wife has a wife to "reserve" a space? Her? You? Parking spots on the street, as far as I know, are first come, first serve. Just because you live there doesn't give you any "special privileges." Some communmities do have special parking rules, in which residents get permits they can put on their cars and others aren't allowed to park. But it sounds like your community doesn't. Work on changing that, instead of backing up people who block traffic (possibly risking other people's lives and safety), rely on obstructionism and intimidation, and spurious claims of entitlement, to interfere with other people going about their legitimate business.

As for the rape thing. Please. That can't be an excuse for everything. In any event, hubby can either escort his wife to and from the car or they could move the car later, when the meeting was over and spots had freed up.

On the "running down" thing, more BS. No one has the right to intentionally block legitimate motor vehicle traffic, and then complain that they were "run down." In any event, it is clear that Miss Entitlement Princess was NOT run down. She got out of the way of the person parking her car.

As a final note, I enjoy your column and blog, but it seems to me that you are awfully quick to judge, label and ridicule other people. I think your neighbors, with their false sense of self importance, their absurd behavior, and their bogus threats are the assholes, rectums, and sphincters. But I wouldn't jump to that conclusion in print. If you think someone is at fault in a particular situation, why don't you explain calmly, and without vulgarities, why you think that. Just calling people names doesn't cut it.

This story can be filed under - "you know that you're not in Philadelphia when...".

In Philadelphia, it's a common courtesy to give up spaces to residents of the block. If you see someone standing in a space, they either live there, know someone who lives there, or had jumped out of a car that's circling the block. Either way, they have dibs.

If someone were to pull what this woman did, there'd likely have been a confrontation.

Where this brakes down is in the districts where Lexus driving psychologists visit environmental galleries and people like Teddy scold people for their impertinence. Then it's the law of the jungle. But these areas don't maintain a stable population. The residents are primarily yuppies, and they'll move on soon enough, so they don't really have an incentive to make their districts more livable.

Sounds to me more like Philly, in your version of it anyway, follows the law of the jungle. This "turf" is part of this person's "territory" and no outsider better dare try to enforce his own legal right to park in a vacant parking spot. If they do, there will be a "confrontation." In other words, thugs who think that might makes right will try to enforce their own, self-important sense of "dibs" against other citizens just trying to go about their business. Residents don't own the sidewalk, and they don't own the street either. Those are public property and are open to use by the public at large. People who make exclusive claims on what belongs to everyone are selfish.

Don't people in Philly ever go anywhere besides their own neighborhood? When they do, don't they have to park? Don't try to paint clannishness and a narrow, exclsuionary view of "community" as something good.

And the meeting and the Lexis have nothing to do with it. Whoever tried to take the spot from Miss Entitlement Princess would have been in for the same treatment. And, in any event, what's wrong with driving a Lexis or going to a get together? Why does the guy who lives there, or you, get to decide who is or isn't worthy of parking in a spot that neither of you own or have any more right to than anyone else?

That's right princess, people who look out for each other are selfish thugs - but the one's who don't give a damn about others are enlightened.

But who is in the "each other" group? Not everyone, apparently. There is "us" and "them." There is me, and my neighbors, and there are "all you others." Sorry, but there's nothing "enlightened" about trying to claim exclusive rights for you and "yours" of goods that belong to everyone equally. And, yeah, if you get "confrontational" about it, then you're a thug.

Again, the issue isn't whether the girlfriend has a "right" to reserve a space -- but what you can legally do with a car.

We aren't being allowed permits -- despite the fact that there's a city lot with meters going in across from our houses. People will drive 12 feet to park for free. We who live here will never be able to park near our houses again. Again, that comes with safety risks, as my neighbor P, who is a still photographer on movie sets, comes home late at night with piles of equipment. She doesn't have anyone to escort her when she comes home -- nor should she need to. The problem here was caused by assholes in city government who gave out parking variances to businesses (meaning they could open businesses without adequate parking) and then residentially zoned parking, which was fine and dandy until about three years ago, was sucked up by people visiting.

Oh, and this means that people going to the rowdy bar by us park in front of our house and make noise leaving and wake us up at 2 am. Clearly, we have to fight this -- but it shouldn't have transpired in the first place.

People who endanger other people for a parking space are worse than rectums.

Holy Moses! Where did you get all that? It's just people reserving a parking space!

But yeah if you try to hit someone with your car, they're going to say something to you about it.

I think that you're just trying to excite yourself. Because at this point, you're just making stuff up.

that comment was directed at rudy, not Amy

"People who endanger other people for a parking space are worse than rectums."

If you decide to stand in front of a slowly moving car, it is you who are endangering yourself.

"Again, the issue isn't whether the girlfriend has a "right" to reserve a space -- but what you can legally do with a car."

You can legally park a car on the street which is what this woman was doing. Is it legal to stand in a roadway and block cars?

This all makes me wonder why people don't have parking spots of their own. I have never lived in an apartment where I didn't rent a parking space. Either people decide not to pay for a spot or they rented or bought a place without parking and then expect the city to provide on street parking.

The only person who created a situation of "endangerment" was Miss Entitlement Princess standing in the parking spot. She was standing in the street. I'm pretty sure, even in California, that the traffic code forbids pedestrians from standing in the street, unless there is a reason for it. I'm assuming that, in a residential neighborhood in LA, there are sidewalks and regulated intersections and so on. In other words, MEP had no legitimate reason and hence no legal right to be on the street. She was blocking traffic. If she got hurt, or caused an accident (like someone rearending the would-be parker while she tried to get MEP out of the way) it would be on her. So, under your own theory, she is the rectum, or worse.

