Proposal to ban lawn-parking

[rps324]

That's funny, because my neighborhood, which was founded in the late 50s (old for Houston) has gotten several new deed restrictions passed in the last 3 years, so I guess it can be that simple.

It's that simple if the existing deed restrictions have workable provisions for adding and changing them. But many neighborhoods have more poorly written ones, so without those provisions it is far from simple.

[Reefmonkey]

That's funny, because my neighborhood, which was founded in the late 50s (old for Houston) has gotten several new deed restrictions passed in the last 3 years, so I guess it can be that simple.

It's that simple if the existing deed restrictions have workable provisions for adding and changing them. But many neighborhoods have more poorly written ones, so without those provisions it is far from simple.

And it shouldn't necessarily be simple.

You are talking about controling what someone does with their own property, on their own property. I am talking about traditional property rights, here, something that Texas supposedly values. It should NOT be simple to capriciously pass a deed restriction to forbid someone from doing something that you find objectionable. I'm not saying it should never be allowed, I think there should be enough hurdles to doing it that it isn't easy, that a group of people should have to do the legwork, convince enough people, get the ball rolling to get it passed.

There are plenty of things in my neighborhood that I think are tacky, ill-considered. I don't like the late 60s - early 70s "Spanish" style houses, that look nothing like real traditional spanish or mission-style architecture, and are really dated looking. Someone a few streets down from me has fake banana trees in planters along his front walkway. I think it looks absurbly tacky to have artificial plants in your front yard. Should I be able to just simply get a few neighbors together, petition the homeowner's association, and a few days later, anyone with a late 60s - early 70s "Spanish" style house has to reface it? Or the guy with the artificial banana trees has to remove them? And if they refuse, the HOA can fine them, and ultimately put a lien on their house?

City ordinances that dictate what can and cannot be done to or on private property, thus infringing on private property rights, need to meet certain burdens. They need to meet one or more of the following considerations:

1. Public safety

2. Public health

3. Preventing nuisances - loud noises, noxious orders, impeding the flow of traffic.

4. Protecting public infrastructure like protecting utilities from damage.

The first two are pretty straight-forward. Now on preventing nuisances, this can't be just "well it looks ugly or tacky." When I lived intown I saw a lot of really tacky newer houses built in older neighborhoods. To my taste, galvalnized corrugated metal is not attractive, but there are a lot of townhome builders who think it looks cool. I saw a lot of tacky colors houses were painted - downright garrish. I could claim living next to either of those houses depresses the value of my property (this is directed not just at you, rps324, but gwilson and others who are talking about protecting property values). But a governmental organization has no business passing laws that decide what is in good taste and what is not, and restricting people's property rights in the process.

Like I said before, number 4, keeping water and sewer lines from being broken by the weight of cars is a legitimate reason to pass this ordinance. Matters of what "looks good" are not. That is not the business of a municipal government.

It is the business of an HOA. An HOA is a private organization, does not have the same obligation to protect property rights as a municipal government. People can choose whether or not to live in a deed restricted community, but once they choose to live in that community, they are privately and contractually obligated to live by the standards of that community, above and beyond what a municipal government is within its rights to control. Even so, the procedures for getting a new deed restriction passed should require jumping enough hurdles that it prevents a few members who get into a position of power in the HOA from arbitrarily ramming their aesthetic sensibilities on the rest of the community. Requiring that the residents not park on their lawns is a very reasonable deed restriction to pass. But other proposed deed restrictions may not be so reasonable - someone may think Christmas lights are tacky, even when put up in december and removed in january. In the name of fairness, you need to apply the same burden of proof that both proposed restrictions are in the best interests and desires of the neighborhood as a whole. That requires making the procedure for passing them difficult, ie not simple.

[RedScare]

And it shouldn't necessarily be simple.

You are talking about controling what someone does with their own property, on their own property. I am talking about traditional property rights, here, something that Texas supposedly values. It should NOT be simple to capriciously pass a deed restriction to forbid someone from doing something that you find objectionable.

Interesting. This, coming from the same poster who just applauded restricting the rights of business owners to allow smoking in their bars in another thread.

Sounds to me like you are all for trampling property rights when the trampling is done to something you do not like, and all FOR protecting property rights when it lets you do whatever YOU want. This kind of picking and choosing of property rights protections suggests either a weak understanding of property rights, or a rather ambivalent appreciation of them.

[Reefmonkey]

Interesting. This, coming from the same poster who just applauded restricting the rights of business owners to allow smoking in their bars in another thread.

Sounds to me like you are all for trampling property rights when the trampling is done to something you do not like, and all FOR protecting property rights when it lets you do whatever YOU want. This kind of picking and choosing of property rights protections suggests either a weak understanding of property rights, or a rather ambivalent appreciation of them.

