Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:23:10 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: <cjclark@alum.mit.edu>, "Salvo Bartolotta" <bartequi@neomedia.it>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <00ae01c15236$583ba4e0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <3BC5545C.F3697DAD@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Terry Lambert [mailto:tlambert2@mindspring.com] >Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:12 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu; Salvo Bartolotta; P. U. (Uli) Kruppa; >freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Of course - if said parking space is on the street, neither of >> you has any right to be there as the street is owned by the >> municipality, and most of them have "48 hour limit" ordinances >> that while rarely enforced, do make it illegal for both of you >> to claim an interest in the space. > >Actually, I specifically picked a parking space for the example >due to a Utah case where a city decided that people could no >longer park in front of their homes, since the city wanted to >use fatter snow plows on the street, and it couldn't fit between >two rows of parked cars on either side. > >The city (Ogden) lost, as they had not enforced their law for >many years, and selective enforcement is unconstitutional; >then they lost again, after universally enforcing the time >based limit, when the same guy claimed a prescriptive lien on >the parking space. As far as I know, it's still his parking >space (he was my neighbor, on the corner of 24th and Van Buren >St., and I was very happy he won, since I had to park several >blocks away for a month in the dead of winter). > Utah must have some interesting state property laws on the books. But in a city full of older homes without driveways (which is what I'm guessing they are dealing with) you can't not let people park in front of their homes and some smart judge understood that, whereas the city obviously was deluded into believing that they had any power there. Interesting that the case ended up using the property laws to slap some sense into the city bureaucrats. We have much the same situation here in SE Portland, most homes closer in were constructed in the late 1800's early 1900's and lack driveways. Fortunately it doesen't snow here. :-) It's always facinating to see what the states do with laws associated with vehicles. You can't run US society on mass transit, no matter what is said, driving is a right. But the lawmakers see disaster in codifying that into the law. Yet, when they try to take away the vehicles, people revolt and they can't do it. So in reality, if the state governments have no power to ban cars, then car use really is a right. But they sure don't want you to believe it. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-- Terry > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00ae01c15236$583ba4e0$1401a8c0>