Driveway Parking

[Wilbur]

there are some ifs, ands and buts attached to that right, which RMA seeks to enforce/inspect for by means of a "permit" process, so even cars which are properly exercising the right defined in the CC&Rs are at risk to being cited if the owner hasn't pulled a "permit." (the list of permit and variance holders is the only way Security knows who to cite and who not to). And the right is less clear on the south, becuase in the course of trying to write what were intended and billed as more relaxed parking rules for the South the third-car language in the main CC&Rs was not replicated in the special CC&Rs sections on South parking rules.

[Mr.Smith]

Originally Posted by joaquinmurieta

Although I agree with you often, I respectfully disagree on this one. If the intent of the CCR is to eliminate driveway parking as an aesthetics issue, then one or two cars in driveways would then be just as undesireable whether or not someone has a 'legitimate' excuse (variant) or not. If this community decides driveway parking is OK, then so-be-it. Change the CCR. There are communities that are able to enforce such a rule. Ours does not seem to be in that category. What does it matter if someone has an excuse to park in the driveway or not? If it's acceptable, then it should be acceptable to all regardless of someone's living and/or driving situation.

This is very true of Gold River... they have enforced their no driveway parking rule from day one. Rancho Murieta, from what I have been told, was rather relaxed on driveway parking for many years. I am told that street parkers would be "written up" on a regular basis, but driveway parking went mostly unnoticed until right around the early 90's.

I think the rule needs a major overhaul and not everyone will be happy with the results, but what we have isn't working...

I'm just curious... has the driveway parking rule been in place from the beginning (70's), or was it added later?
(sorry for repeating myself )

[LuvRM]

I agree with the others--we have CC&R's here that are clearly being disregarded. What still boggles me is: how can all these people afford all these vehicles?? When I was a teen driver, I had to borrow my Mom's car when possible and if she was being generous. With some of our neighbors, they actually have several more cars than drivers! I guess I have car envy. We can only afford one car currently.

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

there are some ifs, ands and buts attached to that right, which RMA seeks to enforce/inspect for by means of a "permit" process, so even cars which are properly exercising the right defined in the CC&Rs are at risk to being cited if the owner hasn't pulled a "permit." (the list of permit and variance holders is the only way Security knows who to cite and who not to). And the right is less clear on the south, becuase in the course of trying to write what were intended and billed as more relaxed parking rules for the South the third-car language in the main CC&Rs was not replicated in the special CC&Rs sections on South parking rules.

OK - thanks for the clarification. The permit process is what I think it insane. Having a 'reason' for having a car in a driveway does not make the desire to 'not' have one any less impacted. If I have one neighbor who has a car in the driveway and 2 in the garage and another neighbor with a car in the driveway and an empty spot in the garage that I cannot see...what do I care? The end result is still a car in the driveway. Why spend more of our dues on administrative hit or miss permits, patrols and levies if the intent (aesthetics) is not met anyway? What a huge waste of time and money (IMO).

Whether someone has 3 cars due to multiple drivers or because they just love cars is not my judgement to make. They both seem like legitimate reasons. If the community is OK with driveway parking...leave it at that.

[wakeupcall]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

there are some ifs, ands and buts attached to that right, which RMA seeks to enforce/inspect for by means of a "permit" process, so even cars which are properly exercising the right defined in the CC&Rs are at risk to being cited if the owner hasn't pulled a "permit." (the list of permit and variance holders is the only way Security knows who to cite and who not to). And the right is less clear on the south, becuase in the course of trying to write what were intended and billed as more relaxed parking rules for the South the third-car language in the main CC&Rs was not replicated in the special CC&Rs sections on South parking rules.

I want to offer my thanks to a neighbor who,in my opinion, went the extra mile to comply with the driveway parking CC&Rs. This is the guy on Seguridad (by the golf cart crossover) who a couple of years ago extended his garage so it would accomodate his boat and cars and golf cart. The only thing that is occasionally left in the driveway is his CHP car. I know he spent a bunch of money, but it was the right thing to do.

I observe the rules, but this guy took it a step farther. Maybe the north has some different language in the CC& Rs, but as much as I appreciate Wilbur's willingness to stick his head into things, I think he was wrong on that issue. When I moved here I read that cars were either "in the garage or out of the subdivision". That is the way it was intended and the is the way it should be.

[Wilbur]

When I moved here I read that cars were either "in the garage or out of the subdivision".

Where'd you read that, do you recall? And about when would that have been? Pre-96?

[MoonMan]

oh boy...driveway parking and CC&R's

last time a revision was tried on a simple issue such as cars in the driveway, we got a committee that sent back recommendations about:

overnight RV parking, motorcycle bans without even an opporunity to apply for a variance, and whole host of other "non driveway parking" issues.

No wonder we can't get anything done out here.

[wakeupcall]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Where'd you read that, do you recall? And about when would that have been? Pre-96?

ok ok...I couldn't find the older(before restated 96) rules. The 2002 non-arch rule ll section 9,10,12 probably cover it. I guess I was remembering when you successfully argued the car for driver exceptions and I thought it was going too far.

I guess my issue is because of that, parking exceptions have become a cottage industry here. I'm glad I don't need to deal with it.

I still think the guy who built a bigger garage did good.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Where'd you read that, do you recall? And about when would that have been? Pre-96?

Wilbur, just so we're clear. RMA has approved all the vehicles that sit outside your house every night? And all vehicles that are in your garage as well? Remember JackT walked us in to the last fiasco about your inoperable vehicle.

If the scene in front of your house has been approved, I expect that everybody gets a variance.

If people think I am full of it, check it out for yourself.

[Luke]

Uh-oh. The semi-annual, let's make it personal, driveway parking war is on.