Your home is your castle, and requiring a fee to have a gathering in your home is ridiculous.

But...do note that we are talking about twice-weekly gatherings of 50 people. Likely that's around 30 cars. That's a lot of people and parking. If these people spend part of their time outside, 50 voices is also a lot of noise.

What most likely happened is some anonymous neighbor has gotten tired of it, and complained to the city.

Whatever happened to the right to assemble peaceably?? Also, the fact that religious gatherings are treated differently than other gatherings is discriminatory in my book. Also, more than three people, really??

That said, if they'd done it another way and looked at the traffic issues and such, as random guy mentions, I could see that as interfering with the other neighbors' enjoyments of their home with all of the additional traffic once or twice a week, depending upon the parking situation in the neighborhood (street parking vs. off street, etc.).

"Also, the fact that religious gatherings are treated differently than other gatherings is discriminatory in my book."

But is that the case?

Parking in San Juan Cap sucks, unless you live in the hills and have acreage. My guess is they don't live in the hills and it was a neighbor who complained. If they are having 50 people once or twice a week maybe they should meet at the church, just seems the parking situation would be far more convenient.

Now as to the fees...frankly, I'm shocked it's so low. San Juan has money issues right now. They are paying off a nasty judgment. The second payment is due in a couple of months.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-286661-settlement-million.html

We have some new-ish neighbors who have designated almost every weekend a "party" weekend. The cars start showing up on Friday afternoon and don't clear out until Sunday afternoon.

I really wouldn't care, except that with cars lining both sides of the smallish street, it's nearly impossible for people on my section of the street to leave our alleyway. I have considered a few remedies, mostly consisting of: 1) talking to our HOA or 2) talking to the miscreants.

Somewhat similar to Gregg, I'd rather suffer a swarm of ants before actually approaching these people in person, and I don't consider tattling to the HOA a very nice thing to do. So, guess we'll be threading our way through the streets for the foreseeable future. Sometimes, things just aren't all that convenient, and life goes on.

I do wonder, though, how people can be so clueless and inconsiderate. I guess that's something you have a lot of experience with, Amy!

It is said that parking isn't an issue for these folks. I'm not from there, I don't know.

And so long as they're legally parked, I can only ask the city fathers which part of Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble I need to explain to them?

It's an incorporated right, so it applies to local governments as much as Congress.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 will solve their problems.

Paratrooper, that was declared un-Constitutional as an unfunded mandate, though it should have been horrifying to everyone. As a Public Law signed by President Clinton, 103-144 actually allowed the Attorney General of the US to determine if a religious groups was a "cult", whether it was "a burden" on the government - and to disband it by force!

This prompted some groups to publish bumper stickers: "Is YOUR church BATF-approved?"

There are so many things Presidents sign that don't make the news. It's nasty, and the public has no memory whatsoever.

http://www.youparklikeanasshole.com/

The worst parking offense in NYC, in my opinion, is double-parking. In an area where traffic is a bitch already, people insist on making an entire lane of traffic unusable. It forces drivers to weave in and out of traffic to avoid a car because some inconsiderate douche canoe couldn't be arsed to walk an extra block to get his cigarettes.

Don't get me started on the triple-parkers.

Some relevant details seem to be missing in that report. I didn't read in the story how the city came to be involved. Did neighbors complain, or is it one nosy jerk? Are they holding quiet bible study for a dozen people or weekly church services for 75? Really sub-par journalism to leave so many pertinent questions unanswered.

What disturbs me a bit about this is the ordinance bans "a regular gathering of more than three people" without a permit. That means almost any regular club meeting violates the ordinance.

"The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking," City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.

They're having twice-weekly meetings of up to fifty people in a residential neighborhood with limited parking.

This isn't a dinner party or a book club. This isn't religious discrimination. This is a crowd.

The city isn't saying these folks can't meet. It isn't forcing them to move their meetings to another county or to a secret location. They just have to move their meetings to some place that can accommodate the crowd.

People parking for large gatherings where there is no valet service can be a lot like locusts descending upon a neighborhood. I used to live near a Baptist church that was old and so did not have parking for its actual capacity (it also attracted a lot of out-of-neighborhood worshippers so parking was an issue).

On Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights my already narrow street became an obstacle course as I had to dodge parked cars that in some places made the navigable street only inches wider than my car. And the nearby business district (not a strip mall - street parking only) was packed with cars - few if any of them belonging to customers.

These folks weren't trying to inconvenience the neighborhood (although they mentioned "boycott" and "lawsuit" anytime the local merchants tried to get them to leave the business parking spaces available for customers). They just wanted to go to church. But sheer volume meant they were causing issues for the neighborhood.

I didn't see anywhere where they said that parking was the issue. And when is parking on a street illegal? I live in a place where it is difficult to sometimes park near my home and may have to do a little walk of a block or so, and I have no way to know most of the time if it's the cars of the people here or visitors. Still, it's not like they do something wrong and as long as they don't block by double parking who am I to complain? The problem is that limit of gathering of more than 3 people. I guess a poker night is out! Crazy out of control this "control the people" stuff is.

I didn't see anywhere where they said that parking was the issue.

City Attorney, Omar Sandoval, said it was.