As for the rest of it, that is not the parker's problem. The "rowdy bars" at 2 AM had nothing to do with the women in the Lexus. Nor do the harrowing tales of rape. Neither one of these factors was even present here as she was not attending a rowdy bar, it was the daytime, and the space was being saved for a couple, not a single woman. Nor do the "assholes" in city government or the fact that there is metered parking only 12 feet away have anything to do with it. It can't be the responsibility of every motorist to divine why a particular person is trying to prevent her from parking in a place where she clearly has every right to park.

The fact of the matter is that the law simply does not recognize any special parking privileges for the residents of this area. Live with it or try to change it. But don't try to rely on self help to bully or shame people into what you want them to do, but what they are not required by law to do. If anyone gets hurt in one of these situations, either because of a car accident or in a fight, the blame for it is on people like your neighbors, who are trying to take the law into their own hands.

Just wondering how many of assholes claiming their visiting a neighborhood for a few hours means they have pre-emptory rights over a resident standing holding a spot would feel if they couldn't park by their house? Yeah, I didn't fucking think so. I bet you'd be up in arms pretty damned fucking quick if you couldn't. Of course, I'm willing to guess you're suburbanites with your own driveways and garages who feel quite entitled to shit on those losers who still live in the city any time you have a yen for entertainment or business in their neighborhood. I don't even drive and I know your type.

Normally, I wouldn't side with the standee. If it's for a desirable place near the door in an area with plenty of parking then they would be in the wrong but if they're just trying to park close enough to their house without having to hike half a mile between house and car, I think it's an valid issue. Of course, I'll agree with Amy too that even if the "wife" were being a complete asshole in the matter, it's hardly deserving the death penalty. If the deadly weapon had been a gun instead of a Lexus, would you still feel the same because the "entitled little princess" shouldn't feel she has a right to a parking space by her house? Maybe it'd behoove the Lexus (or the Dodge were it one but why would we all have been surprised if it had been, oh yeah, status symbol seekers do seem to think we should all bow down before the golden idols they acquire; who's the princess of entitlement, eh?) driver to check out the available parking (or lack thereof) when planning their evening out. Is it really that difficult to ask that extra question when making reservations? If it costs a business customers because they didn't plan for adequate parking, boo hoo. That really should have been part of their planning setting up the business. Pure laziness on their part that should hurt their business.

I live in Albany, NY and the parking problems here are woeful (and the public transit even worse). Downtown Albany has literally thousands of apartments elbow to elbow with the State Capitol, Empire State Plaza (fairly large state office complex), City and County offices and courts, a Federal Office Building, State University headquarters, two arenas, and two theaters along with other smaller offices and businesses scattered amongst the apartments. There's been an ongoing fight for decades (the Empire State Plaza was built in the '60's) between residents and commuters about who has first entitlement to on-street parking (there are some parking garages but they hold roughly only about a tenth of the space they need to). Add to that mix, a scandal has just been exposed of "ghost" tickets being given out to cops and certain other privileged critters who are given tickets for parking illegally in the vicinity of the courthouses (on business or not) but being fined $0 on the ticket.

I don't drive so I realize that makes me a bystander and I've been both an employee and a resident so that also doesn't give me the usual downtown employee perspective but I've got to say I'm utterly on the side of residents in this ongoing battle. How many of the crybaby workers would be content to give up their at-home parking spaces for the sake of the employees and customers of businesses in their local neighborhood. Very few, I'd wager.

Before anyone screams, live in the suburbs if you don't like it, I remind you that I've been taking the heat in the last few days on the housing issue because "people shouldn't live in more house than they can afford". It ain't always an option. And the fucking nerve of those damned urbanites owning a car where they live. What gaul to not want to have to park 10 blocks from their house!

Christ, anyone who expects someone who lives there to have to park away from their house so they the visitor can park by it instead is the one with the ridiculous sense of entitlement!

"Holy Moses! Where did you get all that? It's just people reserving a parking space! "

Reserving a spot that isn't theirs. And I got it from you, who claims that because me and my neighbors have decided that, contrary to the law, we have "dibs" on something, we can bully other people out of their right to it.

"But yeah if you try to hit someone with your car, they're going to say something to you about it."

Here's a tip. If you don't want to get by a car, stay out of the street.

"I think that you're just trying to excite yourself. Because at this point, you're just making stuff up."

I made up nothing. I simply responded to your posts. Why is it OK for you to post, but, if I respond, I'm "trying to excite" myself.

ruddy, if you're really that ignorant, I suggest a long chat with your attorney before you wind up behind bars.

"Just wondering how many of assholes claiming their visiting a neighborhood for a few hours means they have pre-emptory rights over a resident standing holding a spot would feel if they couldn't park by their house. . ."

You're just begging the question. I've been in that position, and I still feel the same way. Nice attempt to shift the blame though--"pre-emptory rights?" I don't think so. The resident is trying to enforce those, not the visitor.

"I bet you'd be up in arms pretty damned fucking quick if you couldn't."

I wouldn't be, actually. You might. Go ahead, be up in arms. Go complain at city hall. But, in the meanwhile, leave the parkers alone.

"Of course, I'm willing to guess you're suburbanites with your own driveways and garages who feel quite entitled to shit on those losers who still live in the city any time you have a yen for entertainment or business in their neighborhood. I don't even drive and I know your type."

That's not me. But, even if it were, so what? Just follow the law. Or work to change it. But don't stand in the street with a chip on your shoulder and a legally spurious claim of entitlement.

"I think it's an valid issue."