I must have really offended your smoking sensibility for you to be stalking me like this. I'm flattered.

There is nothing inconsistent at all between my positions on the smoking ban and the lawn parking issue. In the lawn parking issue, I said that protection of public health is a perfectly legitimate reason to pass a city ordinance. The smoking ban is a public health issue. Second-hand smoke is a hazard to the patrons and to the bar employees. The employees have a right to a healthy workplace. Asthmatics have a right to go into the bar have a right to have their bronchi not constrict and suffocate them.

A place of business has responsibilities to provide safe public access that a private homeowner does not. You don't have to let black people come into your home if you don't want to. A bar can't put up a sign that says "whites only". You are not required to meet sanitation standards in your kitchen, even when your friends come over for dinner. A bar or restaurant is required to. When they open their doors to the public for business, they have a responsibility to provide fair and full access to all, and to provide a safe and healthy environment.

[gto250us]

You dont even have to pave it... as Christoph pointed out in his blog last week, in the ordinance, driveway is defined as any area that is primarily used for parking cars. And it also says that driveways are exempt from the ordinance.

So as I see it, if you use a portion of your front yard as a primary spot to park cars, you are legal.

What a badly written oridance.

I don't think that a driveway needs to be paved. Hell, there are lots of million dollar houses in Memorial without paved driveways.

[Reefmonkey]

I don't think that a driveway needs to be paved. Hell, there are lots of million dollar houses in Memorial without paved driveways.

"Paved" is defined broadly by the proposed ordinance:

"may be paved with concrete, asphalt, pavers, shale, gravel, crushed rock or other material, constructed to a minimum thickness of not

less than four inches so as to lessen or prevent the seepage of any fuel, oil, or other chemical substance contacting such surface from

penetrating to the soil below the area."

The million dollar houses in Memorial you see without concrete driveways probably have gravel or crushed rock driveways.

[TheNiche]

I must have really offended your smoking sensibility for you to be stalking me like this. I'm flattered.

There is nothing inconsistent at all between my positions on the smoking ban and the lawn parking issue. In the lawn parking issue, I said that protection of public health is a perfectly legitimate reason to pass a city ordinance. The smoking ban is a public health issue. Second-hand smoke is a hazard to the patrons and to the bar employees. The employees have a right to a healthy workplace. Asthmatics have a right to go into the bar have a right to have their bronchi not constrict and suffocate them.

A place of business has responsibilities to provide safe public access that a private homeowner does not. You don't have to let black people come into your home if you don't want to. A bar can't put up a sign that says "whites only". You are not required to meet sanitation standards in your kitchen, even when your friends come over for dinner. A bar or restaurant is required to. When they open their doors to the public for business, they have a responsibility to provide fair and full access to all, and to provide a safe and healthy environment.

The inconsistency may have to do with how you define a 'public space'. In my view, a public space is one that is owned by the government, and that is all.

A bar or restaurant is a space that customers choose to patronize, employees choose to work in, and owners exercise their right to decide how to run their establishment...all stakeholders knowing, of course that there may be consequences to it being a smoking or no-smoking establishment. In the same sense, an unrestricted unzoned neighborhood is one in which residents choose to live and owners choose to buy. If the next buyer into the neighborhood following me raises goats that stink up the place and make a mess, which could be considered a matter of public health, then I get to decide whether I want to leave or stay and endure the stink. ...or I might just join in. That's my up to me. If nearly all of the neighbors hate the idea and want to form or update deed restrictions, well once again, I knew the rules going in and am subject to the consequences of my decisions.

[Reefmonkey]

The inconsistency may have to do with how you define a 'public space'. In my view, a public space is one that is owned by the government, and that is all.

A bar or restaurant is a space that customers choose to patronize, employees choose to work in, and owners exercise their right to decide how to run their establishment...all stakeholders knowing, of course that there may be consequences to it being a smoking or no-smoking establishment. In the same sense, an unrestricted unzoned neighborhood is one in which residents choose to live and owners choose to buy. If the next buyer into the neighborhood following me raises goats that stink up the place and make a mess, which could be considered a matter of public health, then I get to decide whether I want to leave or stay and endure the stink. ...or I might just join in. That's my up to me. If nearly all of the neighbors hate the idea and want to form or update deed restrictions, well once again, I knew the rules going in and am subject to the consequences of my decisions.

No, still no inconsistency. Any time someone opens their private property to the public for the purposes of making money, they are held to higher standards. They must meet sanitation standards, safety standards, OSHA regulations, ADA requirements for having wheelchair ramps, etc. Providing an environment where employees and patrons are not exposed to harmful and irritating smoke is a logical extension of this. You and Red Scare never address my argument about bars and restaurants having to abide by health code and safety regulations that a private resident does not have to abide by on his property, and that is where your argument fails.