"...with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking."

The problem is that limit of gathering of more than 3 people.

The law limits regular gatherings of more than three.

Which means an irregular or a floating poker night is seemingly okay. A regular poker night at Joe's house, however, is a problem.

gharkness, another option you might be more comfortable with is to write them a letter and mail it to them. That way you're sort of doing the up front and honest thing, without having to actually confront them.

Well that rule is absolutely not one I think the American people should have to live by.. no more than 3 people meeting on a regular basis. Ridiculous. My family used to get together every Sunday for dinner at my Grandmothers. Just immediate family... was about 25 people.

Well that rule is absolutely not one I think the American people should have to live by.. no more than 3 people meeting on a regular basis. Ridiculous.

Like too many laws in this country, it's at the same time restrictive and vague so that it ends up being selectively enforced and viewed as little more than a means of officially harassing ordinarily-law-abiding people for money.

By promulgating laws like this and turning them into revenue sources, lawmakers risk destroying repect for the law and for the police.

The law cannot say "a crowd too large," it must have a definite limit for anti-discrimination purposes, so "more than 3" becomes the size of a regular gathering large enough to have a disparate impact on the surrounding area and require a permit. That way everyone is in violation and can be fined (turning the law from a public safety issue to a revenue generator).

"Regular" is vague. A regular gathering could mean weekly, monthly, annually, or every third month (catching those rotating meetings).

"Gathering" is vague. A regular gathering could be a pot luck, a poker night, a book club, or a strategy session for the local al Qaeda sleeper cell.

No one has a regular dinner gathering or club meeting with half a couple, so every gathering held regularly and without a permit is in violation of the law and can be fined.

Since "more than 3" means even a regular Thursday night potluck or poker game is subject to a fine, people or groups the police want to harass can be harassed legally and other groups can be allowed to fly under the radar.

It's also a handy on-the-spot punishment tool for the police. If the police show up to explain the law and are met with incivility or by a person they just don't like (for whatever reason), they can invoke the law and get retribution by citing the host. If they are met with civility or cookies, they can explain the law and let the host off with a warning.

Any parking issue could be taken care of by just letting them know that the parking for the meetings were disruptive to the neighborhood and they could find an alternative. I'd also like to point out that if people would just be respectful of those around them, we'd really be so much better off as a society. I would never invite a lot of people to my house expecting them to park near it. Parking here is at a premium for sure, but there are ways around that and lots nearby. I always try to make sure what I enjoy doing is not disruptive to those nearby.

Did no one else consider that this law effectively prohibits families with children from eating meals together?

It's not being enforced that way, but it could be. This law is unconstitutional and it's just damn stupid!

Once you've all received your RFID and tracking chip injection implants these little social problems will be much easier for your overlords to deal with.

Just roll up your sleeve and bend over. You want Regular or Premium?

"Just roll up your sleeve and bend over"

Just how do you wear your shirts Gog? Are you a fan of skants?

http://www.regretsy.com/2010/01/29/skants-skants-revolution/

I can sympathise with having the neighborhood invaded so often by so many - especially after working hours if area residents have to park on the street as we do in my neighborhood. But there is no law against people parking here except when the City is plowing or street-cleaning.

But the law used? No "regular" eeetings of more than three people? Well, there goes the afternoon Bridge Club.

"Just how do you wear your shirts Gog?"

Left sleeve across the right at the belt line, both sleeves tied together in the back.

They tell me I can go back to scrubs and shower shoes once they've rebalanced my meds.

Until then I just have to deal with the swarms of bats as best I can.

Speaking of bats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FukYIJhc_C8

"I really wouldn't care, except that with cars lining both sides of the smallish street, it's nearly impossible for people on my section of the street to leave our alleyway. I have considered a few remedies, mostly consisting of: 1) talking to our HOA or 2) talking to the miscreant"

Argh, noise. I'm as libertarian as they come but noise really gets me. I don't think it's a freedom issue anyway, as noise is directly harmful ... noise prevents anyone from being able to sleep, work, study - in fact you basically can't do *anything* when your neighbors are regularly having loud parties, quality of life is over). The occasional party is fine, but if it's regular, it's inconsiderate and a nuisance. I would absolutely do both '1' and '2' if I were you, as well as '3' and '4', whatever they are. Also find out if it's bothering any of your neighbors and ask them to also submit complaints (anonymously if they like), as the more complaints, the more basis and motivation they have to go after them. I've found most my neighbors though to be very timid, afraid to do or say anything. If someone wants to make noise, they should go live out in the sticks. You cannot make noise when living close by someone and not directly harmfully impact them.

If something is not really directly impacting anyone though, I don't think it's any of anyone else's business. A bit of parking 'inconvenience' is not to me a problem.

@ gharkness Sorry, I see I'm presuming noise was bothering you there ... I also had problems with neighbors who decided to have loud parties every single weekend but it was mainly the noise that got me, it made me think of that experience.

This is why we should bring back dueling laws. People are more polite when being an offensive ass could result in 3 feet of sword in the guts or a bullet in the face.

We didn't need huge numbers of laws that essentially regulate common courtesy, when people were allowed to regulate themselves according to the risks they were willing to take.