Good for you. I don't. The law sides with me. If you don't like it, change the law.

". . .it's hardly deserving the death penalty. . . "

The wife was never touched.

"If the deadly weapon had been a gun instead of a Lexus, would you still feel the same because the "entitled little princess" shouldn't feel she has a right to a parking space by her house?"

No, because no one has the right to point a gun at a person except in self defense or defense of another. But, a person does have a right to drive down the street and park without being obstructed. In the case you describe, you have two wrongdoers. And two wrongs don't make a right.

". . .or the Dodge were it one but why would we all have been surprised if it had been, oh yeah, status symbol seekers do seem to think we should all bow down before the golden idols they acquire; who's the princess of entitlement, eh?. . . "

Yeah, whatever. Class warfare, is it then? A real working class hero trying to defend his "turf" from those Lexus driving yuppie assholes? Fantasize away. The particular kind of car has nothing to do with it. And, to repeat, Lexus drivers have just as much right to park on the street as everyone else. Even if Mr. Look Back in Anger doesn't dig their cars.

"If it costs a business customers because they didn't plan for adequate parking, boo hoo. That really should have been part of their planning setting up the business. Pure laziness on their part that should hurt their business."

Whatever. Take that up with City Hall. Not with the individual parker.

"I live in Albany, NY and [blah, blah, blah]but I've got to say I'm utterly on the side of residents in this ongoing battle. . . "

Again, good for you. Work to make the law reflect your views.

"Christ, anyone who expects someone who lives there to have to park away from their house so they the visitor can park by it instead is the one with the ridiculous sense of entitlement!"

What is this "park away from their house" crap anyway. When you buy or rent a house, don't you notice that it doesn't have a driveway? Don't you notice that there is no reserved resident parking. That means you're on your own. So what if you have to walk a couple of blocks from your car to house and back again? The "visitor" would have to do the same thing, if the spots were all reserved for the residents. The visitor is simply saying "first come, first serve," you are the one advocating entitlement.

Not that it matters, but it just so happens that I used to live in Philadelphia. I lived in an apartment in a house with no driveway. And I had a car. Parking was a bitch. But I knew that before I moved in. I often had to park a half mile or more from house. And I'm pretty sure that not all of the cars parked on my block were those of residents. Well, and what of it? It was just tough shit, wasn't it? I didn't own the f'ing street, and I didn't pretend to. I didn't call my wife when I was on my way home and have her stand on the street trying to "reserve" a spot for me. I took my chances like everyone else, and sometimes I had to take my lumps.

T's grammy:

Whatever. I really don't care if you think I'm "ignorant." In any event, the Lexus driver here did not "end up behind bars." Nor do I think she would have if it all went to court. Go re-read your traffic code.

And another thing. According to the AG, the traffic and parking shortage is caused by there being a boulevard "a block away." Well, I'm pretty sure that boulevard was there before the AG and her neighbors, moved in. If you choose to live a block away from a busy, business street, don't you think, that, just maybe, you assumed the risk that parking would be at a premium. You could have chosen to live somewhere else. Maybe that would cost more. Maybe you wanted to be near the bouelvard for convenience sake, whatever. But, if you don't have a garage or driveway and know that you are going to have to rely on street parking, then you shouldn't move right next to a busy, business street unless you don't mind having to park pretty far from your home sometimes.

Not that it matters, but it just so happens that I used to live in Philadelphia.

AHA!! That's where you're coming from. I'd wondered why you were jumping to so many conclusions. So my guess is that you don't like Philadelphians - yes? You think that they're all lowlife scum and thugs?

BTW Rudy the courtesy I'm talking about doesn't work for people in apartment buildings. It only really works where the residents live on the street. So you've just acknowledged that you don't know what I'm referring to.

And you made your wife walk half a mile to get home at night?!? That's pretty low. I mean in that situation, you should rent a space, or move.

Frankly I doubt that you've ever been to a neighborhood where people reserve spots for each other. You're just a bigot with a lot of opinions.

And how does the would-be parker even know that you are a "resident?" Because you say so? And, even if you are, maybe the "visitor" has problems with his or her legs, or maybe he or she is going to be carrying heavy packages out of the business she is "visiting." Or carrying a child. Or assisting an old person. Or whatever. You can't start legislating on the street, saying my needs are more important than yours, because you don't know all of the facts, and no one knows who is telling the truth anyway.

There's a reason we have written laws and rules and traffic and parking codes. There is a reason that when special parking rules are in effect, there are signs to indicate which spaces they apply to and stickers (like for the handicapped, or physicians, or, in some cases, for residents) which identify which vehicles are eligible.

And that reason is to avoid just this kind of situation. What one person thinks is "common courtesy" or justified "dibs" or "neighborlyness," another person sees as an unfair, exclusive claim on a public good. And that leads to confrontations and to endangerment. If there are special rules, then no one has to stand on the street and "reserve" a spot. No innocent motorist has to be confronted by a person standing on the street asserting that her needs are more important than hers. The space either requires a sticker or it doesn't. And you either have the sticker or you don't. No argument. No "reserving." No competing claims of entitlement. Noone standing in the street.

Phil:

Wrong again. On all counts. I liked Philly and liked living there. And I never said they were all thugs, just those that would "confront" a person for trying to park in a legal parking space.

Secondly, I know what you are referring to. And I know that my situation was a little different. Which is why I didn't refer to it when I responded to you. But, the situation wasn't THAT different. I didn't live in an "apartment building." I lived in an apartment in a house. And, in any event, it was pretty clear that not everyone parked on the block lived there. And that, I've been told, is the key issue.