But this is ridiculous, Red Scare dragged the smoking ban debate into this thread in some malicious attempt to discredit me because he's bitter that I support the smoking ban. I have proven that my stances on these two issues are not incompatible, and you guys have not been able to counter the argument that a place of business is required to follow health codes that a private residence is not. It is time for the two of you to stop making off-topic posts. The topic of this thread is lawn parking ordinance, not smoking ban.

[TheNiche]

No, still no inconsistency. Any time someone opens their private property to the public for the purposes of making money, they are held to higher standards. They must meet sanitation standards, safety standards, OSHA regulations, ADA requirements for having wheelchair ramps, etc. Providing an environment where employees and patrons are not exposed to harmful and irritating smoke is a logical extension of this.

What is lawful and what makes sense are often at odds.

I can be convinced to back efforts to enfoce kitchen cleanliness, where the customer has imperfect information. But whether smoking is allowed or not should be immediately apparent such that they can choose whether or not they want to patronize or be employed by an establishment.

You and Red Scare never address my argument about bars and restaurants having to abide by health code and safety regulations that a private resident does not have to abide by on his property, and that is where your argument fails.

But this is ridiculous, Red Scare dragged the smoking ban debate into this thread in some malicious attempt to discredit me because he's bitter that I support the smoking ban. I have proven that my stances on these two issues are not incompatible, and you guys have not been able to counter the argument that a place of business is required to follow health codes that a private residence is not.

You have proven nothing.

[editor]

Let's move this back on topic, please.

[Reefmonkey]

Let's move this back on topic, please.

Thank you, editor.

While I support this ordinance because it protects our water and sewer lines from being broken by the weight of cars, which would contaminate water and cause outages for those down-pipe of the breakage, I do think that a side-effect will be more cars on the streets. I used to live on Vasser at Woodhead in the Rice/museum area, and street parking had become a major problem. Most of these small, old residential streets had one narrow lane going each way, and people were street-parking on both sides of the streets, all the way down, so you pretty much had to drive smack in the middle of the street, and if someone was coming the opposite direction, one person had to pull over to wait for the other to pass. This problem is partly caused by the number of people owning two long SUVs in a house meant to have space for one sedan, all the small bungalows torn down to build oversized "mansions" with no lot and no offset on the street, and by all the single-family residences that were torn down to make room for 4 townhomes. We had such a townhome complex built in a single-family lot right next to our 1940 house, and the townhomes were build practically right up to the sidewalk, so that I had no visibility backing out of my driveway, and the big truck always parked right on the curb up to the edge of my driveway made matters worse. It was a real safety problem for me and for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. So street parking has become a real problem, and this lawn parking ban will make that worse, so if the city is going to enforce it, they also need to stop granting building permits to build these giant mansions and multi-family townhomes on single-family lots that are too small to house them and provide space for driveways.

[Dan the Man]

Houston has off-street parking requirements for multi-family and commerical structures. Do they have one for single-family homes and townhomes? If not, they should...(not in the form of allowing lawn parking, though).

[musicman]

looks like a variation is being proposed this week.

The proposed law would allow civic associations to apply for the prohibition, or for 60 percent of residents to apply by petition. City officials developed this

[TexasVines]

What a coincidence!

The people that moved in next door started parking on the lawn and found that the pressure from his truck crushed the water and sewage pipes on the side. They had to hire a crew to dig up all the side yard from to back and replace all new. Now they have to park on the street.

Too soon to pop the champagne bottle though, now they use that part of the lawn to place living room couch, barbecue pit and numerous plastic cans for beer bottles. Oh yes, and for the chicken's & roosters to flutter about. There may be cows grazing on my lawn when I get home.

The lawn parking, and trash cans drive me crazy......a couch under a porch is not a real deal breaker for me either, but in the yard I would find a way to set it on fire......live stock just makes me laugh

[rsb320]

People park in their yards?? Eeeeww!

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Would this include parking on the strip of grass between the pavement and roadside ditch? If that's considered parking on the lawn, our neighborhood will have issues.

We have single-car width driveways that are deep enough to park two cars. If you have a 3-car household, or if you have company, they park on the street in our neighborhood. Of course when I say park on the street, I don't mean actually parking on the street, you park halfway in the grass and half on the street.

With two cars parked across the street from each other this way, there's just enough room for a car to pass between. If one of the cars parks completely on the pavement, it blocks the street.

I know this isn't just a problem in our neighborhood, but also in the "West End" area.

