I’ve wondered about this too, especially since my neighbor got a similar warning for his old Civic that he actually drives to work. It’s like, if the car’s registered and moves under its own power, shouldn’t that be enough? I get nervous because we have a minivan that sometimes sits for a week or two, and it’s not exactly shiny anymore. Makes me think—do they just go by how “abandoned” something looks, or is there an actual checklist they follow?
Has anyone tried calling the city to ask what the real criteria are? I’d rather know ahead of time than risk a fine, but I’m not sure if they’d even give a straight answer. It feels like it depends on who’s making the rounds that day... which isn’t super reassuring.
CLASSIC CAR STORAGE: ARE NEW CITY RULES GOING TOO FAR?
That’s been on my mind too, especially since I’m not exactly rolling around in a new car myself. My daily’s a 2008 Corolla with some faded paint, and I park it on the street. I’ve seen those orange warning stickers pop up on cars that honestly look better than mine, so it’s hard not to wonder what the actual rules are.
I did try calling the city once, just to see if there was a clear answer. The person I talked to basically read off a list: must be registered, can’t have flat tires, no broken windows, can’t be “visibly inoperable.” But when I asked what “visibly inoperable” actually meant, it got pretty vague. They said things like “obvious signs of neglect” or “appearing abandoned,” which isn’t super helpful. Like, does a layer of pollen count? A missing hubcap? It really does seem to come down to whoever’s doing the patrol that day.
What gets me is, if you’re paying for registration and insurance, and you move the car now and then, why should it matter if it’s not spotless? Not everyone has the time or money to keep their car looking showroom-ready. Sometimes I don’t drive for a week or two if I’m working from home, and I’d hate to get dinged just because my car looks a little tired.
I get that they want to keep the streets from turning into junkyards, but it feels like there should be a clearer line. Otherwise, it’s just a guessing game. I’ve even heard of people getting warnings for cars parked in their own driveways, which seems wild to me. Maybe it’s just about keeping up appearances for the neighborhood, but that’s not always realistic for folks on a budget.
Honestly, I wish they’d just stick to whether the car is registered and moves under its own power. Everything else seems way too subjective.
- I get the frustration with how subjective the rules are, but I can kind of see why the city wants some leeway.
- If they only checked for registration and whether the car moves, people could just leave barely-running, eyesore vehicles on the street for months.
- From an insurance perspective (just went through this myself), a car that looks neglected can be a magnet for theft or vandalism. That can drive up claims and, eventually, everyone’s rates.
- The “visibly inoperable” thing is vague, but maybe it’s meant to give inspectors some flexibility. Like, a car with a smashed windshield and flat tires is pretty obviously abandoned, but a little faded paint isn’t the same.
- I do think it’s weird when people get warnings for cars in their own driveway. That feels like overreach.
- Maybe the solution is clearer guidelines—like, specific things that actually matter for safety or property value, not just “it looks old.”
- I’m not saying the rules are perfect, but I get why they don’t want to make it too easy for people to skirt them.
- For what it’s worth, I’ve seen some neighborhoods where people leave non-running cars for ages, and it does start to look rough.
- Still, there’s gotta be a better balance between keeping things tidy and hassling people who just have older cars.
- Maybe a warning system that gives folks time to fix minor stuff before any fines kick in would help.
- At the end of the day, I’d rather have a slightly subjective rule than a super strict one that ends up penalizing people for stuff like pollen or a missing hubcap.
I get the point about not wanting “eyesore vehicles” sitting around, but honestly, these subjective rules are a slippery slope. The line between a classic car being restored and a so-called “abandoned” vehicle is razor thin. I’ve had a vintage Mercedes in my driveway for months while waiting on rare parts—doesn’t mean it’s neglected or a hazard.
I do think it’s weird when people get warnings for cars in their own driveway. That feels like overreach.
Exactly this. If it’s on private property and not leaking fluids or attracting pests, why should the city care? Some of us invest serious money into our vehicles, and not everyone has the luxury of a multi-car garage. The idea that faded paint or a flat tire suddenly makes your property a target for fines is overkill.
I get wanting neighborhoods to look tidy, but there’s a difference between junkers dumped on the street and legitimate restoration projects. Maybe the city should focus more on actual hazards instead of playing aesthetic police. Otherwise, you’re just penalizing enthusiasts and collectors for having taste that doesn’t fit someone else’s idea of “presentable.”
I had a similar run-in last year—my old Civic sat in the driveway for a bit while I saved up for repairs. Got a warning from the city because it “looked inoperable.” Here’s what worked for me: 1) Kept it clean, even if it wasn’t running. 2) Moved it every couple weeks, just a few feet. 3) Covered it with a decent tarp (not a ratty one). Not saying it’s fair, but those steps kept the city off my back. Still feels like overkill, though... not everyone can afford storage or a fancy garage.