As for what I did or didn't for my wife, that is none of your business. Period.

On your last point, that is just more of the same from you. Your stance is that you and people who live in your neighborhood get to make the rules, even when it comes to public facilities. Well,I don't have much use for that. Whether I lived in such a place or not is irrelevant.

It is you who is narrow minded and bigoted, Mr. File it Under You Know You're Not in Philadelphia Anymore. . . "Unless everyone thinks like my buddies and I in our corner of Philly think, then they are wrong. And not only wrong, but not even allowed to express themselve."

Whatever.

"We live here and your a visitor...."

Small nit to pick (and perhaps not relevant to the argument), but it's "you're a visitor...."

When my twins were babies, I had the double stroller next to my car loading them up at the mall (Nordstrom's lot) with plenty of open spaces around. Some rich bitch in an SUV decided to pull in anyway and hit the stroller. Then, respond to my WTF with "I was trying to wait, but I guess no good deed goes unpunished." I did call the cops on her. And had my policeman stepdad and policeman brother follow up, but nothing really happened. Maybe it embarrassed her a little at least. The girls were fine, that was the first thing I ascertained of course.

She stood in a parking space to save it for her husband? Sorry, you can't do that. Unless that parking space is specially reserved for your unit/address, you cannot block someone from taking it.

However, it does seem that parking in your neighborhood is limited, and parking for businesses on the next street over should not be encroaching in your residential area. Seems like there needs to be some parameters.

Ruddy and Steamer, you do realize that ANY time you hit a pedestrian with your car, it's your fault, right? Legally, you do understand that? Because if not, you may be heading for jail. Much like when an adult punches a kid, it does not matter the situation or justification you think you have, it is never allowed.

Chances are...even if you don't have the license plate you should -- I M RECTUM

Rectum? Damn near killed 'im.

Is it illegal to stand in potential parking spaces in LA? Why can't you do this?

Are there demarcations for parking spaces on this street?

If there's no prohibition on standing on the side of the street, and no legal prerogative granted to parking, then there's no reason that someone should assume that they can force a person to move from the street in order to allow them to park.

I can appreciate that it may be frustrating for someone who's seeking to park to see someone else standing in a potential parking space, but I don't see how the desire to park constitutes an overriding authority to park in a given spot when it's occupied by a human being.

You know, it may be more efficient to allow people to reserve parking spaces by standing in them. This could reduce the cascading effect of excess demand for parking in a given district - i.e. where residents and visitors are pushed further and further from their destination as the parking capacity is absorbed. The recognition by visitors that spaces may be 'reserved' as demand increases could enable them to make a more informed choice as to their parking options. That is, more people would choose to pay for parking rather than drive around hoping to find a space when there are none.

If you choose to live a block away from a busy, business street, don't you think, that, just maybe, you assumed the risk that parking would be at a premium.

The boulevard here is "busy" because variances were given to businesses that did not have parking adequate for their businesses. The residences have been here for decades and decades, with no problem parking until scumbag politicians got involved and handed out variances when they had no business doing so. The house I rent has been here for over 100 years. When I moved here 10 years ago, there was not a problem in the world parking here. Our street was zoned for RESIDENTIAL parking. We now have to fight to park reasonable safely? It's crazy. We are not profiting from these businesses, yet we're picking up their costs. This is theft.

Again, an example: A 70-seat restaurant is allowed to open without providing even ONE parking space. Other restaurants, also without adequate (or any) parking are allowed to open up and down the block. Where do you think their customers will park? What neighborhood can accommodate that?

Furthermore, Mack, just above, is exactly right. Because you want a parking space doesn't mean you can use your car to menace a person standing in one out of it.

If you think someone is at fault in a particular situation, why don't you explain calmly, and without vulgarities, why you think that. Just calling people names doesn't cut it.

Doesn't it? You're here.

Thanks, but I'm a little old for a nanny.

I'm not calm and I love vulgarities. I just complimented Crid on a rather lyrical string the other day.

Should you prefer more Victorian language, feel free to sign up for your own blog over at blogspot.com

This is rectum territory.

Conan writes:

Rectum? Damn near killed 'im.

That's an old joke and you have one hell of a nerve calling yourself a Grammarian? Ha! Conan the Vulgarian is more like it.

If you were a bit more clandestine about recycling old and horrible puns, you could call yourself Conan the Librarian.

"Ya book's ovahdue, Ahshole."

mom of 3:

"Ruddy and Steamer, you do realize that ANY time you hit a pedestrian with your car, it's your fault, right? Legally, you do understand that? Because if not, you may be heading for jail."

Simply not true. Even plaintiff's accident lawyers in California say so. And that is in regard to civil liablity, never mind "jail." Do you really think that every car accident involving a pedestrian ends with the driver going to jail? Regardless as to who was at fault?

http://www.pedestrianaccidentattorney.com/faq.html#N_1_

Mack:

"Is it illegal to stand in potential parking spaces in LA? Why can't you do this?"

California Traffic Code:

"•21954(a) CVC – Pedestrians Outside Crosswalk

"Every pedestrian upon a roadway, except those traveling within a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles in the roadway that are near enough to constitute an immediate hazard."

A pedestrian on the street, except in a crosswalk, has to yield to vehicular traffic. Yield to it, not attempt to block it.

Amy:

"The boulevard here is 'busy' because variances were given to businesses that did not have parking adequate for their businesses. The residences have been here for decades and decades, with no problem parking until scumbag politicians got involved and handed out variances when they had no business doing so. The house I rent has been here for over 100 years. When I moved here 10 years ago, there was not a problem in the world parking here. Our street was zoned for RESIDENTIAL parking. We now have to fight to park reasonable safely? It's crazy. We are not profiting from these businesses, yet we're picking up their costs. This is theft."

