Having lived and/or worked in the cities of Pasadena, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Diego, I would be very interested to discuss the interpretations of CVC sections 91954 and 23112. I mean, those are the only regulations, as far as I could determine, related to people being in an on-street parking space and/or putting up exhibits in the on-street parking space. All the cities you mentioned are great places to live (I still miss SF), and all those places in some form or another promote a way of life that is less dependant on cars. Unfortunately, the law is the law. If the only laws on the books are the two CVC sections referencedm then someone will catch on. Please enlighten me if there is something I’m unaware of; it would be great to support a great cause like PARKing(LA).

Regardless of the intent, the result is the same as if you put up posters saying “not welcome.” Last year there were at least a half-dozen spaces. This year, there is one. And the participants list it as in Venice.

Permits? That’s not part of the Streetsblog’s car-free agenda, er, I mean, utopia.

From a City’s perspective, it may be a combination of 1) we don’t have the time or resources to figure out what to do about these PARKing(LA) people, 2) we generally think it is fine to put a park up in a parking space, 3) but what if someone in a PARKing(LA) exhibit gets run over by a car who isn’t paying attention and zooms into a lot? A very zealous lawyer would cite those 2 CVC provisions, the only written code referring to non-vehicles and obstructions within a roadway, and fault the City for allowing this to occur.

I understand, Santa Monica has a lot of great things going on; but the SMPD has earned a reputation as being an extremely pro-car anti bike organization. Being the only city that is taking this interpretation does say something for them.

Since last year parks popped up that didn’t register with the “official” site, can I ask what happens if anyone caught up in the spirit decides to put out a park in SM city limits tomorrow?

Seems like a good way to support the effort, protect all users of the transportation network, and ensure that local law enforcement understands the reasoning.

All it takes is some grassroots effort, not breaking the law!

No, clearly the best way to get more park space in LA is to sit in the street and look like a retard.

I really like the idea of parking day LA, I agree that there are way too many parking spaces and that more parking spaces encourages more traffic. The post above was meant to highlight that some decisions aren’t made because people hate ideas; maybe there was a logical justification? It is worth considering both sides before villifying someone or something.

BTW – I made the post. I shouldn’t have used “anonymous,” I don’t post frequently and frankly expected some negative comments. Next time I’ll use my name.

I can’t help but wonder what made whoever posted this think that the people who read Streetsblog’s opinion of them would improve by posting that particular response…especially the part that compares a Park(ing) Day space to litter.

That being said, the people of Santa Monica deserve a city that is run by professionals. This message casts doubt that the City of Santa Monica is in good hands.

It the streets of Santa Monica are dangerous because of the motor vehicles, why not do something about it? The City Council just reversed its commitment to parking structures, it just embraced the Walker report, it just showed such great signs of evolved human-centric behavior and then this message plops out of the bureaucratic-just-say-no-mill and destroys all of that great work.

Santa Monica, such a sad display of conflicted priorities!

Without a permit, participants may be going against two sections of the California Vehicle Code:

Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks
21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

Amended Ch. 1015, Stats. 1971. Operative May 3, 1972.

Throwing, Depositing, or Dumping Matter on Highway
23112. (a) No person shall throw or deposit, nor shall the registered owner or the driver, if such owner is not then present in the vehicle, aid or abet in the throwing or depositing upon any highway any bottle, can, garbage, glass, nail, offal, paper, wire, any substance likely to injure or damage traffic using the highway, or any noisome, nauseous, or offensive matter of any kind.

Amended Ch. 74, Stats. 1980. Effective January 1, 1981.

Granted, the fact we only have one — and that the one looks like it was created by Venetians who don’t know where their city ends — is still rather lame….