[musicman]

Would this include parking on the strip of grass between the pavement and roadside ditch?

they are talking this scenario

[sevfiv]

Yeah, a street I used to live on a few years ago had quite a few households that did this. And there was always plenty of street parking...

These two were down the street from me:

These folks down the street decided to pave part of the lawn:

And this was across the street - sand was just dumped to even out where the cars parked:

[TexasVines]

wow those stupidasses in the last pic have a runway a mile long and they need to park in the front lawn

and the second pic looks to have plenty of space as well, but it looks like they are starting a possible junk yard in the back

[sevfiv]

wow those ------- in the last pic have a runway a mile long and they need to park in the front lawn

and the second pic looks to have plenty of space as well, but it looks like they are starting a possible junk yard in the back

The long driveway was usually full by evening plus at least one, sometimes two cars in the lawn. Lots of people lived in that tiny house.

The only time a car would park on the street was to wait for someone inside they were picking up (while honking )

[TheNiche]

The long driveway was usually full by evening plus at least one, sometimes two cars in the lawn. Lots of people lived in that tiny house.

The only time a car would park on the street was to wait for someone inside they were picking up (while honking )

Many neighborhoods, especially in low-income predominantly-hispanic neighborhoods may stand to be adversely impacted by this ordinance, if passed, if it is adopted by the neighborhood, and if enforced. I know of streets in the East End where cars utilize all of the driveway, part of the lawn, nearly all of the on-street parking space. It can get to the point where only one car is able to pass going one way or the other (for long distances) on a neighborhood street.

Of course, given the neighborhood-level opt-in requirement, it would seem likely that parts of the City where behavior such as this is rare will readily adopt the ordinance without necessarily needing to; meanwhile parts of the City where behavior such as this is rampant would seem less likely to embrace much less enforce the new regs. It leaves me questioning just how much impact the ordinance would really have.

[WAZ]

Community activists will be up in arms, just watch. Turn into race card issue. Here we go again.

In my neck of the woods, the community activists are the ones fighting for the ban. I'm one of them - if you consider a civic club President a 'community activist.'

People who stayed in a neighborhood and fought for it aren't racists. Real racists fled for the exurbs at the first sight of a minority in their neighborhood. They don't call it "white flight" for nothing.

[WAZ]

i'm all for it!!! imo this comment alone makes all the sence to support it

I'm also an architect, and I'm all for it, too!

There's a hidden benefit to having a ban on lawn parking. If it's enforced, older, closer-in neighborhoods like mine will get more police. The cops will come by to ticket cars and 'bingo' there'll be a cruiser on our street. That alone makes all the sense to support it.

[musicman]

let's just hope the whole front yard isn't paved to create a large driveway

[rsb320]

let's just hope the whole front yard isn't paved to create a large driveway

That porous, crushed, recycled glass paving, featured on Swaplot yesterday, at the cargo container house, would look cool for a front yard. It's probably pricey though.

[musicman]

City Council cracks down on cars in yards

Ordinance isn

[crunchtastic]

I know what's going to be the main topic at my civic assoc meeting next week!

And I bet I can count on one hand the number of complainers who will actually go door-to-door collecting signatures.

[musicman]

I know what's going to be the main topic at my civic assoc meeting next week!

And I bet I can count on one hand the number of complainers who will actually go door-to-door collecting signatures.

yeah but if you're willing to get 60% signature, you could also update your deed restrictions in some cases.

i spoke to a couple of councilmembers' offices and one said it was a civic club petition OR the 60% signatures which is how it was described a few weeks ago. i'm gonna call someone i know in planning tomorrow to get some clarification

[silverartfox]

I know what's going to be the main topic at my civic assoc meeting next week!

And I bet I can count on one hand the number of complainers who will actually go door-to-door collecting signatures.

In Broadmoor, those houses with cars parked on the lawn are usually month-to-month rentals whose landlords don't give a damn about anything but the number of cheesy apartments they can carve out of what was originally a single-family house or a duplex. There's one fine old brick multi-family bungalow on a corner whose truck driver tenant pulls his huge vehicle as close to the house as possible.

Getting 60% of property owners' signatures in this neighborhood for anything would be nothing short of miraculous! However, I would be willing to walk the blocks with someone who speaks Spanish better than I do.

[crunchtastic]

yeah but if you're willing to get 60% signature, you could also update your deed restrictions in some cases.

i spoke to a couple of councilmembers' offices and one said it was a civic club petition OR the 60% signatures which is how it was described a few weeks ago. i'm gonna call someone i know in planning tomorrow to get some clarification

that's how I thought the original proposal was written but people in the hood are now thinking even civic clubs needs 60% sigs. Everyone is confused.