It's not "theft." The parking spaces are public property, which the public authorities have every right to allocate as they see fit. Perhaps you just assumed the situation would never change, but that is your fault. The city as a whole profits from the businesses,and the city gets to decide how to allocate the parking. Next, you don't even own the house in question. Nothing is tieing you to it. If you don't like the situation with regards to the parking, why don't you move when your lease expires? Third, in LA at least, "boulevards" are always busy streets. You moved right next to one. Again, you just assumed that business would never expand beyond it's then current level. The risk of that assumption turning out to be wrong was on you.

"Again, an example: A 70-seat restaurant is allowed to open without providing even ONE parking space. Other restaurants, also without adequate (or any) parking are allowed to open up and down the block. Where do you think their customers will park? What neighborhood can accommodate that?"

But, as has been pointed out to you before, yours, and all your neighbors', houses don't have "even ONE parking space" either. You just assume that you have some sort of right to parking, on the street, on public property that you don't own, while these horrible "businesses" must provide on-site parking for all their customers. A neighborhood in which the houses had driveways and garages could accomadate it. Yours doesn't. Maybe that means your houses are cheaper than those with driveways and garages. But,that cheapness comes with the risk that parking right in front of your house may not always be available.

Again, I lived in Philadelphia, and in other urban areas, when I had a car. I had no parking spot in a garage, nor did I have a driveway. Parking was always a problem, and often I ended up having to park pretty far away from my home. And, needless to say, the problem was worse when I lived near a busy street. But that came with the territory. If one chooses to live in a city, there are certain advantages and certain disadvantages. And one of the disadvantages is that space is at a premium. So, if one chooses to keep a car, but does not choose to pay the extra cost associated with having a dedicated parking spot (house with driveway, apartment with parking lot for residents, garage near home which rents out spaces), then one has no guarantee that parking will always be convenient.

But, besides all of that, the real reason why you and your neighbors are wrong is that, while you may have a good case, you are making it to the wrong person. Again, that's one reason why we have city counsels, and such--to allocate by legislation scarce public goods among competing claimants. And one reason why we have parking and traffic codes is to prevent ad hoc, on the spot, attempts to determine that allocation by the claimants themselves based on what they percieve to be fair. The driver in the situation you described is under no obligation to figure all of your complaints out, evaluate them, and then determine if they outweigh her own needs. The parking is unmarked. By law, in such cases, it is first come, first serve. It's not the driver's fault, nor her responsibility, that the zoning board has not acted in a way that you feel is proper. She is just trying to go about her business without being set upon by vigilantes. Your way of doing things leads to confrontations and accidents.

"Furthermore, Mack, just above, is exactly right. Because you want a parking space doesn't mean you can use your car to menace a person standing in one out of it."

Well, Mack is "exactly" wrong when he implied that a person has the right to stand in the street and block potential parkers. And while it can be considered tortious to use one's car to "menace" people, the cases so holding refer to situations in which the driver is already in the wrong, like when he is tailgating. Here, it is the pedestrian that is in the wrong, according to the traffic code. Also, using one's body in an attempt to prevent another person from going where they have a legal right to go can also be tortious.

Moreover, under your theory, anyone can stop traffic whereever she wants to. A pedestrian can walk right into the middle of traffic, even on a busy steet,and just stand there. According to you, no matter how long she stood there, and even though she had no right to be there, the drivers would not be allowed to pull up and "menace" her.

"Thanks, but I'm a little old for a nanny. . . "

The point is that you shouldn't be so quick to condemn others. At a minimum, if you are being fair, you will admit that it is not so clear that the people who you thought were in the right really were, and that the person you thought was in the wrong really was. There are usually two sides to every story.

mom of 3:

"Ruddy and Steamer, you do realize that ANY time you hit a pedestrian with your car, it's your fault, right? Legally, you do understand that? Because if not, you may be heading for jail."

When this happened to me, I pulled part way into the spot. It was a standoff. I couldn't park because she was standing in the spot and her husband couldn't park because I was in the way. She eventually left. There was no menacing going on except for her language and gestures.

In this case, the note said that she was forced from the spot, almost getting hit. Since he exaggerated his relationship status for effect and lied about reporting her to the police, could he also be exaggerating how close his wife, er girlfriend, came to being hit?

According to the California Traffic Code section quoted above, the girlfriend was in the wrong. Could that be why they didn't report it to the police?

People also park in residential areas to avoid metered parking. Chicago is having an issue with that ever since they sold the parking meter concession to a private company which jacked the meter rates way up.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1488763,CST-EDT-carol22.article?plckCurrentPage=1&sid=sitelife.suntimes.com

Ruddyturnstone, sir or madam, you are indomitable! (and also almost as pedantic as I!)

My home situation is similar, and sometimes parking spots are hard to come by. I wanted to clean my car so I placed cones outside my house to reserve a space while I went to get the car. A neighbour objected, but we didn't have a shoot-out or anything.

Seems to me that cones don't occupy a space on the road any more or any less than a car does, so I don't see why they should be any more or less valid. I have to park my cones somewhere, after all. Would it have been less objectionable if I had used something else to save a space - a trailer for example? That makes no sense to me.

Perhaps the UK law is different. I suspect no-one has any right to park on the street at all, but so long as they are not causing an obstruction or a nuisance, no action is taken.

I think this illustrates a common problem that I have been reading about. The desire for high densit housing by cities/growth management board/etc and not looking at it realisitically.

