Let's face it. The only reason Tim is being hassled is because of a crank
neighbor. As long as he or she is making a fuss, the problem won't be
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Sain <email@example.com>
To: oletrucks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Abandoned, my foot.
> On 10/15/03 8:40 PM, "tim" <lloydt@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> > Basically, I believe that I
> > should be able to keep my truck parked adjacent to my property, as long
> > as it's not a danger to anyone (parking brake's on, truck's in gear,
> > wheels are blocked), not an environmental hazard (it's no longer
> > leaking oil), and not an eyesore (perish the thought!).
> And here's where the problem lies. What you believe should be allowed and
> what the law allows are two different things.
> I happen to agree with you.
> However, the city, county or whatever owns the street and probably the
> sidewalk. They do have the right to set laws about how to behave on their
> property. Some places do not allow cars to be parked in the street. I
> understand the dilemma about needing room to get the lotus in the garage -
> but how about just widening the driveway a few feet and pulling Peanut
> there? Then you don't ever have to move it.
> Jerry makes a good point:
> J>Besides, aren't most antique vehicle registrations conditioned upon the
> J>NON-use of the vehicle for most normal daily uses except for shows and
> J>maintenance? So it SHOULD be allowed to sit long periods! Again, it's
> J>a shell game.
> Using this logic - you may be able to get somewhere - but be ready for
> to say: "but all you need to do is move your truck 2 feet every three
> And that will not exceed your mileage limit." (i.e., if Peanut sat for one
> year - and you followed the rules - this totals 243.5 feet of movement -
> feet at a time - 4.6% of one mile.
> - Ryan
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959