One business district has been detailed in the locally weekly. The neighborhood council got the nieghborhood designated a high density growth area. This means businesses got incentitaves to open there to support the local people so they did not have to go to other places to get what they need etc. Also, the creation of additional parking is all but outlawed. A couple of the business where quite successful leading to a parking problem that is horrible ... worse then described here because there are no pay lots. A couple of long time businesses and churches make significant money by renting out their parking. The residents got the streets as permit only (amazingly easy...get signiatures of 75% of the property owners on the block, file it and pay the $50 fee and pay for the signs...then each resident has to buy a permit to park on the street $20/year - one per a lot max). This resulted in 90% of the parking being resident only and the average parking per a business to be 0.9 spots (according to the paper). Last I knew there was a big law suit since the business said this change violated state law and their permit agreement.

I rented a place in college that had a driveway/parking spot that I used in the fall, but in the spring a new neighbor moved in and complained that my vehicle when parked their inruded on the sidewalk and yeah it did...when I was carefully only the bumper, maybe you could have parked and old VW bug there...and yes I did get a warning citation so I could not park there.

I'm not fond of the idea of someone standing in a street-side space reserving it.

I'm not fond of a person moving 2,000 pounds of metal and gas towards another person in a game of chicken.

The question though, is whom was endangering whom?

Was it the driver? Or the pedestrian?

The driver was determined to park, as was their right on the side of a city street with no publicly allowed reservation. That determination to park was great enough to bring the driver to the choice to move a ton of metal straight at an objecting pedestrian.

The individual attempting to reserve that spot, was determined that only her companion should park there, that, as a local, it was their right to take that local spot. Now this perceived right, to my knowledge, is not codified under the law, and is not protected by any court rulings...rather it is a perceived entitlement that this couple was determined to enforce.

And so that pedestrian chose of her own volition to stand in a city street and block a vehicle attempting a perfectly legal driving maneuver...parking. In that respect, the "reserving" party, was willfully endangering her own safety over an entitlement that existed only in her own overly privileged head.

So we find ourselves at an impasse...and when two opposing forces find themselves at an impasse, it is the greater force which prevails.

In this case, a ton of metal and a legal right granted to all legal drivers to park where parking is available was the greater force.

The opposing force, an overly entitled local backed by a hundred & some pounds of flesh, who had no right to specifically reserve a public parking space for any absent party, regardless of the expected duration of the absence, was the weaker force.

Perhaps the polite thing for a visitor to do is to yield a space to a local.

But how pray tell...does a visitor know a resident from another visitor...when there is not even a license plate to look at?

They don't.

That leaves only one final question.

What was the RIGHT course of action?

Compelling confrontation between metal & flesh yielded the desired result yes. But such behaviors easily lead to escalating violence.

The best solution would have been to do as one of the above commentators did...move the car as much into the spot as possible, then simply sit and turn the engine off, make the position plain, do not negotiate, and let the spoiled brat scream all she wants as she departs.

Heh, said it before, and I'll say it again.

I love Miss Alkon's work...but every now and again she's just a wee bit to Californian for me.

Robert - "And so that pedestrian chose of her own volition to stand in a city street and block a vehicle attempting a perfectly legal driving maneuver...parking."

If it's reasonable to block someone parking by parking a ton of metal in the parking bay, why is it not reasonable to temporarily block their parking by other means? It's not as if the parking bay was going to be used for some other purpose.

Change of subject ... what about people in restaurants who send one of their number to queue while the rest find a table - thereby occupying the table for twice as long as necessary and making problems for customers who are not part of a team? Or just as bad, singletons who claim a table by leaving a coat on the chair. Sometimes I sit there anyway and say "Oh I thought someone had left their coat behind."

My point precisely Norman. It is NOT reasonable for a pedestrian to obstruct traffic for purposes of reservation.

The pedestrian was wrong here, plain and simple. True the driver's actions were extreme to lay claim to the spot, but failure to enforce rights is the first step towards losing them.

Robert - I was disagreeing with you!

When I park my car in a space, it blocks any other car from parking. So the mere act of blocking another car from parking cannot be an issue.

You argue that it is OK to block with a car but not OK to block with anything else - in this case, a pedestrian. In the example given, the pedestrian expected to be in the space for 2 minutes and then it would be blocked by a vehicle. What's the problem? What is the actual harm done? No more than if the second car had arrived 2 minutes later and found the space occupied by a legitimately parked car.

I don't see what difference it makes how a space is blocked, provided it is not using a parking space for, say, running a hot dog stand.

The difference, Norman, is that the parking spots are for people with cars who desire to park in them at that moment. Not pedestrians, and not people with cones.

The "actual harm" done is that the pedestrian and the cone user are violating that rule, to the detriment of an innocent party. A space that is empty is being denied to a would-be parker with every right to that space. And that is quite different from the situation in which the space is occupied by an actual car when the would-be parker arrives. In that case, the space is in use already.

Here's an analogy for you. Say there is a small park in the neighborhood with one picnic table. Say a group of "residents" usually meet at 11 am on Saturday mornings to play cards at that table. One Saturday, a non-resident family come to the park, and sit down at the table for a picnic at 10:58 am. Two minutes later, the residents come by and insist that family move. In addition to all of their other spurious arguments about why they should have special priviledges, they also say, "Well, what if we had gotten here 2 minutes ago, then you wouldn't have the table anyway. So, what's the harm?"

The fact is they weren't there two minutes ago. They weren't there when the public facility was empty and open to use on a first come, first serve basis. And neither was the "resident" in either of your cases. Whatever method the resident chooses to use to block other parkers while the space is empty, if he was not yet there with his car to take it, they are wrong.

Or, to beg the question even more, what if the residents, without any authority other than their own say-so, leave a piece of paper taped to the table saying "Reserved for resident card game--Saturday 11 am." Under your theory, when the family arrive at 10:58 am they shouldn't sit down at the table. And they are no more "harmed" than if the residents were actually using the table at that time. And no more "harmed" than if they had arrived at 11:02 and the "residents" were already there at the table. But there is no way in hell the family would see it that way.

Parking spots are for cars, and picnic tables are for humans. Other items, self-designated by a "resident" to "reserve" these public facilities, like pedestrians and cones in the cases of parking spaces, and pieces of paper in the case of picnic tables, don't change that.

It's amazing to me the length that people will go in creating arguments to defend a practice that is not only clearly wrong, but totally unnecessary too. In the case the AG reports, the "resident" was moving his car "from around the block." Why was it so important that his car be parked right in front of his house, as opposed to a short distance away? Norman wants to block off a parking spot with cones (giving the false impression that the spot is officially closed, I guess) so that he can bring his car in front of his house to wash it. But, can't he just go to a car wash? Or, can't he reserve his car washing for times when he already has a spot in front of his house?

Again, when you live in house, especially one in a city, that doesn't have a driveway or garage, you assume the risk that you won't always have a spot right in front of your house. To try to turn the street into your private domain, by whatever method, is wrong. And no amount of sophistry is going to change that.

Norman

A parking space is meant to be used to park a car and a restaurant table is meant to be used to eat a meal purchased in that restaurant.

You use the following example to show that it's wrong to reserve a table with a coat or members of a team which denies the table to customers who are ready to eat.

...what about people in restaurants who send one of their number to queue while the rest find a table - thereby occupying the table for twice as long as necessary and making problems for customers who are not part of a team? Or just as bad, singletons who claim a table by leaving a coat on the chair. Sometimes I sit there anyway and say "Oh I thought someone had left their coat behind."

Why is it bad to reserve a table and not a parking spot? And why is it OK to take a table reserved by a coat and force the coat owner to move elsewhere, but not OK to take a parking space reserved by a pedestrian (assuming that you are not puting her in physical danger)?

You might not like the weather, and the taxes are probably just as bad as California, but upstate NY has affordable housing, with parking and no signs of traffic jams.

Yes, I'm rubbing it in. I have to take it when it comes to big city culture, weather, jobs, yadda yadda. You make your choices, and you live with the results and the consequences. This sterile suburban living comes with a five to ten minute commute and plenty of parking.

I look at it as an extra hour added to my life, every day. Two compared to my buddy Tom in San Leandro.

Norman...because parking on public property is first come first server.

No reservations, no private spaces, no entitlements for any single individual.

The car which arrived first had every right to park in the unoccupied space, like any other citizen.

The private citizen trying to reserve it was in clear violation of law & custom regarding interference with lawful vehicular trafic.

The "counter blocking" of the space, is the only reasonable alternative to driving that ton of metal into the space, thus increasing the risk to life & property to ensure the enforcement of a legitimate right. Between the peaceable protest of simply idling until the idiot moves...and "menacing", to borrow the word choice, I believe the former is a superior moral choice than the latter.

The issue is one of the use of public property by private citizens. A citizen attempting to exclude other citizens from any part of public property allotted for public use on a first come first serve basis IS an issue, and it IS a crime, in this case traffic based to say the least. Whether it was for 2 minutes or 2 hours, the pedestrian stepped beyond her own rights at the expense of someone elses. The law is clear, the pedestrian is wrong.

As far as the restaurant comparison, your comparison is rather offbase.

First of all, a restaurant is private property administered for the purposes of profit, any policy set by the restaurant, short of discriminatory practices which violate the law, is by definition legitimate use. A customer unhappy with the service or its policies takes their business elsewhere.

And by the way, if a restaurant is full and a single customer is attempting to reserve a whole table without a party en route, they're likely to be given a bar spot and some freebies to allow larger parties to take that table. A restaurant is unlikely to yield a private table to a single individual when there are large parties waiting to provide a healthy profit.

In that case, the restaurant is a final and absolute arbiter of privilege & service which the customer may at any time refuse to entertain.

Public parking is absolutely codified and has no need of arbitration, because the rule is clear. First come, first serve, no private privilege based on local residency, no obstruction of legitimate traffic by pedestrians. .

The driver may have gone rather far in defense of their right of way, but people who obstruct the lawful rights of other people in pursuit of their own privilige...I never feel bad for, whether they feel menaced or not.

End of day, rules are clear, want a particular space, wait for it in your car and take it when its free. Otherwise, walk a bit, its good exercise, and no, I don't feel bad for the lazy any more than I do the entitled whiners.

Addendum:

"I called it!" Has its power neutralized when we become adults. Guess that pedestrian hadn't figured that out.

Interesting issue - I confess I can see both sides. However, the credibility of the non-Amy side (as represented by Ruddy) was severely strained with the little jab about houses without garages being cheaper. If you'd read the post, you'd realize that the neighborhood was over a century old and thus was built prior to the need for parking. I very much doubt this makes it "cheaper" in any regard.

Credibility of one is not credibility of all CB.

No one has been able to successfully contradict the basic legal argument over the right to park in an unoccupied space, the illegality of obstructing traffic, the illegality of attempting to reserve an unreservable piece of public property, or the legitimate application of the present first come first serve system which has existed as long as parking spaces have.

That's true, Robert - I shouldn't have imputed Ruddy's comment to the many other people who share your position, and I'm sorry for inadvertently doing so.

That said, it seems as though doggedly clinging to the letter of the law here (and whether it's even the literal letter is disputable) is ignoring the common decency issue. I agree that seeing people waiting in spots is really annoying (and, to be fair, does the story ever say that the woman in the car knew the woman saving the spot was a resident? What if it was just another rude restaurant-goer?), but it's hard not to be sympathetic to the cause of the residents who have been encroached on in a formerly residential area.

I confess CB, like you I did consider the common decency perspective.

Resident v. Visitor.
Waiting v. Ready.

And I'm not without empathy for residents in an area who want greater convenience.

I doubt very much the one attempting to park knew whether or not the one standing in the spot was a resident or not. After all, how could they?

More to the point though, I must ask:

By what measure is it decent to attempt to reserve a public space for a person at the expense of all others?

By what right does someone undertake that course of action, and why is it incumbent upon all others to respect it?

Even if we set aside the legal matters which place the pedestrian squarely in the wrong, I cannot wrap my mind around the decent part of the pedestrian & her companion's actions.

Perhaps the one who wanted the space was no saint. But there's nothing decent about demanding public space against the interest of those ready to use it.

CB:

". . .the credibility of the non-Amy side (as represented by Ruddy) was severely strained with the little jab about houses without garages being cheaper. If you'd read the post, you'd realize that the neighborhood was over a century old and thus was built prior to the need for parking. I very much doubt this makes it 'cheaper' in any regard."

I did the post. Amy (or her boyfriend), first rented the house, 10, not 100 years, ago. I doubt very much that any of the residents have lived there since before the advent of the automobile. I would be surprized if many of them have been there since before the car culture took over LA (shortly after World War II). Regardless of when the houses were built, when one buys or rents one of them now, one pays less than one would pay for a comparable house that came equipped with a driveway or garage. And that was equally true 10,20,or 30 years ago. That's what makes the houses "cheaper." If one wants the convenience of guaranteed parking right next to one's house, one has to pay more for it. The age of the houses themselves has nothing to do with it.

And even a hundred years ago, while there wasn't a need for parking automobilies, more expensive homes came with a barn or stable for horses. And wagons and carriages were either kept there too or in a separate structure (a carriage or coach house). And, of course, there was a driveway leading to such structures. Houses without such amenities, like those in the AG's neighborhood, were cheaper than those with them.

My comment was not meant as a "jab." It was part of an honest effort to explore the economics of the situation, free from emotionalism, presuppositions of entitlement, and bias. Parking on the street is an externality, and it is not at all clear why a "resident" is automatically entitled to it while a business invitee is not.

"Is it illegal to stand in potential parking spaces in LA? Why can't you do this?"

California Traffic Code:

"•21954(a) CVC – Pedestrians Outside Crosswalk

Point taken.

But I do wonder whether allowing spots to be reserved would result in a more efficient allocation of parking spaces - from the perspectives of time spent and proximity to one's destination.

I wonder whether anyone's ever modeled such a system?

I imagine every possible parking system has been modeled at some point. The problem from what I can tell is the traffic & parking models are not very good and even when they produce ridicules results the people running them must not have noticed. A freeway onramp by me was re-done last year. It is now two regular lanes and one HOV lane. These all merge into one lane and then merge the freeway which is only two lanes in that direction. How was that ever expected to work?

The reservation system...hmm...I see a lot of potential problems. People reserving more time then they need to make sure (what if the meeting runs long), people reserving and then not showing up, people runnnig over their reserved time blocking the next person who had it reserved. How would it work? I mean would you text your reservation request?

Amy,

I am disappointed at you not looking at this from a libertarian POV. Parking spaces are valuable and they are given away for free. Of course, there is a shortage. The obvious answer is to charge everyone for parking. Would that truly make you happier?

Also, I imagine you and your neighbors go to these restaurants, bars and galleries. It is what makes living in a city enjoyable. You cannot have restaurants without parking.

Q: How would it work?
A: Homeless people would stand around in parking spaces and demand money to move out of your way. If you don't give in to this extortion then you have to trust them not to fuck with your car while you're away.

That's efficient by Mack's definition, but hardly desirable.

I am not much for sympathy.
I do have a bit of empathy...having been in similar situations of inconvenience.

However the solution here is really very simple.

The residents in question should either:

Elect officials who will tackle the problem head on and attempt to provide adequate parking solutions.

Institute parking permits for spaces within a reasonable distance from homes, and allow verifiable area residents to purchase said permits on a first come first serve basis...then use the annual income from that to construct additional parking zones for nearby commercial areas to alleviate the problem for good.

Follow one of these courses of action with local business/construction regulations that require businesses to provide adequate parking for their customer base.

Note that none of the above solutions include a resident standing illegally on a city street to block legitimate traffic to lay claim to public property.

Saving a spot? You must be shitting me. You either park in a spot with a car or you don’t. Whoever shows up first with an actual, you know car, gets the spot. It’s the rule of the jungle. Lawn chairs, spouses and other household appurtenances don’t count.
On the other hand, parking where you know you are not wanted is begging to get you car keyed. Begging for it - unless the person in question is a gigantic pussy content with writing bitchy notes and sending his equally ineffective and clamorous wife out to do his bidding on the street.
Keep in mind folks this is a parking spot, pick your battles. Even in trendy LA I’d wager that at least one party could desperately benefit from a three block walk. It’s not worth an ass kicking, a key job or getting run over.

Heh, WELL SAID duderino.